A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification and was denied by the director for lacking sustained acclaim. The appeal offered no arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria or the denial reasons. The AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not stated in the decision, sought EB-1A classification as an alien of extraordinary ability. The director found sustained acclaim not established. The appeal contained no argument or evidence, so the AAO summarily dismissed it for failing to identify any specific error. No criteria were analyzed.

A self-represented petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found sustained acclaim was not established. The appeal came with no arguments, brief or additional evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed it because the petitioner did not identify any specific erroneous conclusion of law or fact.

Alien seeking EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Self-represented petitioner indicated no separate brief or evidence would be submitted on appeal. Appeal summarily dismissed under procedural rules for failure to specifically address denial reasons or provide evidence.