What to use AI for, and what not to
Counsel already wrote the draft. The question is how AI sits next to that draft.
The safest use is a structured review of the petition the firm produced. Sort the evidence. Find gaps. Map each claim to an exhibit. Run a skeptical-reviewer test. That is a completeness pass. It is not an instruction to write the petition.
A model will often agree with whatever you feed it. If the draft overclaims, the model will often overclaim with you. That is why lawyer judgment exists. ExtraordinaryOS helps lawyers be better at the completeness pass. It does not replace counsel.
Use it for the completeness pass
Work the draft you already have. Go criterion by criterion, or prong by prong, on the classification you are actually filing. Confirm the live source before you file. For EB-1A that is INA 203(b)(1)(A) and 8 CFR 204.5(h), read with USCIS Policy Manual Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 2. For EB-2 NIW, INA 203(b)(2), 8 CFR 204.5(k), Matter of Dhanasar, and Policy Manual Volume 6, Part F, Chapter 5. For O-1A, 8 CFR 214.2(o) and Policy Manual Volume 2, Part M.
Inventory. List what is in the record. Exhibits, letters, awards, citations, contracts, itineraries, press. Name the file. Write down what each one actually says, not what the cover letter hopes it says.
Claim-to-exhibit map. For each claim in the draft, point to the exhibit that supports it. If the exhibit does not say it, the review must not say it. Generic packaging fails here. A tidy narrative that is not tied to the file is still a gap.
Gaps. Missing initial evidence. A criterion carried by one thin letter. A Dhanasar prong that restates the occupation as the endeavor. An O-1A packet that never surfaces consultation, contract, or itinerary. List the holes. Do not fill them with invented facts.
Hostile read. Ask what a skeptical officer would do with this record. What is overclaimed. What is circular. What depends on a letter that restates the brief. The useful question is not how to make the same thin record sound stronger.
Issues for counsel. Put facts in one place. Evidence in another. Issues in a third. Then suggested questions. Then a blank for counsel’s legal decisions. The model lists. The lawyer decides.
A structured pass can beat messy or generic structure. It cannot invent evidence. It cannot replace specialist legal judgment.
Do not use it for this
Do not let the model reach a legal conclusion. Competence is the lawyer’s. The output is a list of issues on a draft. It is not advice to the client and it is not a finding that the petitioner meets the standard.
Do not ask it for approval odds. It does not know what USCIS will do with this file. Listing issues is the job. Predicting the officer is not.
Do not let it inflate the language past the record. False confidence is the usual harm. The wording gets more ambitious than the exhibits. Counsel still signs the petition.
Do not use it as a substitute for counsel. The firm remains counsel of record.
Do not upload client files to a vendor so a third-party tool can review the case. ExtraordinaryOS does not receive petitions or evidence. Support at [email protected] does not take files either. Do not send petitions, exhibits, or client identity there.
Why lawyer judgment is the job
A model will often agree with you. Feed it an overclaimed draft and it will often hand the overclaim back, in cleaner prose. Feed it a thin criterion and a generic rewrite will still be thin. The completeness pass is useful because it forces the record onto the page in a form counsel can reject.
That is the ethics floor. It is not a marketing claim. ExtraordinaryOS is not a law firm and does not give ethics advice. Counsel should read the opinions and apply their own jurisdiction’s rules.
ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 July 2024) is direct. Generative AI cannot replace the judgment and experience necessary for lawyers to competently advise clients. Uncritical reliance can violate competence under Model Rule 1.1. On confidentiality, Model Rule 1.6, informed consent is required before putting client information into a self-learning tool. Boilerplate engagement-letter clauses are not enough.
Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (19 January 2024) reaches the same professional point. Lawyers may use generative AI. They must protect confidentiality. They remain responsible for the work product and for professional judgment.
Neither opinion endorses ExtraordinaryOS. They describe the floor the lawyer already has.
How ExtraordinaryOS fits
The kits are a local second review of a draft the firm already wrote. Three kits: EB-1A, EB-2 NIW, and O-1A Petition Second Review. Choose the classification you are actually filing. Do not mix the standards. Confirm the live source before you file.
Files stay at the firm. There is no portal. ExtraordinaryOS never receives client files. The workflow inventories the record, checks claims against the classification sources, lists gaps and weak points, and writes a memo for counsel.
The memo has five sections only: Facts; Evidence; Issues; Suggested questions; Counsel legal decisions.
Instant start. Buy it, use it, email [email protected] if you need a hand. We help you get successful with the workflow. Do not send client files.
$199 special offer. One-time. Connects to the workflow the firm already uses. Choose a kit.
This page is educational only. It is not legal advice. Counsel retains every legal decision.