A self-represented individual sought extraordinary ability classification, and the service center found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner only asserted a recognized reputation and asked for reconsideration, offering no evidence or argument on the criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

A self-represented petitioner, whose occupation is not described in the excerpt, sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained acclaim. On appeal she only asserted a good reputation and requested reconsideration. The appeal was summarily dismissed because it identified no specific legal or factual error and offered no new evidence.

A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification, and the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and no evidence or arguments. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal because no specific error of law or fact was identified.

Self-petitioner sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification. Service center denied for lack of sustained national or international acclaim. Petitioner appealed with only general statement and no new evidence or specific legal arguments. AAO summarily dismissed for failure to address pertinent regulatory criteria.