A self-represented individual sought EB-1A extraordinary ability classification, and the director found sustained acclaim not shown. On appeal the petitioner offered only a general statement about reputation and skills, with no argument or evidence on the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failing to identify any specific error.

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.

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.