Immigration Law
In the last three months, our firm has seen a disturbing new pattern in consultations. A client walks in, looking exhausted and anxious, holding a Request for Evidence (RFE) or a Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID).
When we ask how the application was prepared, the answer is almost always the same:
“I used AI. It was going so well. AI wrote my cover letters, helped fill out the forms, and organized my evidence. Everything looked perfect… until this arrived.”
These clients fell into the AI Strategy Gap.
For the first 90% of the process—filling boxes and drafting polished letters—AI is impressive. It creates a powerful illusion of control. But immigration law is not about filling forms; it is about building a strategic legal structure around your life. AI can assemble documents. It cannot design a case strategy.
Here is why self-filing with AI is increasingly leading to serious problems under the current administration’s heightened scrutiny.
Watch The Video Overview
The Trap: The “Public Charge” Blind Spot
One of the most consequential developments in 2025–2026 has been the renewed emphasis on Public Charge analysis.
Many AI systems rely heavily on past publicly available guidance. If you ask, “Can my parent receive Medicaid?” AI may reference earlier policies that were more limited in scope and suggest that certain benefits are not disqualifying.
Adjudications now reflect more aggressive “totality of the circumstances” analysis. Officers examine income, age, health, employability, and use of public benefits with broad discretionary authority. Even technically permissible benefits may raise concerns depending on the applicant’s overall financial profile.
We are seeing cases where applicants completed Form I-864 correctly, yet were aggressively questioned about sponsor income, asset sufficiency, or benefit usage. AI may correctly populate a form—but it does not evaluate how that financial picture will actually be perceived by an officer exercising discretion.
The Trap: The “Perfect Story” Red Flag
K-1 visa petitions are facing some of the highest fraud scrutiny in recent years. Adjudications are increasingly data-driven.
When asked to draft a relationship statement, AI produces a polished, emotionally compelling narrative. It is articulate. Structured. Grammatically flawless.
Immigration officers are trained to distinguish between authentic affidavits and overly “generated” narratives. Real relationships contain inconsistencies, ordinary language, and imperfect storytelling. Highly polished statements can appear rehearsed or artificial.
We have seen cases where AI-generated statements “smoothed over” uncomfortable facts—such as temporary separations or gaps in communication. At a consular interview, officers compared the timeline to travel history and chat logs. Discrepancies led to extended administrative processing and, in some cases, long-term delays.
AI does not investigate. It does not cross-reference. It does not anticipate how evidence will be scrutinized in an adversarial setting.
The Trap: The “Checklist” View of Good Moral Character
Naturalization is not merely a residency calculation. It requires proof of Good Moral Character (GMC).
AI typically focuses on statutory bars. If you have not been convicted of a disqualifying offense within the statutory period, it may conclude that you are eligible.
Recent policy interpretations emphasize broader character analysis. Officers consider patterns of conduct—financial irresponsibility, repeated minor citations, unpaid obligations, or other behavior reflecting civic judgment.
We have seen applicants proceed with filing while carrying unresolved civil judgments or repeated minor violations. AI indicated there was no statutory bar. However, officers questioned whether the pattern demonstrated a lack of respect for the law. In some cases, denials followed—placing lawful permanent resident status under closer review.
AI answers the question: “Is there a technical prohibition?”
It does not answer the more important question: “How will this be perceived in context?”
The individuals contacting us now did not fail because of typographical errors. They failed because their case lacked strategic planning.
It answers the exact question asked. “How do I complete Form I-129F?”
We analyze the risks you do not see.
For example: If your fiancé previously spent an extended period in the United States on a visitor visa, filing a K-1 immediately may create concerns about preconceived intent. A strategic delay—or a different immigration path—may be necessary.
That is not a form question. It is a legal judgment call.
The immigration landscape is increasingly discretionary and enforcement-oriented. Policies evolve. Interview standards shift. Officers receive new internal guidance that may not yet be widely published.
AI systems do not monitor adjudication trends in real time. They do not appear at interviews. They do not respond to RFEs with strategic reframing of issues. They do not anticipate how a specific officer, at a specific field office, may interpret your facts.
Things may appear to go smoothly with AI—until the moment they do not.
And when a Notice of Intent to Deny arrives in 2026, correcting course is often far more expensive, complicated, and uncertain than doing it correctly the first time.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Oleg Gherasimov, Esq.
Stay informed with our latest articles and resources.
