The Government Is Connecting the Dots: How AI, Structured Data, and a Quiet Form Change Are Transforming Immigration Vetting

Grace Shie: Welcome to The Inside Track. My name is Grace Shie, and I'm joined by my partner Morgan Bailey today. We are going to discuss how the US immigration framework is evolving, specifically how information is being captured by the government and how that's changing the way immigration filings are being evaluated.

Morgan Bailey: It's an important shift because this isn't about a single policy change. It's about how the system is structuring information and using it in a more integrated way across adjudications.

Grace Shie: And that shift matters because it changes the focus from whether a single filing by an applicant is sufficient to whether that applicant's overall record is coherent and consistent.

Morgan Bailey: And that means that consistency across time is becoming just as important as the strength of any single filing.

Grace Shie: So let's start, Morgan, with a concrete example of what we mean. April 1 is a meaningful date for US immigration every year. And this year is no different, in part because we have a new form I-129, which is used by US employers to petition with USCIS for an employment-based visa. At first glance, this new form change feels procedural. But Morgan, why is this change more meaningful?

Morgan Bailey: Well, primarily because it reflects a deeper shift. The I-129 form, which, as you mentioned, it's used for many employment categories, including the H-1B cases for professional. It now requires much more structured detail about the role and the individual. This includes, for example, the degree, the requirements, the field of study, the years of experience, supervisory responsibilities. So previously that information was typically placed in the employer's letter of support, but now it's embedded directly into the form. So instead of there being an explanation of the role, that you're defining it in a way that can be analyzed. that really matters because these structured inputs allow for easier comparison across cases. So there's easier identification of inconsistencies as well. And more targeted follow-ups. So it's not just a form change. It's just change in really how cases can be evaluated at scale.

Grace Shie: So what you've described is a shift from a petition-centric system to something more beneficiary or applicant-centric. Walk us through that.

Morgan Bailey: Historically, in most cases, each petition was largely assessed on its own, its own facts, its own record. But what we're seeing now is a system that's increasingly capable of being oriented towards and looking at individuals across filings. So instead of asking, is this petition approvable? I think the question is becoming, does this make sense in the context of the individuals?

Grace Shie: Which is a fundamentally different question.

Morgan Bailey: It is, and because it means prior filings matter more, internal consistencies matter more, and you really need to think ahead about how something will be viewed later as well.

Grace Shie: Do you think this form change by USCIS is just a technical change or part of a broader directional shift by the agency?

Morgan Bailey: It's definitely directional. If you look at broader policy frameworks, there's a clear emphasis on more intensive vetting, as well as greater discretion and really more selective decision making. What's interesting is that you don't need a formal policy change to start seeing that play out. If you change how information is collected and compared, you effectively change how decisions get made.

Grace Shie: So the system isn't directly telling us that it's stricter, it just becomes stricter in how it operates.

Morgan Bailey: Exactly. The structure of the process starts to drive the outcome.

Grace Shie: That's where the shift becomes very real. Once you move from a petition focus to a does this make sense across everything we know about this applicant, then even small differences start to matter and to carry more weight. So why don't we discuss how this looks in practice with some examples.

Morgan Bailey: It shows them with the ways that aren't necessarily obvious, not in whether something is right or wrong, but in whether everything fits together cleanly over time. So let me give you a couple of examples. The first is where a rule evolves over time. In an earlier filing, the rule may be described as more execution-based, but in a later filing, it's described as more strategic or more leadership oriented. Individually, both may be supportable, but if that progression is not clearly explained, it can raise questions. So it's not that either version is necessarily wrong, it's that the connection between them may be unclear.

Grace Shie: In the government system is better positioned now to notice these differences, the examples that you gave, and for an adjudications officer to now require an explanation by the petitioner or the applicant around these differences.

Morgan Bailey: Yeah, that's right. The second example is where role is described as highly specialized or very technical and complex. But when you look across other touch points, such as let's say an internal job description or even the compensation or prior filings, maybe it doesn't fully align. Each piece on its own may be defensible, but together it may create some tension.

Grace Shie: So in your two examples, the issue isn't with any single data point that's included in the filing. It's how all the data points across multiple filings fit together.

Morgan Bailey: That's exactly right. And it's increasingly small inconsistencies that matter more. With the use of this targeted data collection, as well as with AI tools, the system is very good at noticing things that maybe preparers overlook or maybe would be hoping that they would just blend into the background.

Grace Shie: You mentioned AI, that's very important. And this lines up with what we're seeing more broadly. There is a greater emphasis by the government on screening and vetting in the US immigration system.

Morgan Bailey: I agree, there's clearly a toward a more ⁓ robust review and looking more closely at how cases are evaluated and how information is verified. It means the system is increasingly oriented towards identifying patterns, not just reviewing documents. So really, instead of asking, is this one submission sufficient, it's closer to, does this pattern of information make sense? And that's a subtle shift, but it's a powerful one.

Grace Shie: It is because patterns are harder to control than individual documents.

Morgan Bailey: Exactly. You can perfect a single filing. It's much harder to maintain consistency across multiple filings over time, particularly if you haven't been the one preparing the prior filings. But I think in terms of, you know, there's an aspect of risk as well. Maybe we could address that next.

Grace Shie: Yeah, the risk for employers that are filing for these employment-based categories using the new form I-129, their risk becomes less about whether a single filing for an employee is approvable, but more about whether the overall record for that employee is cohesive and defensible. And that employer may not be responsible for the entire record if the employee has moved from company and company, from petitioner to petitioner. So something that works in isolation for one filing now carries or potentially carries more risk for the employer if that filing doesn't align with a broader picture.

Morgan Bailey: So that sounds like the margin for inconsistency really narrows over time.

Grace Shie: So we've discussed this in the context of employers and employment-based filings. Let's also consider how this affects senior executives, high net worth individuals, high profile individuals within our US immigration system.

Morgan Bailey: I think it really reinforces the same core principle, basically that there's a consistency across context with prior filings, travel patterns, business activities, and public-facing information. The way someone describes their role or activities really needs to align.

Grace Shie: And you and I know from speaking with senior executives and other high profile clients, maintaining this consistency can be difficult because those descriptions of roles, job descriptions, areas of responsibility, that content is often created at different times along someone's career and by different people, sometimes a PR department or an HR manager or an external group, for example.

Morgan Bailey: Exactly. And that really underscores why it requires a more coordinated approach.

Grace Shie: So with that discussion of the changes that we're seeing post April 1, including with the Form I-129, let's now share our top suggestions for clients. And I'll start with our first. Get the facts aligned before you even start drafting the visa petition. A lot of issues don't come from the petition itself. Instead, they come from inconsistent inputs that are collected prior to drafting.

For example, the job offer letter for the candidate might say one thing, then your internal job description from your jobs bank says something else, and then the business team, the hiring team may describe the role altogether differently. So if you don't resolve that upfront, you're building the petition on a moving foundation. Our advice is take the moment at the beginning to make sure you're working from one clear, consistent description of the role.

Morgan Bailey: And second, don't look at just prior filings. Look at the broader record. That includes LinkedIn, website bios, public profiles, and even how the individual may have described their role or purpose when entering the United States previously. If the petition is described as highly specialized or senior role, that should generally align with how the individual presents professionally elsewhere. And if it doesn't, you want to understand why and decide whether to address that proactively.

Grace Shie: Good point. And three, you know, we'd say step back and look at the case the way that a USCIS adjudicator would. Once the petition is drafted, review the filing, ask yourself if you didn't know anything about this company or the individual applicant. Would this all make sense on its own? Is the job position clearly defined? Does the level match the job responsibilities described in the filing? Does the overall story hold together without having to make assumptions? Because what's obvious internally within an organization isn't always obvious from the outside. And if something needs explanation, it's better to address it directly than assume that it will be inferred and inferred correctly by the adjudicator.

Morgan Bailey: That's a great point. And then fourth, draft with a future in mind. Think about how this role may evolve, whether that's maybe a promotion or a change in responsibilities or a transfer, and make sure that the way it's described today allows for that progression that would make sense later. The goal isn't just to get this filing approved. It's really to position the role in a way that will still hold together as the individual's career develops.

Grace Shie: And fifth, don't ignore issues that you identify. If there's something that doesn't align perfectly, whether it's a shift in the job position, some variance from a prior filing, or something in the public record, the instinct can be to leave it alone and hope it doesn't come up at the time of adjudication. But in today's high enforcement, high scrutiny environment, it's often better to address it directly in a measured and credible way rather than leave it for someone else to question.

Morgan Bailey: That's a good point. So it's not about having a perfect record. It's about really having a coherent one.

Grace Shie: Clients need to be more deliberate and thoughtful about how today's answer will be read and interpreted later, months or years later.

Morgan Bailey: That's right. I think the takeaway here is that the biggest changes in immigration right now aren't necessarily the ones that are making the headlines. They're happening in how information is captured, how it's compared, and how it's evaluated. And the shift is really beneficiary-centric. It's a data-driven approach that will shape and really determine how cases are reviewed going forward.

Grace Shie: Thanks for joining me today, Morgan. On this topic, we will certainly continue assessing how the system evolves with the use of AI tools and this holistic review across filings, across this beneficiary-centric focus. With that, we're wrapping up this episode of The Inside Track. Thank you for joining us.