No, and not much. AI hasn't had made a very good impression on the government over the years, what with their loud lobbying and accusations of barbarism. Ultimately, the President and the Cabinet won't bow to them because Van's case really isn't all that extraordinary.

Precedent doesn't meant a lot here, because it's not legally binding on any future decisions the President or Cabinet might make, since the appeal to clemency is a political one, ultimately, and everything can be justified on a case-by-case basis, or a cynical and fatuous "that was then, this is now" statement.

The real decision was made when the Attorney-General decided to charge Van for trafficking rather than reduce it to a lesser offence. Any plea bargaining should have been made then, and if it was, it obviously wasn't accepted. Amnesty is pissing into the wind, here, really, because it has absolutely no standing to argue on Van's behalf.

(You may be able to tell that I'm not too impressed with AI either - they may have noble motives, but all too often they're willing to distort facts to fit their advocacy. Given that I was once an advocate myself that may be hypocritical, but I've grown less tolerant of truth-twisting since I went to the bench, and that was reinforced when I became an academic.)