Before AI reviews a petition, make the filing record reviewable.
An AI review cannot repair a record that has not been organized. Before anyone runs a second pass, make the petition reviewable: identify the classification, identify the claim, identify the exhibit, and identify the lawyer who owns the legal decision.
This is not a prediction about an outcome. It is a way to make the next hour of lawyer review more useful and less likely to produce a polished summary of missing proof.
Start with filing readiness, not a prompt
For employment-based immigrant petitions, the regulation describes a properly filed petition as one accompanied by the required supporting documentation. The specific evidentiary requirements depend on the classification. That is why a second review should begin with the governing classification and the actual filing record, not a generic request to “strengthen the case.” See 8 CFR 204.5 and confirm the live source that applies on the filing date.
For an EB-1A filing, the regulation describes sustained national or international acclaim and lists the initial-evidence routes. Counsel decides what the record proves and how to present it. A review system should make that decision easier to inspect, not make it in the background.
The four-column pass
- ClassificationLock the petition type. Do not blend EB-1A, NIW, and O-1A standards because the file has similar facts.
- ClaimWrite the factual proposition in plain language. Avoid conclusion-first labels that the exhibit does not actually support.
- RecordAttach the exhibit identifier, date, source, and the precise portion that supports the claim. If the support is indirect, label it as indirect.
- OwnerSeparate factual gaps and drafting questions from counsel’s legal decisions. The lawyer remains responsible for the final theory and filing judgment.
What the second pass should surface
A useful pass does not rewrite every paragraph. It exposes the points that deserve counsel’s attention: a claim with no exhibit, an exhibit that does not match the wording, missing dates or source information, a classification-specific requirement that has been skipped, or a fact that needs a narrower statement.
That output is useful whether the answer is “add a source,” “ask the client for a document,” “remove the sentence,” or “counsel has already considered this and will keep it.” The point is an accountable record of the decision.
Keep confidential material under the firm’s control
ExtraordinaryOS does not receive petitions, exhibits, or client identity. Firms should use their own approved systems and decide whether material may be processed by any chosen AI provider under that provider’s terms. Start with a fictional or anonymized test file if the team is testing a workflow.
Our EB-1A Petition Second Review kit gives counsel a local structure for this pass: facts, evidence, issues, suggested questions, and counsel legal decisions. It is a one-time $199 download, not a portal or a substitute for legal judgment.
This page is educational only. It is not legal advice.