USCIS has released new T visa processing data through the third quarter of fiscal year 2026. CAST has also updated the AAO T Visa Opinion Database with the agency’s newly posted decisions.
T Visa Processing Through FY2026 Q3
During the third quarter of fiscal year 2026, covering April through June 2026, USCIS received 8,104 T-1 applications and adjudicated only 320, a processing rate of 3.9%. The agency approved 143 applications and denied 177.
Q3 receipts were down 20% from the 10,157 received in Q2, the first quarterly decline since the filing surge began.
The number of pending T-1 applications increased from 71,140 at the end of March to 81,695 at the end of June, an increase of 10,555 applications in one quarter.
Through the first nine months of fiscal year 2026, USCIS reported:
- 28,157 T-1 applications received
- 496 approved
- 550 denied
- 1,046 total adjudicated
- 81,695 pending
USCIS also reported a substantial pending caseload for employment authorization applications filed under category C40, which applies to applicants with a bona fide T application pending. During the third quarter, USCIS received 7,450 C40 applications and adjudicated 1,879, a processing rate of 25.2%, more than six times the T-1 processing rate over the same period. The agency approved 468, denied 1,411, and reported 74,122 pending applications as of June 30, 2026.
These figures do not predict how long USCIS will take to decide an individual case. They do show that pending applications continue to grow while T-1 decisions remain low.
The processing figures discussed above come from USCIS’s FY2026 Q3 Form I-914 statistics and Form I-765 employment authorization data.
AAO T Visa Decisions
USCIS is continuing to backfill its online repository with older AAO decisions. Many of the opinions added since our last update were adjudicated in October 2025, even though USCIS posted them more recently. A newly posted opinion is therefore not necessarily a newly adjudicated case.
On the substantive T visa side, we have now analyzed 28 appeals adjudicated since September 2025. This is an ongoing cumulative count and excludes invalid-signature dismissals and T adjustment or derivative cases.
26 dismissed, 2 remanded, 0 granted
- 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, this is not a statement of agreement with the AAO. It is an outline of what the AAO has found so far.
Four recently posted substantive opinions are worth highlighting: a labor-exploitation case, a case examining the distinction between domestic violence and human trafficking, a physical-presence case involving serious violence during trafficking, and a derivative case addressing present danger of retaliation.
In In Re: 42192983 (AAO July 23, 2026), the AAO considered a claim involving labor exploitation and several different kinds of work. The AAO distinguished exploitative working conditions from involuntary servitude, concluding that the record did not establish that the applicant’s labor or services were obtained through qualifying force, fraud, or coercion. The opinion is useful because it focuses on the connection between the alleged means and the labor or services, rather than treating evidence of unfair treatment or labor exploitation as sufficient by itself.
In Re: 39502011 (AAO October 24, 2025) addresses the relationship between domestic violence and human trafficking. The applicant alleged that her partner abused and controlled her while requiring her to perform household work. The AAO concluded that the record did not establish that the partner used the alleged abuse or control to obtain her labor or services. Among other things, it examined the nature of the household responsibilities, the applicant’s access to money, and her freedom of movement. The opinion illustrates why domestic violence and trafficking may overlap but are not legally interchangeable. The analysis must still identify the labor or services being obtained and connect the alleged force, fraud, or coercion to those ends.
Finally, In Re: 39282981 (AAO September 25, 2025) addresses physical presence based on trafficking in the past. The applicant was locked in houses during his journey to the United States, forced under death threats to carry heavy suitcases across the border, and compelled to cook and clean while armed smugglers beat him and others. USCIS did not contest that he had experienced a severe form of trafficking in persons. The appeal was nevertheless dismissed because the record did not establish that his continued presence in the United States when he filed in 2023 was directly related to that trafficking.
The applicant submitted a psychosocial evaluation describing PTSD, depression, anxiety, nightmares, and flashbacks. The AAO emphasized, however, that the record contained only a one-time evaluation and did not corroborate his claimed ongoing therapy or medical treatment. The letters submitted on his behalf described his family responsibilities, church attendance, helpfulness, and character, but did not explain how his support system helped him cope with trafficking-related harm. The opinion provides a concrete example of the evidence the AAO looks for when evaluating whether the effects of past trafficking continue to explain why an applicant remains physically present in the United States.
In In Re: 39190075 (AAO Oct. 21, 2025), the T-1 principal sought T-4 classification for her mother based on a claimed present danger of retaliation resulting from the principal’s escape from trafficking or cooperation with law enforcement. The principal and her mother had worked under exploitative and abusive conditions for a restaurant owner, and the mother reported that seeing the trafficker years later retriggered her trauma.
The AAO distinguished lasting psychological trauma and fear from a present danger of retaliation. It emphasized that the trafficker had not retaliated, threatened, or communicated with either person after their employment ended, including during the three years following the principal’s report to law enforcement. The appeal was dismissed because the record did not establish a current danger connected to the principal’s escape or cooperation with law enforcement.
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.
If you have any issues accessing the database, please email our Technical Assistance team.