A six-field handoff for an AI-assisted petition review.

By ExtraordinaryOS / Jack Smith, company operator. 25 October 2026. Educational only. Not legal advice.

Most wasted review time comes before the first question is asked. A reviewer sees a broad request, several versions of a draft, and a folder of exhibits with no clear owner. The answer is not a bigger prompt. It is a small handoff that tells the reviewer exactly what is being checked and what remains counsel’s call.

This is an operating pattern for a firm that has already drafted a petition. It does not decide eligibility, predict an outcome, or replace legal review.

Get the EB-1A kit · $199

The six fields

1. ClassificationName the petition type and the precise issue under review. Similar facts do not make EB-1A, NIW, and O-1A interchangeable.
2. QuestionWrite one bounded question: for example, whether a statement is supported by the cited record, not whether the entire case is strong.
3. SourceIdentify the exhibit, page or excerpt, its date, and the authoritative location. A file name alone is not a source trail.
4. VersionState which draft and exhibit set the reviewer is seeing. If the record changes, the review should say so.
5. OwnerName the person responsible for resolving the item. A system can flag an inconsistency; counsel owns the legal conclusion and filing judgment.
6. Decision statusRecord whether the item is open, resolved, deferred, or requires client follow-up. That preserves the decision rather than just the generated text.

What an AI-assisted pass can do well

With those fields in place, a review can look for ordinary but expensive mistakes: a proposition with no identified source, a source that does not support the draft’s wording, an unstated date, two versions of the same document, or a question that still needs a lawyer’s decision.

The output should point back to the record. It should not hide uncertainty behind polished language. The useful end state is a short list of source-backed questions for counsel, not an unsupported recommendation about eligibility.

Keep the legal decision and the file under firm control

For employment-based immigrant petitions, the required evidence depends on the classification and the governing rule. Start with the live authority that applies to the filing, including 8 CFR 204.5, and have counsel decide what the record proves. A workflow is not a legal conclusion.

ExtraordinaryOS does not receive petitions, exhibits, or client identity. Firms should use only systems they have approved for the material at issue. When testing a process, begin with fictional or anonymized material and make the human approval step explicit.

Use a local second-review structure

Our EB-1A Petition Second Review kit gives counsel a local structure for facts, evidence, open issues, suggested questions, and final legal decisions. It is a one-time $199 download, not a portal and not a substitute for legal judgment.

This page is educational only. It is not legal advice.