Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) Decisions

The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) generally issues non-precedent decisions. These apply existing law and policy to the facts of a given case. A non-precedent decision is binding on the parties involved in the case, but does not create or modify agency guidance or practice.

    AAO Practice Manual

    AAO Practice Manual

    This Practice Manual will be updated periodically. The tables below detail the changes made to this Practice Manual since its initial publication on January 14, 2015.

    AAO Decisions on VAWA Cases

    A Word Document Example

    This is an example of an item that links to a Microsoft Word file. Don't forget to upload the file to you media directory and change the header link above.

    AAO Decision Granting VAWA 212(a)(9)(C) & I-212 (February 4, 2013)

    This decision clarifies VAWA requirement that the abuse be "at least one central reason for the filing delay" in cases where the children filed after they turned 21 (but before the age of 25).

    AAO Decision Approving VAWA Petition Filed by 24 Year-old Applicant (July 24, 2012)

    In this decision, the AAO determined that being under an abusive parent's control qualified as "one central reason for the filing delay" under INA 204(a)(1)(D)(v) and therefore excuses the failure to file and I-360 self-petition before the applicant's 21st birthday.

    AAO Decision on VAWA Filing Age for Abused Children (August 24, 2011)

    This decision clarifies VAWA requirement that the abuse be "at least one central reason for the filing delay" in cases where the children filed after they turned 21 (but before the age of 25).

    AAO Decisions on U Visa Cases

    AAO Adopts (and remands) for Category Approach to Felonious Assault? (May 15, 2018)

    The AAO seems to have paid attention to our amicus arguments on U visa crimes as "categories" in their decision in the case in the case underlying our amicus, see attached redacted decision and the amicus. We will beed to keep pushing this is framework, however, so please continue using the arguments in the amicus when arguing crime categories. We do not, for instance, agree that the DV category contemplates only the facts involving decision  relationships; many crimes are DV depending on the facts of the crimes, not just the relationships. One step at a time, thought! Note that the amicus strategy seems to work (gets their attention), so if you have a case that is likely to go up to the AAO on that issue that seems intractable at VSC, please let us know early in the process so we can round up a firm and organize the arguments we should all be using. Congratulations and thanks to Yasmine Farhang (and Deisy) who worked on the brief in chief, to ICWC for joining and helping us craft the arguments, and to Jennifer Colyer & Daniel Fishbein at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shover & Jacobson for their excellent work on the amicus brief!

    AAO Decision Us can Overcome Reinstatement (January 12, 2017)

    Many thanks to Rekha Sharma-Crawford for pursuing this case to AAO, vindicating our long-posited argument that a 212(a)(9)(C) waiver eliminates the underlying predicate for 241(a)(5)

    AAO Decision Us can Overcome Reinstatement (January 12, 2017)

    Many thanks to Rekha Sharma-Crawford for pursuing this case to AAO, vindicating our long-posited argument that a 212(a)(9)(C) waiver eliminates the underlying predicate for 241(a)(5)