Since our July 27 update, CAST has added another group of AAO T visa opinions to the database. Most of the newly posted cases were, once again, dismissals involving signature defects, rather than substantive T visa eligibility determinations.
On the substantive T visa side, we have now analyzed 24 appeals adjudicated since November 2025. This is an ongoing cumulative count and excludes invalid-signature dismissals and T adjustment or derivative cases.
22 dismissed, 2 remanded, 0 granted
- 15 turned on severe form of trafficking
- 5 turned on physical presence
- 2 turned on extreme hardship
- 2 turned on inadmissibility issues
As always, this is not a statement of agreement with the AAO—just an outline of what the AAO has found so far.
The newest substantive case, In Re: 41537839 (AAO July 20, 2026), is worth a closer look because the physical-presence analysis is not particularly new. In many ways, it is consistent with the way USCIS and the AAO approached physical presence during the first Trump administration. That matters because I still see practitioners misunderstand what this requirement is asking, even though later USCIS policy guidance helped clarify some of the confusion around it.
The applicant alleged trafficking during his 2017 journey to the United States and submitted a psychological evaluation diagnosing PTSD and social anxiety. The AAO acknowledged those diagnoses and also recognized that the fact that someone has built a stable or successful life in the United States does not, by itself, defeat a physical-presence claim.
But the appeal was still dismissed because the record did not sufficiently establish why the applicant remained in the United States as a direct result of the trafficking nine years later. One fact that stood out to me was the absence of ongoing mental-health treatment. Although the psychological evaluation recommended counseling, there was no evidence that the applicant had pursued continuing or additional treatment. The AAO also considered his current employment and social and community activities in finding that the record did not establish the required continuing connection between the trafficking and his physical presence in the United States.
That is why we think this case is useful: it aligns with past interpretations of physical presence. The AAO and USCIS have taken the position that it is not enough to show that trafficking occurred, or even that an applicant continues to experience some effects from it. They are looking for evidence connecting the trafficking to why the applicant remains physically present in the United States now.
If you want to dig further into this issue and read about generally successful strategies, CAST has a Physical Presence Advisory that goes into the requirement and the kinds of evidence practitioners should be thinking about.
To access all the AAO cases CAST is tracking:
https://casttta.nationbuilder.com/tta_databases