Immigrants are using AI to help them prepare applications to immigrate to the United States. Is that a good idea? Not really. Here's why.
getty
It is past midnight. A man sits at his kitchen table, asking ChatGPT whether he can come to the United States to support his daughter, a U.S. permanent resident facing a difficult pregnancy. He once overstayed his U.S. visitor’s visa more than a decade ago. The AI tells him confidently that he is inadmissible and cannot apply for a waiver because he is not the parent or child of a U.S. citizen.
Weeks later, he walks into my office. It turns out the AI was wrong. He qualified for a waiver of inadmissibility through the sponsorship of his daughter, a lawful permanent resident. A simple misapplication of legal rules nearly kept him from his family.
This is not an isolated case.
As artificial intelligence becomes more accessible, more people are relying on tools like ChatGPT to navigate immigration law — to answer legal questions, complete applications, and even plan strategy. The appeal is obvious: fast, inexpensive, and always available. Especially when there are processing backlogs of filed cases.
But persuasive language is not the same as sound legal judgment.
The legal profession has already learned this lesson well. In Mata v. Avianca (2023), lawyers relied on AI-generated research that cited entirely fictitious cases. The result: court sanctions and widespread scrutiny of AI use in law.
Canada has seen similar warnings. In Zhang v. Chen, a British Columbia court cautioned against relying on AI-generated legal authorities after fabricated citations appeared in filings. Courts are now explicitly warning lawyers: verify everything.
MORE FOR YOU
If trained lawyers can make these mistakes, what chance does the average applicant have?
Immigration law is one of the most complex and fast-changing areas of legal practice.
Unlike other fields, it does not evolve slowly. Policies shift overnight. Forms are updated without warning. Entire programs appear, disappear, or change direction due to political decisions, court rulings, or administrative priorities.
Even experienced lawyers encounter situations where a form used yesterday is obsolete today.
For AI, this presents a fundamental problem.
AI systems are backward-looking. They rely on patterns in existing data. Immigration law is forward-moving — success depends on anticipating how rules are applied today and how they may shift tomorrow.
Even governments acknowledge this volatility. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services frequently updates policies and forms without long lead times.
No model trained on past data can reliably keep pace.
Supporters often describe AI as “intelligent.” But is it really?
Angus Fletcher, author of Primal Intelligence, argues that human thinking involves qualities AI cannot replicate: intuition, empathy, imagination, and common sense. These are not abstract traits — they are essential in legal decision-making.
That matters because immigration law is not mechanical.
People immigrate for deeply human reasons: family reunification, safety, opportunity, survival. The stakes are enormous:
According to U.S. government requirements, even small errors can trigger severe consequences, including multi-year bans from re-entry. This is particularly true under the Trump’s order to put immigration applications under extensive scrutiny.
Immigration law is not just about filling out forms. It is about judgment.
Two applicants with identical facts can receive different outcomes depending on how their case is presented. Officers assess credibility, intent, and consistency — factors that go far beyond written answers.
AI cannot meaningfully evaluate any of that.
AI makes immigration look easy.
Answers come quickly. Language is polished. The process feels manageable.
But that simplicity is an illusion.
Immigration decisions often turn on subtle details:
The truth and the appearance of truth are not always the same. AI cannot reliably distinguish between them.
In practice, many applicants seek legal help only after AI-generated mistakes have already caused damage — sometimes irreversible.
One of AI’s most dangerous traits is confidence.
It provides answers decisively, even when incomplete or incorrect. It rarely says: “I need more information.” It does not probe for risk or challenge assumptions.
Yet immigration law is built on nuance and uncertainty.
When a lawyer gives advice, there are safeguards:
AI has none of these.
No accountability. No responsibility. No consequences for being wrong.
That matters when decisions affect families, finances, and futures.
To be clear, AI has value. I use it myself — for organizing information, summarizing documents, and handling administrative tasks. It is very useful if you know what you are doing.
It is a useful assistant. But not if you don’t know what you are doing.
It is a dangerous decision-maker.
There is a critical difference between using AI as a tool and relying on it as a substitute for professional judgment.
Experienced immigration lawyers do far more than complete forms. They:
Most importantly, they understand consequences.
Behind every application is a human being trying to build a future.
Many people hesitate to hire a lawyer because of cost.
But they often underestimate the cost of mistakes:
Free advice can be the most expensive advice you ever follow. In short, free advice is not free. It can actually cost you a fortune if it is wrong.
Technology will continue to transform legal practice. AI will improve. Lawyers will use it more effectively.
But tools are not substitutes for judgment, experience, or human understanding.
Immigration decisions are among the most consequential choices people make. They determine where — and how — someone lives: their opportunities, security, family life, and stability.
That future deserves more than guesswork disguised as intelligence.
The real question is not whether AI can generate answers.
It is whether people are willing to gamble their lives on a system that does not truly understand them.
AI may someday draft flawless applications. But it still cannot understand fear, urgency, or what it means to fight for a family’s future.
The man at the kitchen table eventually will get his waiver.
Many others never do.
When the stakes involve your family, your career, and your future, the wisest course remains the oldest one:
Get experienced advice — and get it right the first time.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。