As part of our ongoing review of AAO T visa decisions, we have analyzed several additional substantive T visa and adjustment of status opinions.

Here is our current rolling count:

• 28 substantive T visa appeals adjudicated since September 2025: 26 dismissed, 2 remanded, 0 granted
• 14 substantive T adjustment decisions adjudicated in 2026: 11 dismissed, 3 remanded, 0 granted

The T visa appeal count excludes invalid-signature dismissals, adjustment of status decisions, and non-substantive derivative cases. We are now separately tracking substantive T adjustment decisions because enough have been issued this year to make that a useful category on its own.

For the 28 substantive T visa appeals:

• 17 turned on severe form of trafficking in persons
• 6 turned on physical presence
• 2 turned on extreme hardship
• 2 turned on inadmissibility issues
• 1 turned on derivative eligibility based on present danger of retaliation

As always, these numbers are not a statement of agreement with the AAO. They are an outline of what the AAO has found in the decisions we have reviewed.

Recent Adjustment of Status Decisions

Several of the adjustment decisions are worth highlighting. Most notably, a new decision involving a Department of Justice letter may provide an important development for applicants seeking to adjust before accruing three years in T status. Two related decisions also address the good moral character requirement where the disqualifying conduct occurred after T status was granted.

In In Re: 42379403 (AAO Aug. 10, 2026), USCIS denied the applicant’s T adjustment application because she filed less than three years after receiving T-1 status and USCIS found that her Department of Justice letter did not establish that the investigation or prosecution of her trafficking was complete.

The DOJ letter stated that there was “currently no open investigation” and that “any matter that may have been opened” in relation to the applicant’s report “has since closed.” Similar language has been at issue in a number of recent AAO decisions. In those cases, the AAO generally concluded that a statement that there was no open investigation did not, by itself, establish that an investigation or prosecution had actually occurred and was complete.

Here, however, the record also included criminal court records showing that the applicant’s father had been charged with multiple serious offenses related to the conduct underlying her T visa and was incarcerated. Looking at the evidence in the aggregate, the AAO concluded that the DOJ letter, together with the court records demonstrating that a prosecution had actually occurred, established by a preponderance of the evidence that the investigation or prosecution was complete. The AAO withdrew the denial and remanded.

This decision does not necessarily mean that older “no open investigation” letters are sufficient by themselves. Rather, it suggests that the early-adjustment requirement may be established through the combined evidentiary record where independent evidence demonstrates that an investigation or prosecution actually occurred and the DOJ letter indicates that the matter has ended.

This may be particularly important for applicants who received older DOJ letters and have been unable to obtain revised letters. A corrected DOJ letter expressly stating that the investigation or prosecution “is and was complete” as of the date of the original letter remains strong evidence, but In Re: 42379403 suggests that a corrected DOJ letter may not be the only path where other reliable evidence fills the gap left by the wording of the older letter.

CAST is continuing to track AAO decisions involving early T adjustment and DOJ completion letters. If you are experiencing issues with an early adjustment letter, please submit an individual technical assistance request. Through individual TA, CAST can provide case-specific guidance, including the general strategies we have been using in these cases and a sample outline for responding to USCIS.

Two related adjustment decisions also address the good moral character requirement.

In In Re: 37440944 (AAO Apr. 23, 2025), the applicant had been granted T-1 status from February 2020 through February 2024. While in T status, he was arrested in 2021 and later convicted of conspiracy to transport undocumented individuals and illegal alien transportation. The AAO concluded that the aggravated-felony convictions disqualified him from establishing good moral character for adjustment of status.

The applicant argued that USCIS should waive the disqualification because the conduct was “caused by, or incident to,” the trafficking underlying his T status. He relied in part on a psychological evaluation describing PTSD and argued that his trafficking-related trauma affected his response during the incident that led to his conviction. The AAO acknowledged his trauma but concluded that the evidence did not establish the required connection between his trafficking and the conduct underlying the conviction.

The decision also clarifies that an applicant does not need to file a separate Form I-601 to request waiver of a good moral character disqualification under INA § 245(l)(6). USCIS instead considers whether the record establishes that the disqualifying conduct was caused by or incident to the trafficking.

In In Re: 39744060 (AAO Aug. 10, 2026), the AAO dismissed the applicant’s motion to reconsider the same underlying matter. The AAO found that the applicant largely repeated his prior argument that his trafficking-related PTSD caused or contributed to the conduct resulting in his convictions without identifying an error of law or policy in the prior decision. The AAO also identified an additional ground of ineligibility because the applicant had been removed from the United States while the motion was pending, resulting in abandonment of the adjustment application.

Explore the Full AAO Opinions Database

The decisions discussed here, along with CAST’s full collection of AAO T visa opinions, are available in our searchable AAO Opinions Database for T Visa Cases.

Complete this form to receive your login credentials. For step-by-step instructions, see How to Access and Use CAST’s AAO Opinion Table.