Updated June 2026
Beginning May 18, 2026, USCIS generally requires attorneys and accredited representatives to appear in person at adjustment of status interviews, naturalization interviews, affirmative asylum interviews, and certain NACARA interviews.
The new USCIS attorney interview policy is expected to impact many applicants.
Although immigrants continue to have the right to legal representation, the new policy significantly limits remote attorney participation and may increase costs for applicants who rely on counsel located outside their state. Understanding the USCIS attorney interview policy is crucial for navigating these changes.
The policy appears in USCIS guidance on Preparing for Your Affirmative Asylum Interview.
USCIS now generally requires attorneys and accredited representatives to attend covered interviews in person.
The policy affects:
Including:
Including N-400 examinations involving:
The policy applies to interviews conducted by USCIS asylum offices.
The policy also extends to certain NACARA proceedings.
USCIS announced the change without publishing a detailed explanation of what constitutes the “limited circumstances” under which remote participation may still be permitted.
Many reports incorrectly suggest that USCIS has prohibited attorneys from participating in interviews.
That is not accurate.
Applicants still have the right to legal representation.
Attorneys may still:
The change concerns the method of participation.
In most cases, USCIS now requires physical attendance rather than telephonic participation.
One of the most significant unanswered questions surrounding the new USCIS policy is the meaning of the phrase “limited circumstances.”
USCIS has announced that attorneys and accredited representatives generally may not participate remotely in covered interviews, but the agency has not publicly defined:
As of this writing, USCIS has provided little public guidance.
That uncertainty leaves applicants and attorneys attempting to predict what situations might justify an exception.
Although USCIS has not established formal criteria, several situations appear likely to present stronger arguments.
Serious Medical Issues
An attorney suffering from a significant medical condition may have a compelling basis for requesting remote participation.
Examples may include:
Supporting documentation from a treating physician may strengthen the request.
Attorneys with disabilities that substantially impair travel may have a strong argument for remote participation.
Potential examples include:
Documentation supporting the accommodation request may be helpful.
The strongest practical arguments may arise where physical attendance would impose unusual burdens.
Examples might include:
While distance alone may not be sufficient, extraordinary travel obstacles could support an exception request.
Another potential argument involves highly specialized representation.
Examples may include:
Applicants may argue that requiring physical attendance would effectively deprive them of meaningful access to the counsel they selected.
Whether USCIS will accept this argument remains unclear.
Certain affirmative asylum cases may present compelling circumstances.
Examples could include:
Attorneys may argue that remote participation would facilitate a fair and accurate interview without creating administrative burdens.
Unexpected events occurring shortly before an interview may also justify a request.
Examples include:
In these situations, remote participation may be preferable to cancelling and rescheduling the interview.
Because USCIS has not published a formal procedure, practitioners should consider creating a clear written record.
Do not wait until the day of the interview.
Whenever possible, submit the request immediately after receiving the interview notice.
Early requests demonstrate good faith and provide USCIS time to evaluate the circumstances.
A written request creates documentation that may later become important.
The request should:
This point may be particularly persuasive.
The request should explain that remote participation:
If remote participation would allow the interview to proceed as scheduled, that fact should be highlighted.
Although the new policy generally requires physical attendance, attorneys may wish to reference:
The purpose is not to challenge USCIS authority but to emphasize the longstanding importance of meaningful attorney participation.
Do not limit the request to telephone participation.
Consider offering:
Flexibility may increase the likelihood of approval.
If USCIS denies remote participation, attorneys should consider preserving the issue.
Potential steps may include:
This documentation may become important if future litigation challenges the policy or if USCIS later publishes additional guidance.
The phrase “limited circumstances” may ultimately become the most important part of the entire policy.
A rigid interpretation could dramatically increase costs and reduce access to counsel.
A flexible interpretation could preserve many of the benefits of remote participation while still allowing USCIS discretion in individual cases.
Until USCIS publishes clear standards, applicants and attorneys should assume that remote participation will be the exception rather than the rule and should submit any exception requests as early and as thoroughly as possible.
The reality is that the strongest exception requests will likely be those that demonstrate both hardship and efficiency—showing not only why physical attendance is difficult, but also why remote participation would allow USCIS to conduct the interview fairly, accurately, and without unnecessary delay.
The significance of the policy becomes clearer when viewed against the legal framework governing representation before DHS.
The foundational regulation is 8 CFR § 292.5(b).
The regulation provides:
Whenever an examination is provided for in this chapter, the person involved shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or representative.
Importantly, the regulation contemplates active participation by counsel.
Attorneys may:
This is not the language of a system that views attorneys as passive observers.
It is the language of a system that recognizes representation as an important procedural safeguard.
Another key regulation is 8 CFR § 292.1, which identifies the attorneys and accredited representatives authorized to appear before DHS.
USCIS has long recognized the importance of legal representation through Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative.
The agency’s representation framework assumes that attorneys play a meaningful role in helping applicants navigate increasingly complex immigration laws.
Whether the case involves:
USCIS has historically facilitated attorney participation rather than discouraged it.
One of the most overlooked aspects of this story is that USCIS previously moved in the opposite direction.
In 2022, USCIS implemented a pilot program allowing remote attorney participation in asylum interviews.
The agency’s pilot documentation remains publicly available through the USCIS Remote Attorney Participation Pilot Program.
The pilot explicitly recognized that asylum applicants have the right to have an attorney present at their interviews.
This creates an obvious question:
If remote participation was sufficiently beneficial to justify a USCIS pilot program in 2022, what evidence now justifies eliminating it in 2026?
To date, USCIS has not publicly provided a detailed explanation.
Immigration law contains an entire body of precedent recognizing the importance of competent legal representation.
The leading case is Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).
Lozada established the framework for reopening immigration cases based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
The significance of Lozada extends far beyond motions to reopen.
The case reflects a broader principle:
Attorney performance affects immigration outcomes.
If legal representation did not matter, immigration courts would have little reason to reopen cases because of attorney misconduct or attorney error.
The existence of ineffective-assistance doctrines demonstrates that immigration law recognizes counsel as a meaningful safeguard against erroneous outcomes.
The principle extends beyond immigration law.
The Administrative Procedure Act recognizes representation rights before federal agencies.
See 5 U.S.C. § 555(b).
For decades, federal administrative law has recognized that legal representation helps promote:
This broader administrative-law framework reinforces the importance of access to counsel in immigration adjudications.
Supporters of the policy may correctly note that immigrants still possess the right to counsel.
The more important question is different:
How meaningful is a right if exercising it becomes substantially more expensive?
The policy does not eliminate representation.
It increases the burden of obtaining representation.
That distinction matters.
The most immediate effect of the policy is financial.
Before the policy:
After the policy:
Applicants may be responsible for:
A single interview may now generate hundreds or even thousands of dollars in additional expenses.
Consider a client in Ohio represented by an attorney in California.
Previously, the attorney could prepare the client remotely and attend by telephone.
Now the client may be required to cover:
For many families, the additional cost may be significant.
For some, it may be prohibitive.
Modern immigration practice has become highly specialized.
Many attorneys focus almost exclusively on:
Remote participation allowed applicants to retain the attorney they believed was best qualified, regardless of location.
The new policy may force applicants to choose between:
For many immigrants, that is a significant change.
The burden is unlikely to fall equally.
Wealthier applicants may absorb the added costs.
Middle-income families may struggle but proceed.
Many lower-income immigrants may simply decide they cannot afford attorney attendance.
This creates an access-to-justice concern.
The right technically remains available.
The practical ability to exercise that right becomes more difficult.
The impact may be particularly significant in affirmative asylum cases.
Asylum interviews frequently involve:
Attorneys often help:
Many asylum applicants rely on nonprofit organizations and pro bono counsel operating under limited budgets.
Requiring physical attendance may force some organizations to reduce participation because of travel costs and staffing limitations.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the policy is that it appears difficult to justify from an efficiency perspective.
For decades, government agencies have embraced technology to reduce costs and improve access.
Federal courts routinely conduct proceedings remotely.
Immigration courts increasingly utilize video technology.
USCIS encourages:
Telephonic attorney appearances generally:
The new policy eliminates many of those benefits.
The policy shifts costs from the government to applicants.
Instead of a lawyer participating by telephone, clients may now pay for:
The policy also imposes costs on attorneys.
A lawyer who previously devoted one hour to a telephonic interview may now spend an entire day traveling.
Those hours cannot be spent:
Those costs are often reflected in legal fees.
Experienced attorneys often make interviews more efficient.
Counsel frequently helps:
When counsel cannot attend because travel costs are prohibitive, officers may spend more time addressing confusion, requesting additional evidence, or conducting follow-up review.
The policy may therefore increase administrative burdens rather than reduce them.
A fair question remains unanswered.
USCIS has not publicly identified evidence demonstrating that telephonic attorney participation was causing:
Without a clearly articulated problem, critics may reasonably ask why the agency chose to impose additional costs and burdens on applicants.
Viewed in isolation, the policy may appear minor.
Viewed alongside other recent developments—including expanded vetting, increased scrutiny of immigration benefits, heightened fraud investigations, and broader discretionary review frameworks—some observers see a larger pattern.
The telephonic-attendance policy does not eliminate any legal right.
But it arguably increases the burden of exercising one.
Critics contend that the cumulative effect of these policies is to make immigration benefits more expensive, more procedurally demanding, and more difficult to obtain.
The most important question is not whether immigrants still have the right to legal representation.
They do.
The more important question is whether that right remains meaningfully accessible.
For decades, Congress, DHS regulations, USCIS procedures, federal administrative law, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and federal courts have all recognized that attorneys help protect against governmental error.
Technology made it possible for immigrants to access qualified counsel regardless of geography.
The new USCIS policy moves against that trend.
It increases costs.
It increases barriers.
It reduces flexibility.
And it may make specialized representation more difficult to obtain.
For some applicants, the change will be inconvenient.
For others, it may determine whether an attorney is physically present during one of the most important interactions they will ever have with the federal government.
Ultimately, the debate is not about whether the right to counsel still exists.
The debate is about whether meaningful access to that right should depend on an immigrant’s ability to pay for an attorney’s airplane ticket.
Yes. USCIS still allows attorneys and accredited representatives to attend immigration interviews. The policy change does not eliminate the right to legal representation. Instead, USCIS now generally requires attorneys to appear in person rather than participate remotely.
The policy became effective on May 18, 2026. USCIS announced that attorneys and accredited representatives generally may no longer participate remotely in field office interviews, affirmative asylum interviews, and NACARA interviews except in limited circumstances.
The policy generally applies to:
Possibly, but only in limited circumstances.
USCIS has stated that exceptions may exist, but the agency has not clearly defined:
As a general rule, USCIS now requires in-person attendance. Applicants should not assume that video participation will be approved unless USCIS specifically authorizes an exception.
Critics argue that the policy:
Supporters may argue that in-person participation improves consistency and accountability during interviews.
No.
Federal regulations continue to recognize the right to representation before DHS. Applicants may still hire attorneys and accredited representatives to advise them, prepare their cases, submit evidence, and attend interviews.
The primary regulation is 8 CFR § 292.5(b), which provides that individuals appearing before DHS generally have the right to be represented by an attorney or accredited representative at no expense to the government.
Attorneys may help:
In complex cases, attorney participation can significantly affect the outcome.
In many cases, yes.
Applicants may now be responsible for:
For some cases, these expenses may increase the overall cost of representation substantially.
Yes.
The policy may have the greatest impact on applicants represented by attorneys located outside the state where the interview is scheduled.
Previously, telephonic participation allowed applicants to retain specialized counsel regardless of geography.
Now, applicants may need to consider travel expenses when selecting counsel. To see which USCIS field office will hold your interview and how to prepare for it, use Herman Legal Group’s guide to local USCIS field offices.
Many immigration attorneys focus on highly specialized areas such as:
Because these attorneys often represent clients nationwide, requiring in-person attendance may make specialized representation more expensive or less accessible.
Yes.
USCIS previously implemented a pilot program permitting remote attorney participation in certain asylum interviews. The existence of that program has led some observers to question why USCIS reversed course in 2026.
Yes.
The policy applies to affirmative asylum interviews conducted by USCIS.
Many immigration advocates are particularly concerned because asylum interviews often involve:
Some observers believe so.
Critics point to recent developments involving:
Others view the attorney-attendance policy as a routine procedural change.
Potentially.
Future challenges could focus on:
Whether such challenges will be successful remains uncertain.
Every case is different.
Attorney representation may be particularly valuable if your case involves:
Applicants facing high-stakes interviews should consider consulting experienced immigration counsel before appearing before USCIS.
USCIS interviews are becoming more consequential, more discretionary, and more procedurally demanding. If your case involves a green card interview, naturalization interview, asylum interview, prior immigration violations, criminal history, alleged fraud, false claims to citizenship, unlawful voting, or prior denials, experienced legal preparation may be critical.
Herman Legal Group helps immigrants, families, professionals, students, employers, and asylum seekers prepare for high-stakes USCIS interviews nationwide.
To discuss your case, schedule a consultation with Herman Legal Group or call +1-216-696-6170.
Artificial intelligence has entered immigration law faster than regulation can keep up.
In the past 18–24 months, we have seen a dramatic increase in clients who:
AI-generated evidence in immigration cases has become increasingly prevalent.
Many are now exploring the implications of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases.
The use of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases raises unique challenges.
AI-generated evidence in immigration cases is designed to enhance documentation.
The appeal is obvious: speed, fluency, structure, confidence.
But immigration law is not a writing exercise.
Scrutiny of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases is increasing.
It is a credibility-driven adjudicative system.
And we are now entering a phase where AI-generated uniformity intersects directly with established fraud and credibility doctrine.
Understanding the role of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases is crucial for legal practitioners navigating this landscape.
The issue is no longer theoretical.
It is litigated.
Learn more below and in our short video
Many people believe AI creates a new legal problem.
Gathering AI-generated evidence in immigration cases is not a new challenge.
It doesn’t.
The doctrine was already there.
AI-generated evidence in immigration cases can lead to complexities in legal arguments.
In Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that an immigration judge may rely on “significant similarities between statements submitted by applicants in different proceedings” to support an adverse credibility finding.
This is critical.
The BIA did not require proof of plagiarism software.
It did not require proof of collusion.
It did not require proof of AI use.
The implications of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases must be addressed.
It allowed similarity itself — when significant — to become part of the credibility calculus.
The safeguards required:
Judges increasingly assess AI-generated evidence in immigration cases.
Challenges surrounding AI-generated evidence in immigration cases persist.
But the core doctrine is now settled law.
Similarity can be litigated.
Multiple federal circuits have examined cases where:
AI-generated evidence in immigration cases is scrutinized rigorously by courts.
The risks associated with AI-generated evidence in immigration cases are significant.
Courts have recognized that:
Understanding AI-generated evidence in immigration cases is crucial for all parties involved.
This doctrine predates generative AI.
AI simply multiplies the risk of linguistic convergence.
AI-generated evidence in immigration cases may affect decision-making processes.
The implications of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases cannot be overstated, as they present both challenges and opportunities.
Now we turn to something that is often misunderstood.
Public reporting and academic research describe a USCIS system known as Asylum Text Analytics (ATA) — designed to detect duplicate or plagiarized language across asylum filings.
The system reportedly:
The role of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases is evolving.
This matters because it demonstrates that:
AI-generated evidence in immigration cases highlights the need for vigilance.
The immigration system has already operationalized text comparison.
Even if ATA is used primarily at the affirmative asylum stage, the principle is established:
Narrative similarity is measurable.
Legal standards for AI-generated evidence in immigration cases are still developing.
Attorneys from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA), operate within enterprise-level litigation ecosystems.
ICE has historically used advanced eDiscovery platforms (including Relativity and later Casepoint) capable of:
Understanding the nuances of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases is essential.
AI-generated evidence in immigration cases offers significant advantages but also risks.
No public rule says:
Judges will scrutinize AI-generated evidence in immigration cases closely.
“ICE runs plagiarism software on asylum declarations.”
But the infrastructure to compare documents exists.
And the legal doctrine to use similarities in court exists.
That intersection is what matters.
AI-generated evidence in immigration cases is increasingly common.
Generative AI systems are trained on patterns.
They produce:
Legal professionals must navigate AI-generated evidence in immigration cases carefully.
AI-generated evidence in immigration cases requires thorough examination.
Consideration of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases is vital for applicants.
Example pattern AI often produces in asylum declarations:
Challenges associated with AI-generated evidence in immigration cases must be addressed.
The complexities of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases require careful analysis.
AI-generated evidence in immigration cases may shape future regulations.
That structure is not illegal.
Legal practitioners must adapt to the rise of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases.
But if dozens of unrelated cases contain:
The implications of AI-generated evidence in immigration cases are profound.
Pattern recognition becomes easier.
And under R-K-K-, similarity is admissible as part of credibility analysis.
We are seeing government counsel argue:
The argument is framed as:
Even when AI is not mentioned explicitly, the effect is similar.
Similarity becomes suspicion.
Suspicion becomes credibility damage.
Under the REAL ID Act, adjudicators may consider:
When similarity is introduced:
And here is the critical appellate reality:
Credibility findings are reviewed under a highly deferential standard.
Once credibility is damaged, reversal is difficult.
We are seeing RFEs referencing:
AI often produces phrases like:
If multiple waiver filings contain identical phrases, pattern scrutiny follows.
Hardship cases demand evidentiary integration.
AI cannot:
Under Matter of Dhanasar, NIW cases require precise evidentiary framing.
AI hallucination risk includes:
Misrepresentation — even unintentionally generated — carries permanent inadmissibility consequences.
There is no public USCIS rule stating:
“We use AI detectors.”
But detectability does not require AI detection software.
Red flags include:
Experienced adjudicators see patterns daily.
Uniformity is visible.
Under ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence):
Lawyers must understand the technology they use.
Under Rule 5.3:
Lawyers must supervise nonlawyer assistance — including AI tools.
Blind reliance on AI risks:
At Herman Legal Group, AI may assist brainstorming — but:
Immigration is litigation.
Not content creation.
As of 2026:
But:
The enforcement pathway is already legally grounded.
Policy formalization is likely to follow patterns of abuse.
If AI is used at all, the filing must:
Authenticity is protective.
Uniformity is dangerous.
If ICE or a DHS trial attorney argues that your asylum declaration “substantially matches” other filings, your case does not automatically fail.
But it becomes a credibility defense case.
Under Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015), the Board of Immigration Appeals established that immigration judges may consider significant similarities between statements in different proceedings when making credibility determinations.
However, the BIA also imposed procedural safeguards:
The applicant must receive notice of the alleged similarities.
The applicant must have an opportunity to explain.
The judge must evaluate the totality of circumstances.
This framework is critical.
Similarity is not automatic fraud.
But it can shift the dynamics of the case.
When similarity is alleged, experienced counsel must require the government to identify:
The exact passages claimed to be similar
The comparison documents
The degree of overlap
Whether the similarity is structural, linguistic, or factual
General statements such as “this looks templated” are not enough.
The government must articulate specific comparisons.
Many asylum applicants from the same region may experience:
Similar police tactics
Similar militia threats
Similar detention conditions
Similar political repression
Country conditions reports from the U.S. Department of State frequently document widespread patterns of harm.
The legal distinction is this:
Shared persecution patterns are legitimate.
Identical language patterns raise suspicion.
The defense strategy is to highlight:
Unique dates
Unique emotional reactions
Unique geographic details
Unique corroborating documents
Individualization defeats templating allegations.
Once similarity is raised, corroboration becomes decisive.
That includes:
Medical records
Arrest documentation
Police reports
Witness affidavits
News articles
Psychological evaluations
Expert testimony
When independent evidence aligns with the narrative, similarity arguments weaken significantly.
If a similarity argument is introduced, the applicant must be able to:
Explain how the declaration was prepared
Describe events in their own words
Provide consistent oral testimony
Demonstrate independent knowledge of the facts
Written narrative and in-court testimony must align.
This is where AI-generated over-polishing becomes dangerous.
A declaration must sound like the applicant — not like a law review article.
Credibility findings are reviewed under a highly deferential standard on appeal.
If an immigration judge makes an adverse credibility finding supported by articulated similarities, overturning that decision is extremely difficult.
That is why similarity defense must be proactive — not reactive.
At Herman Legal Group, we treat every declaration as a litigation document from day one.
We are in Phase One of AI use in immigration.
Phase Two will likely involve formal regulatory response.
Based on current trends, several developments are plausible.
USCIS could introduce a certification requiring applicants or attorneys to disclose whether generative AI was used in drafting narrative submissions.
Such certifications could mirror existing perjury language and impose additional verification obligations.
To reduce narrative uniformity risk, USCIS may move toward:
Standardized declaration templates
Guided digital intake systems
Structured text-entry fields
Reducing free-form narrative length reduces similarity analysis complexity.
Public reporting has described systems such as Asylum Text Analytics (ATA), designed to flag duplicate language patterns.
Given existing infrastructure, agencies could:
Expand automated similarity scoring
Flag high-overlap narratives
Trigger Fraud Detection and National Security review
Integrate similarity flags into case management systems
No formal policy has announced this expansion.
But the technological capability exists.
Professional responsibility standards are evolving.
The American Bar Association has already emphasized that lawyers must understand and supervise AI use.
Future EOIR or bar-level rules could require:
Affirmation of AI review
Certification of independent verification
Documentation of human authorship
Immigration law will not remain outside AI governance indefinitely.
Silence from USCIS today does not mean tolerance tomorrow.
The regulatory gap is temporary.
Practices adopted now should assume future scrutiny.
The risk of templated asylum narratives is not new.
Long before generative AI, the immigration system encountered fraud rings involving:
Notarios
Unlicensed preparers
Boilerplate persecution templates
Mass-produced declarations
These schemes often involved identical stories submitted by multiple applicants.
Immigration judges became familiar with:
Repeated metaphors
Identical narrative arcs
Copy-and-paste political persecution claims
Those cases resulted in:
Denials
Fraud findings
Referral for criminal investigation
Permanent immigration consequences
Generative AI introduces a modern parallel.
Instead of human-run template mills, we now have automated narrative generation capable of producing highly similar outputs at scale.
The technology is different.
The pattern risk is not.
When adjudicators encounter similarity, they do not ask:
“Was this written by AI?”
They ask:
“Does this resemble prior templated filings?”
Immigration history shows that mass-produced narratives trigger skepticism.
AI makes mass production easier.
Which means individualized drafting is more important than ever.
Yes, you may use AI tools like ChatGPT for brainstorming or drafting structure. However, you are legally responsible for everything submitted to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
If AI generates:
Incorrect facts
Inflated achievements
Fabricated legal citations
Misstated immigration standards
You — not the software — bear the consequences.
Every statement in a green card application is submitted under penalty of perjury. AI assistance does not excuse errors.
No federal statute prohibits using AI to help draft immigration materials.
However, submitting false or misleading information can trigger inadmissibility under INA § 212(a)(6)(C)(i) for misrepresentation.
The legal issue is not AI use.
The legal issue is accuracy, truthfulness, and credibility.
There is no publicly announced USCIS policy requiring AI detection or disclosure.
However:
Officers are trained to identify boilerplate language.
Narrative uniformity across filings is noticeable.
Inconsistencies between written submissions and interviews are scrutinized.
Fraud detection infrastructure exists.
Detectability does not require an “AI detector.”
It requires experienced adjudicators recognizing patterns.
Yes.
Under Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that immigration judges may consider significant similarities between statements submitted in different cases.
Attorneys from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have raised arguments that certain asylum declarations:
Substantially mirror other filings
Contain formulaic language
Appear templated
Similarity alone does not prove fraud. But it can affect credibility determinations.
“Inter-proceeding similarity” refers to substantial linguistic overlap between asylum declarations submitted by different applicants in separate cases.
Under Matter of R-K-K-, judges may consider:
Identical phrasing
Structural replication
Shared narrative sequencing
Repeated metaphors
If similarities are significant, applicants must be given an opportunity to explain them.
Public reporting has described a USCIS system known as “Asylum Text Analytics” designed to flag duplicate language in asylum filings.
Additionally, immigration litigation offices operate enterprise-level document review systems capable of large-scale text search and comparison.
No public rule states that plagiarism software is routinely applied to every case. However, text comparison at scale is technologically feasible within federal systems.
Yes — if it produces:
Generic persecution language
Overly polished academic prose inconsistent with your background
Repetitive structural formatting seen in other cases
Fabricated country condition statistics
Asylum cases depend heavily on credibility under REAL ID Act standards.
If your written declaration does not align with your testimony, credibility may be damaged.
AI can outline hardship categories. It cannot:
Integrate medical documentation accurately
Assess psychological nuance
Align tax records with financial hardship claims
Evaluate country-specific healthcare limitations
USCIS frequently issues RFEs for hardship letters that lack individualized detail. Boilerplate emotional language can weaken discretionary review.
Extreme caution is required.
AI has been known to:
Inflate citation counts
Fabricate journal impact factors
Misstate government program alignment
Overstate leadership roles
NIW petitions are evidence-driven and evaluated under Matter of Dhanasar standards. Any factual inflation may undermine credibility and eligibility.
Shared country conditions can produce similar experiences.
The issue arises when language itself is substantially identical across cases.
Judges distinguish between:
Similar events (which may be legitimate), and
Identical phrasing or structure (which may raise authorship concerns).
Similarity must be evaluated in context.
Under Matter of R-K-K-, you must be:
Notified of the similarities.
Given an opportunity to explain.
Evaluated under the totality of circumstances.
If credibility is questioned, the burden effectively increases. Corroborating evidence becomes more important.
There is no published EOIR policy requiring AI detection software use.
However, judges and government attorneys can:
Compare filings manually
Use document review tools
Analyze structural overlap
Introduce other declarations for comparison
Pattern recognition does not require advanced AI tools.
Yes.
If AI fabricates:
Federal court decisions
Board of Immigration Appeals precedents
Statistical data
Government program references
Submitting those inaccuracies can undermine the filing and potentially trigger fraud concerns.
All citations must be independently verified.
Using AI does not automatically violate ethics rules.
However, attorneys must comply with:
ABA Model Rule 1.1 (Competence)
Rule 5.3 (Supervision of nonlawyer assistance)
Lawyers must verify AI output, protect confidentiality, and ensure accuracy.
Blind reliance on AI-generated content may expose both attorney and client to harm.
There is currently no mandatory disclosure requirement.
However, whether disclosed or not, the content must be accurate, individualized, and defensible under scrutiny.
The focus should not be disclosure alone.
The focus should be reliability and authenticity.
If AI is used at all:
Use it only for structural brainstorming.
Rewrite the content entirely in your own voice.
Verify every fact independently.
Remove generic or templated phrasing.
Ensure alignment with documentary evidence.
Have an experienced immigration attorney review the final version.
AI is a drafting assistant — not a legal strategist.
The biggest risk is credibility damage.
Immigration law is discretionary and adversarial.
If your narrative appears templated, inflated, or inconsistent, it can:
Trigger RFEs
Invite cross-examination
Damage credibility findings
Undermine discretionary relief
Complicate appellate review
In immigration law, credibility is currency.
Uniformity is risk.
AI is not prohibited in immigration filings.
But the legal system already permits scrutiny of patterned narratives. Text comparison tools exist. Litigation doctrine allows similarity arguments.
Before using AI in:
Asylum
Waivers
NIW petitions
VAWA affidavits
Cancellation of removal
You should understand the risk landscape.
At Herman Legal Group, we combine more than three decades of immigration litigation experience with a modern understanding of AI compliance risk.
Because in 2026, technology without legal strategy is exposure.
AI is not illegal.
But immigration is unforgiving.
We are entering an era where:
If your declaration reads like twenty others, you are exposed.
If your narrative reflects individualized truth, supported by evidence and structured for adversarial scrutiny, you are protected.
At Herman Legal Group, we understand both immigration law and AI risk.
In 2026, that dual awareness is not optional.
It is essential.
This directory provides authoritative legal sources and government materials related to AI-generated immigration filings, similarity challenges, asylum credibility doctrine, and technology-driven enforcement.
Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015)
Board of Immigration Appeals
Authorizes immigration judges to consider significant similarities between statements in different proceedings when evaluating credibility.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/768196/dl
Matter of Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (BIA 2016)
National Interest Waiver (NIW) framework decision.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/920996/download
REAL ID Act – Credibility Standard
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)
Outlines factors immigration judges may consider in asylum credibility determinations.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1158
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
https://www.uscis.gov
Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS)
USCIS fraud detection infrastructure.
https://www.uscis.gov
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
Immigration court system under the Department of Justice.
https://www.justice.gov/eoir
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) litigates removal cases.
https://www.ice.gov
U.S. Department of Homeland Security – Privacy Impact Assessments
Includes documentation on federal eDiscovery and data analytics systems.
https://www.dhs.gov/privacy-impact-assessments
U.S. Department of State – Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
https://www.state.gov/reports-bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/
UNHCR Refworld Database
Country conditions and international protection materials.
https://www.refworld.org
BAJI Report – AI & Immigration Enforcement
Policy research discussing automated systems and text analytics in immigration.
https://baji.org
DHS eDiscovery Privacy Impact Assessment (DHS/ALL/PIA-073)
Discusses enterprise document review and analytics capabilities.
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/privacy-impact-assessment-dhs-all-073-ediscovery
American Bar Association – Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 1.1 (Competence), Rule 5.3 (Supervision), Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality)
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/
The following Herman Legal Group articles analyze how AI, automation, social media screening, and data analytics intersect with immigration adjudications and enforcement.
U.S. Increases Use of AI in Immigration Enforcement — Efficiency, Risks & Transparency
Analysis of how AI systems and automation are being integrated into immigration enforcement and screening.
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/u-s-increases-use-of-ai-in-immigration-enforcement-efficiency-risks-and-the-battle-for-transparency/
DHS Social Media Rule 2026 — Immigrant Digital Vetting Guide
Explains how DHS and USCIS review social media identifiers, conduct digital vetting, and use automated tools in screening.
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/dhs-social-media-rule-2026-immigrant-digital-vetting-guide/
USCIS Vetting Center, High-Risk Countries & Social Media Screening
Breakdown of how USCIS vetting operations incorporate digital review and screening processes.
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/uscis-vetting-center-high-risk-countries-social-media-screening/
USCIS Oath Ceremony Cancellations & Technology-Driven National Security Holds
Explains how expanded vetting systems and automated review processes can delay or halt naturalization cases.
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/herman-legal-group-uscis-oath-ceremony-cancelled-insights/
Immigration Data Sources 2026 – Free, Public & Trusted Government Data
Comprehensive resource on publicly available immigration data used in case development and research.
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/immigration-data-sources-2026-free-public-trusted/
Automation also intersects with two concrete policy shifts: USCIS’s mandatory electronic-filing rule and renewed neighborhood investigations in citizenship cases.
Artificial intelligence is no longer theoretical inside the U.S. immigration system. In 2026, it is embedded within the modernization architecture of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including systems supporting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS artificial intelligence 2026).
In the context of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026, this integration is pivotal for enhancing efficiency.
A human officer still signs approvals and denials.
But the path to that human decision increasingly runs through automated systems capable of:
Screening filings at intake
Flagging perceived inconsistencies
Triggering Requests for Evidence (RFEs)
Routing cases for supervisory or fraud review
Cross-matching data across federal databases
This structural shift matters. Because when automation influences the front end of adjudication, it can shape timelines, scrutiny levels, documentation burdens, and even outcomes.
This evolution is particularly relevant for USCIS artificial intelligence 2026, impacting how cases are processed.
This article provides a comprehensive analysis grounded in DHS documentation, oversight materials, and real-world filing patterns observed in 2025–2026.
Understanding USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 is crucial for applicants navigating this new landscape.
Check out this short video for more.
The advancements in USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 highlight the future of immigration processing.
DHS maintains a public Artificial Intelligence Use Case Inventory:
DHS AI Use Case Inventory https://www.dhs.gov/ai/use-case-inventory
The USCIS-specific page appears here:
USCIS AI Use Case Inventory https://www.dhs.gov/ai/use-case-inventory/uscis
DHS has also published its formal AI governance framework:
These frameworks guide the deployment of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 across various applications.
DHS Artificial Intelligence Strategy https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhs-artificial-intelligence-strategy
These documents confirm that AI systems are used across DHS components for:
Data analysis
Data analysis methods now incorporate USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 for enhanced accuracy.
Risk assessment
Workflow automation
Identity resolution
Fraud detection
Fraud detection practices are evolving with USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 at the forefront.
Pattern recognition
Case triage
USCIS modernization efforts—particularly digitization and electronic filing—create the infrastructure necessary for algorithmic screening.
The role of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 is pivotal in modernizing the immigration process.
USCIS Office of Information Technology https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/organization/directorates-and-program-offices/office-of-information-technology
The important clarification:
USCIS does not publicly state that AI approves or denies immigration benefits.
Recognizing the impact of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 is essential for stakeholders.
But AI can influence which cases are flagged, scrutinized, or escalated.
USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 brings significant changes to the immigration landscape.
When discussing “AI in immigration,” it is important to avoid sensationalism.
The more realistic scenario is this:
Automation performs intake validation and anomaly detection. Human officers review outputs generated by those systems.
That influence can appear in:
Instant RFEs
Escalation to FDNS
Pattern-based scrutiny of employer filings
Cross-form inconsistency flags
Social media vetting workflows
Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/directorates-and-program-offices/fraud-detection-and-national-security-directorate
Understanding how USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 affects workflows is critical.
Automation does not replace the officer.
But it can determine what the officer sees first.
This highlights the importance of adapting to USCIS artificial intelligence 2026.
Note: The following reflects patterns observed in real HLG filings.
The emergence of same-day RFEs is a direct result of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026.
At Herman Legal Group, we have observed a development that was historically uncommon.
In several concurrent adjustment filings—including:
Form I-485
Form I-130
Form I-864
Form I-765
—we received:
Receipt notices
And RFEs
Issued the same day
The RFEs were directed at Form I-864 (Affidavit of Support).
Critically:
The alleged deficiencies were incorrect.
The RFEs claimed income deficiencies that did not exist based on:
Properly calculated household size
Accurate adjusted gross income
Correctly attached IRS transcripts
Sufficient qualifying income
Historically, I-864 review required substantive officer evaluation.
Awareness of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 can lead to better filing strategies.
An officer needed time to:
Review income lines
Calculate poverty guideline thresholds
Confirm joint sponsor logic
Compare transcripts to reported income
The emergence of same-day RFEs—issued effectively simultaneously with receipt generation—suggests something different:
Automated intake screening may be parsing I-864 data immediately upon digitization.
If a system:
Misreads IRS transcript formatting
Confuses adjusted gross income vs total income
Misinterprets household size entries
Fails to detect joint sponsor logic
It may trigger a deficiency flag instantly.
Such automation underscores the importance of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026.
That flag may then auto-generate a templated RFE.
A human officer may later sign the RFE—but the initial deficiency signal may originate algorithmically.
This would explain:
Identical template language
Immediate issuance
Lack of individualized analysis
Incorrect financial conclusions
These trends show the impact of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 on filing practices.
In each instance, the RFE was resolved by response.
But the pattern suggests intake-level automation influencing adjudicative workflow.
This is consistent with DHS’s modernization objectives and AI-enabled triage systems.
When intake becomes algorithm-assisted:
Errors scale faster.
Instead of waiting weeks for officer review, a machine-generated RFE can issue immediately.
That changes:
Filing strategy
Documentation precision
Risk exposure
Clients must consider how USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 may influence their cases.
Client expectations
Even if corrected later, an erroneous RFE can:
Delay work authorization
Delay travel authorization
Increase stress
Trigger additional review layers
Automation does not need to “decide” the case to materially affect it.
If AI influences:
The implications of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 raise several legal questions.
Which cases are flagged
Which forms are deemed deficient
Which employers are escalated
Then several legal questions arise:
Are applicants informed when algorithmic screening triggers action?
Can underlying model logic be requested under FOIA?
Is algorithmic flagging reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act?
If bias exists, what remedies are available?
Freedom of Information Act https://www.foia.gov
Administrative Procedure Act Overview https://www.justice.gov/jmd/administrative-procedure-act-5-usc-551-et-seq
These governance structures will be essential for the future of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026.
DHS oversight structures emphasize governance and accountability:
DHS Office of Inspector General https://www.oig.dhs.gov/reports
But transparency into specific adjudication-support systems remains limited.
Future litigation may test:
Disclosure obligations
Bias analysis
The evolution of USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 necessitates a reevaluation of bias management.
Error rate auditing
Procedural fairness standards
DHS has authority to collect social media identifiers in immigration processes.
Automation makes cross-analysis scalable.
HLG has addressed vetting and screening concerns here:
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/uscis-vetting-center-high-risk-countries-social-media-screening/
Consistency across:
Online statements
Employment claims
Marital history
With USCIS artificial intelligence 2026, maintaining consistency is more critical than ever.
Entry/exit representations
is increasingly critical.
In H-1B and employment-based filings, algorithmic influence may affect:
Wage clustering detection
SOC code consistency
Employer address patterns
Corporate shell indicators
Serial petition filings
USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 impacts the scrutiny of applications significantly.
GAO has encouraged USCIS to strengthen strategic antifraud analysis:
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108903
In a data-driven environment, statistical outliers attract attention.
Precision in wage documentation and business records is essential.
Based on observed patterns:
Verify adjusted gross income
Confirm household size logic
Cross-check IRS transcripts line-by-line
Clearly explain joint sponsor roles
Assume intake validation may occur instantly.
Identical hardship narratives across cases may trigger similarity detection.
Individualization matters.
Compare:
I-130 marital history
I-485 biographical data
I-765 employment history
I-864 financial information
Machines detect contradictions faster than humans.
Understanding USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 will aid in avoiding potential pitfalls.
Public information may be cross-referenced.
Alignment across platforms reduces risk.
Immigration adjudication is evolving from:
Human review → Assisted human review
to:
Automated screening → Human validation
That inversion changes filing strategy.
Preparation must anticipate algorithmic intake scrutiny.
Yes. DHS publicly maintains an AI Use Case Inventory confirming AI deployment across components, including USCIS.
No. A human officer signs final decisions. AI may influence screening and routing.
AI systems may flag perceived deficiencies at intake. A human officer issues the RFE, but the initial trigger may be automated.
Yes. In practice, some concurrent adjustment filings have generated RFEs the same day as receipt notices. In certain HLG cases, these RFEs were directed at Form I-864 and contained incorrect deficiency claims, suggesting automated intake screening may have played a role.
Yes. Applicants may respond with documentation clarifying income calculations or correcting perceived discrepancies.
Applicants challenge final agency actions through administrative appeal or federal litigation. Access to underlying algorithmic logic may require court intervention.
Artificial intelligence is not replacing immigration officers.
But it is reshaping:
Intake screening
Deficiency detection
Fraud analytics
Case routing
Scrutiny intensity
The HLG example of same-day, incorrect I-864 RFEs illustrates how algorithmic intake screening may already be influencing immigration workflows.
In an AI-assisted system, the margin for error narrows.
Precision is protection. Consistency is credibility. Preparation must anticipate machine review.
If you would like next, I can:
Add a journalist-facing section positioning Richard Herman as a national source on algorithmic immigration governance
Draft optimized Article + FAQPage schema for Rank Math
Create a compliance checklist section suitable for client download or lead capture
Thus, USCIS artificial intelligence 2026 is reshaping how cases are adjudicated.
Artificial intelligence in immigration adjudications is rapidly moving from modernization theory to operational reality. Yet most coverage remains surface-level, focusing on:
Border surveillance technology
Facial recognition at ports of entry
Predictive enforcement systems
Very little reporting has examined how AI may be influencing everyday immigration benefits adjudications — including:
Adjustment of status
Employment-based petitions
Affidavit of Support review
Fraud detection routing
Same-day RFE issuance patterns
The intersection of algorithmic governance and immigration adjudication raises profound questions:
Are machine-generated deficiency flags influencing outcomes?
Is there adequate transparency in DHS AI oversight?
Can applicants challenge algorithmic screening triggers?
Are bias audits being conducted and published?
Does automation alter procedural fairness?
Richard Herman, founder of Herman Legal Group, has been practicing immigration law for more than 30 years and has observed first-hand shifts in adjudication behavior consistent with automated intake validation systems — including same-day RFEs issued simultaneously with receipt notices in concurrent I-485/I-130/I-765 filings.
Richard has long written and spoken about immigration modernization, due process, and the balance between enforcement and fairness. He is available to comment on:
AI in immigration adjudications
Algorithmic due process concerns
Fraud modeling and employer scrutiny
Social media vetting
Administrative law implications
Litigation strategies challenging opaque systems
Richard Herman biography: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/richard-herman/
Herman Legal Group main site: https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/
Journalists researching:
“AI in USCIS adjudications”
“Algorithmic immigration screening”
“Same-day USCIS RFEs”
“USCIS automation transparency”
“Due process and artificial intelligence”
may contact Richard Herman for commentary, background briefings, or case-based analysis.
The next phase of immigration policy debate will not only concern who qualifies — but how machines influence who gets scrutinized.
The following checklist is designed for immigrants, employers, and counsel preparing filings in 2026.
This can be converted into a downloadable PDF resource or intake protocol.
Before filing:
Recalculate household size carefully.
Confirm adjusted gross income line matches IRS transcript.
Ensure transcript year aligns with form entries.
Clarify joint sponsor structure explicitly.
Provide cover explanation if income fluctuates.
Highlight poverty guideline threshold comparison clearly.
Assume intake validation may parse numeric data immediately.
Compare all concurrently filed forms:
I-130 marital history
I-485 biographical entries
I-765 employment history
I-131 travel history
I-864 financial data
Confirm:
Names are spelled identically.
Dates align across forms.
Addresses are consistent.
Employment timelines match.
Entry/exit history matches CBP records.
Automated systems detect contradictions instantly.
For H-1B, EB-2, NIW, or PERM-based filings:
Verify SOC code aligns with job duties.
Avoid inflated or templated job descriptions.
Ensure wage level is justified by duties and experience.
Confirm corporate address legitimacy.
Document payroll capability.
Maintain corporate tax and formation documents.
Pattern clustering increases scrutiny risk.
Avoid:
Identical hardship affidavits.
Copy-paste personal statements.
Generic trauma descriptions.
Instead:
Tailor each affidavit to the individual.
Include fact-specific details.
Avoid repetitive phrasing across cases.
Similarity detection tools can flag boilerplate narratives.
Review:
Public social media profiles.
LinkedIn employment listings.
Business websites.
Public corporate filings.
Confirm consistency with immigration representations.
Assume public information may be reviewed or cross-referenced.
Given automation:
Double-check submissions before upload.
Avoid rushed electronic filings with arithmetic errors.
Ensure PDF scans are clear and machine-readable.
Label exhibits precisely.
Include concise legal cover letters explaining calculations.
Machines process quickly. Corrections take longer.
If a same-day or rapid RFE is issued:
Reassess whether the alleged deficiency reflects a machine parsing error.
Respond with structured clarification.
Provide annotated transcript references.
Avoid emotional language.
Address the exact statutory requirement cited.
Do not assume the RFE reflects full officer analysis.
In an algorithm-assisted immigration system:
Meticulous math prevents machine flags. Internal consistency reduces anomaly detection. Individualization protects credibility. Documentation clarity reduces automated friction.
Artificial intelligence may not decide your case.
But it may decide how your case is treated.
Preparation must now account for both human review and machine screening.
As USCIS and DHS rely more heavily on algorithmic review, applicants should be careful with AI-generated immigration evidence.
