A self-represented petitioner sought extraordinary ability classification after the director found no sustained national or international acclaim. On appeal the petitioner asserted general recognition in the field and asked for reconsideration, with no argument or evidence. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for not specifying any erroneous conclusion.

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 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 EB-1A applicant appealed a denial without submitting substantive arguments or evidence addressing the regulatory criteria. The AAO summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to identify specific errors or provide additional documentation.