A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner made only a general statement of recognized reputation, without argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Appeal was summarily dismissed because petitioner submitted no arguments, evidence, or brief addressing regulatory criteria or the service center's denial reasons, failing to meet appellate requirements.

Self-represented petitioner claimed extraordinary ability but submitted only generic statement on appeal without specific legal or factual arguments addressing regulatory criteria. Appeal summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions or provide additional evidence.

A self-represented petitioner appealed denial of extraordinary ability petition with a brief statement of confidence in her skills and reputation, no argument on criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed for failure to identify erroneous conclusions, address denial reasons, or provide additional evidence as required by regulation.