Immigration software news and updates.

The immigration policy preferences of the Trump administration are embodied in the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act, a piece of proposed legislation which has been introduced into Congress by Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia. The RAISE Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the Diversity Visa Program, to limit the President’s discretion in setting the number of refugees admitted annually to the United States, to reduce the number of family-sponsored immigrants, to create a new nonimmigrant classification for the parents of adult United States citizens, and for other purposes. Specifically, the bill would:

• cut legal immigration by half, reducing the number of green cards from more than 1 million to about 500,000
• lower capped family categories from 226,000 green cards presently to 88,000
• remove pathways for siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to apply for permanent lawful residency status in the U.S.
• eliminate all family sponsorship beyond spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and LPRs
• reducing the age limit for minor children from 21 to 18
• eliminate the “parents of US citizens” category of permanent immigration, instead allowing them to come for five years at a time uner a renewable “W-visa” while requiring U.S. sponsors to demonstrate the parents have health-care coverage and accept full responsibility for their parent’s economic support. Parents would be barred from any public benefit, even provided by a state or local government (a provision that will probably be challenged in the courts)
• create a “points system” for the selection of immigrants coming via employer sponsorship
• impose a cap of 50,000 refugee admissions a year
• eliminate the Diversity Visa lottery
• invalidates any petition in a category being eliminated by the RAISE Act (and any application for an immigrant visa based on such a petition) if the petition was filed after August 2, 2017, the date the RAISE Act bill was introduced into Congress
• prohibits naturalization of a person, if they ever received means tested public benefits while a permanent resident unless the sponsor on their affidavit of support has reimbursed the federal government the cost of such benefits

These changes would be the most significant alterations to the Immigration and Nationality Act since the current version of the Act, which created our present family-based immigration system, was passed in 1965. The RAISE Act is nowhere close to being passed at the time of this writing, and seems to lack enough support at the present time to be put to a vote in the Senate.

James Pittman is co-founder of Docketwise and was previously engaged in the private practice of US Immigration Law. He also regularly teaches Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes on immigration law topics and legal ethics. He is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and is a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law.

‍

Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest (MAVNI) was a program that allowed certain foreign nationals who were in the US temporarily, such as through student visas or here as refugees, to join the US Armed Forces if they possessed critical language or medical skills. Most of its participants came from Africa, the Middle East, China, India, and Eastern Europe. Most applicants came from countries for which the U.S. had a need for service members with native-level fluency in certain strategically important foreign languages. The MAVNI program was begun by the Department of Defense in 2009. Over 10,000 military service personnel have come through the program. In 2016, MAVNI recruits were ordered to undergo additional background screening, this decision by the government effectively froze the program. The last MAVNI recruits entered around October 2016, right after the additional background checks were required. Since then, no additional recruits have joined through MAVNI. The program ceased taking new applicants at the end of 2016.

The roughly 1,000 applicants in the program before it was frozen have been left in no-man's land, unable to get cleared to move on to active duty. Some of those applicants are now being discharged from service and the remainder of them are also likely to be discharged if background checks are not completed within three years of the date they signed their military service contract. There is no set time period for completion of such background checks.

Moreover, as enrollment in MAVNI by itself does not provide a legal immigration status, some MAVNI recruits who are awaiting the completion of their background investigations may go out of status. In that case, besides being unable to begin military service as planned, they could be subject to immigration enforcement action against them, up to and including deportation, as their presence in the USA would no longer be considered legal.

It is most unfortunate that the difficulties the government is having with adequately vetting these applicants is leading to the demise of a promising program for attracting talent to the nation's armed forces.\ \ James Pittman is co-founder of Docketwise and was previously engaged in the private practice of US Immigration Law. He also regularly teaches Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes on immigration law topics and legal ethics. He is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and is a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law.

‍

Fulfilling promises made during the presidential campaign to get tough on illegal border crossers, the Trump administration acting through Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in early Spring 2018 that it would implement a zero tolerance policy for those who cross the Southern US border illegally. As such each and every adult who illegally entered would be criminally prosecuted for violating 8 USC §1325(a), a violation of which is a federal misdemeanor.

8 USC §1325(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

Such adults were held in federal custody, prosecuted and then subjected to removal proceedings. However, owing to the existence of a federal court order which outlined the conditions under which juveniles may be held in immigration detention, the administration had to separate the children of these aliens and detain them separately.

The Flores Settlement

In 1997, a settlement was signed in theFlores v INScase which had reached SCOTUS. The terms of the settlement have governed treatment of migrant children in detention ever since. The Flores settlement has been revisited multiple times, most recently in 2015 when the Obama administration sought to carve out an exception for minors who had arrived in the U.S. with their parents. It came amid a surge in migrant families from Central America, and the administration wanted to detain some of them for as long as it took to process their cases. A federal judge in California said no, which brings us to the present when the Trump administration submitted a very similar request on June 20, 2018. And the same federal judge, Dolly Gee, just issued a ruling rejecting the government’s attempt to modify the settlement 33 years after Carlos Holguin first brought suit on behalf of Jenny Flores.

The Trump administration said in a court filing on July 19, 2018 that it has reunified 364 of more than 2,500 migrant children separated from their parents at the U.S. southern border, just one week before a court-ordered deadline. Of 1,607 parents eligible to be reunited with their children, the filing said, 719 have final orders of deportation, meaning they could be removed from the country as soon as they are reunited. Those parents may have to choose between bringing their child back to a violent country or leaving them behind in the care of the government, nonprofits, foster families or relatives in order to seek asylum in the United States.

And the crisis continues….

\ James Pittman is co-founder of Docketwise and was previously engaged in the private practice of US Immigration Law. He also regularly teaches Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes on immigration law topics and legal ethics. He is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and is a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law.

‍

As part of its policy push for reducing the number of skilled workers brought to the US under the H-1B program, the Trump admin has made the H-1B more difficult to obtain. A substantial step in this direction took place when Pres. Trump signed the Buy American and Hire American executive order on April 18, 2017 .

The Buy American provision established the policy of the executive branch to maximize, consistent with law, through terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards and Federal procurements, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States.

Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Labor, the United States Trade Representative, and the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, were required to issue guidance to agencies about how to make the assessments and to develop the policies required.

Within 150 days, federal agencies were to report on implementation to the Sec. of Commerce and the Director of OMB, and those secretaries were to report on the impact of implementation of trade agreements to which the US is a party. Further reports would be required at the 220 days mark and thereafter annually beginning in January 2019.

The Hire American portion of the order established the policy of the executive branch to increase enforcement and more rigorously apply standards for issuance of employment based visa categories, including section 212(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(5)).

(USCIS) Policy Memorandum PM-602-0157

On February 22, 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published Policy Memorandum PM-602-0157, titled "Contracts and Itineraries Requirements for H-1B Petitions Involving third-Party Worksites." Among other things, the memo provides guidance on USCIS' interpretation of8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(B), a long-standing provision which which states that an H-1B petition "which requires services to be performed or training to be received in more than one location must include an itinerary with the dates and locations of the services or training."

Will Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for H-4 Visa Holders become a thing of the past?The Trump administration has indicated a desire to rescind the federal regulation allowing employment authorization for H-4 dependents of H1-B non-immigrants, which was issued by the Obama administration in 2015. This intention to revoke eligibility for EADs by H-4 holders was restated by USCIS in aletter dated April 4, 2018 to Senator Chuck Grassley. In June 2018USCIS issued a notice of proposed rulemakingrestating its plan to remove the H-4 visa from the classes of aliens eligible to apply for work authorization. However, as of the end of June 2018, DHS/USCIS failed to meet its deadline for the second time this year to promulgate specific rule language, which would have formally kicked off the process to terminate the EAD eligibility of H-4 non-immigrants. Once proposed rule language is issued there will be a period which may last 60 days for public comment before the rule becomes final.\ \ James Pittman is co-founder of Docketwise and was previously engaged in the private practice of US Immigration Law. He also regularly teaches Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes on immigration law topics and legal ethics. He is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and is a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law.

‍

I’ve just returned from the Inaugural AILA Tech Summit, held yesterday at the Washington DC national office of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). This invitation-only event brought together prominent members of the private bar and AILA staff to coordinate efforts to inform the immigration law community about the advances in technology which are reshaping the ways that immigration lawyers practice. A brief summary of each panel follows.

Artificial Intelligence in Law Firms Today

We first heard from Greg Siskind of the firm Siskind Susser. Mr. Siskind has made great strides in automating his client on-boarding and internal office processes. His firm uses custom-built apps employing artificial intelligence to perform many functions, such as:

• determining if individuals are eligible for specific visa categories
• generating a customized retainer agreement for each case
• soliciting client feedback about their satisfaction with the firm’s services
• performing artificial intelligence-powered legal research

Among other achievements, Siskind Susser, through a partnership with Neota Logic, has automated the process for creating a public access file which employers must maintain for all H-1B employees.

Future of Immigration Case Management Software

A second panel featured executives of several immigration case management companies. The discussion focused on ongoing improvements in the field, in particular an increase in the number of API integrations.

The advances that have been made in integrating processes seamlessly amount to a sea change, allowing us to in the near future to work within an environment where all law firm processes will be automated and seamlessly integrated, including:

• inbound marketing and client on-boarding
• case management and forms production
• compliance functionality that interfaces with E-Verify and I-9 compliance tools

USCIS Transformation to Online Filing

Another session was devoted to the topic of “USCISTransformation” which included discussion of the current state and planned evolution of the USCIS Electronic Immigration System (ELIS), which presently only allows e-filing for a few forms, but is slated for expansion.

Leon Rodriguez, who served as the Director of USCIS from 2014-2017, related the stated current goal of USCIS to have a comprehensive e-filing platform in place by the end of 2020. Given the history of previous attempts at building such a system and the very slow progress to date despite enormous resources being devoted to the task, the reaction from many in the audience was skeptical. Nevertheless, Mr.Rodriguez’s comments provided essential insights into why the transition to a modern e-filing system has been so difficult and slow.

• In creating a comprehensive e-filing system for USCIS, the internal processes within the agency relating to case tracking and adjudication must be modernized
• The task faced by USCIS is not merely deploying a consumer-facing platform but also making sure that the USCIS-facing side is equipped to handle the transition without causing technical glitches or perhaps even a total crash of the platform.
• Were such a crash to occur, the result could be paralysis at the agency and additional months of adjudication time for cases, all of which could have potentially massive negative consequences for the public.

Ethical Considerations of Changing Delivery Models

The ethical rules lawyers must abide by when contemplating making internet-based innovations in their practices were discussed in an afternoon session led by Hope Todd, Ethics Counsel for the District of Columbia Bar. Ms. Todd focused on the topic below.

• Evolution in ethical standards by the 50 state bars has been extremely slow compared to the development of online technologies.
• A historic resistance to advertising and territorialism on the part of local bars has led to a patchwork of standards in the rules regarding online advertising, with a few outlier jurisdictions still requiring such onerous steps as maintaining static screenshots of all advertising done online.
• When doing online marketing, attorneys must not engage in giving referral fees to non-lawyers or fee splitting with non-lawyers.
• The well-known online legal document provider LegalZoom has effectively won all of its battles against the state bars who had accused the company early-on of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
• A recent resolved case arising in Florida involved the traffic ticket app TIKD. The Florida bar had accused TIKD of unauthorized practice of law and had prohibited Florida attorneys from the app generate business. TIKD filed a federal antitrust suit against the Florida bar, alleging that state regulators colluded with a traditional private law firm called Ticket Clinic, a competitor of TIKD, to put the tech company out of business. The Florida Bar’s motion for dismissal argued that the bar is immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine because it is an arm of the state Supreme Court and an agency of the state. The US District Court granted the bar’s motion to dismiss in December 2018.

Online Delivery of Legal Services

Another afternoon session “Online Delivery of Legal Services” discussed new models through which immigration law firms can become competitive by using web-based applications that automate form preparation and shift the data entry tasks to prospective clients, greatly reducing labor for law firm staff and thereby allowing the firm to substantially lower fees for clients.

Offering limited scope of services in selected cases to provide clients with a partial self-help solution for their case at a reduced fee was another topic explored, including which types of cases could be handled in such a fashion and how firms can compete with non-lawyer tech companies offering purely do-it-yourself form preparation products.

Nonprofits as Technology Leaders

The nonprofit sector was the subject of the second to last panel of the day.

• Technological innovations that immigration service-providing nonprofits are implementing include the use of SalesForce for managing on-boarding.
• Nonprofits are driven by the need to maximally utilize available resources to serve their client bases, thereby demonstrating efficiency to their funding foundations.
• For non-profits, it’s not about technology per se. It’s about using the technology to increase the organization’s efficiency and effectiveness in doing its work thereby more fully realize its mission.

Attendee Forum

The final session of the day-long event was a discussion with AILA Executive Director Ben Nelson. The discussion focused on the types of events AILA should organize to help members become proficient at using the latest technologies and reduce the fear of change felt by some lawyers. The discussion concluded that AILA must work to create an overall vision of immigration practice in the future, a future in which member attorneys can see themselves practicing in the new seamless online environment and using the latest technological tools to maximize their ability to serve clients and flourish as practitioners.

‍

The case known as Matter of A-B, 27 I&N Dec. 316 (A.G. 2018) which was decided by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has made Gang Violence and Domestic Abuse Asylum Claims harder to win by narrowing the definition of what constitutes a social group for purposes of claiming asylum, and increasing the burden on asylum seekers to show that they cannot find any safe area in their own country to which they can relocate. In deciding this matter, the Attorney General invoked a rarely used executive power to take an immigration case out of the hands of the Immigration Court system and render a decision on it himself.\ \ Case Background

Ms. AB was a Salvadoran woman who suffered extreme domestic violence from her husband.

She fled to the US and passed her credible fear interview. IJ Stuart Couch at Charlottesville Immigration Court denied her asylum claim, concluding based on perceived omissions in her testimony that she was not credible and thus not eligible for asylum. Judge Couch rejected AB’s proposed social group supported by patriarchal conditions in El Salvador that mirror those in Guatemala (which has been the subject of the Matter of A-R-C-G which allowed asylum claims based on domestic violence claims ).

Ms. A.B. appealed, the Board unanimously reversed the IJ, finding Ms. A.B. eligible for asylum based on her experience of domestic violence. The Board overturned the IJ’s negative credibility finding, concluding that Ms. A.B. had in fact testified credibly and that the minor omissions in her testimony were a result of the traumatic violence she had endured and its lasting psychological impact. The Board also found that Ms. A.B.’s proposed particular social group met the legal requirements for asylum, noting similarities between her case and the Board’sA-R-C-G-decision. The Board remanded to the IJ for a grant of asylum.

DHS completed AB’s background checks, but in a departure from usual practice, the IJ refused to issue a new decision instead attempting to “recertify” the case back to the Board for further consideration. In his order, the IJ questioned the continued “legal validity” ofA-R-C-G-. Seven months later, on March 7, 2018, the Attorney General referred the case to himself for a decision.

Holding

(1) Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 338 (BIA 2014) is overruled. That decision was wrongly decided and should not have been issued as a precedential decision.

(2) An applicant seeking to establish persecution on account of membership in a “particular social group” must demonstrate: (1) membership in a group, which is composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, is defined with particularity, and is socially distinct within the society in question; and (2) that membership in the group is a central reason for her persecution. When the alleged persecutor is someone unaffiliated with the government, the applicant must also show that her home government is unwilling or unable to protect her.

(3) An asylum applicant has the burden of showing her eligibility for asylum. The applicant must present facts that establish each element of the standard, and the asylum officer, immigration judge, or the Board has the duty to determine whether those facts satisfy all of those elements.

(4) If an asylum application is fatally flawed in one respect, an immigration judge or the Board need not examine the remaining elements of the asylum claim.

(5) The mere fact that a country may have problems effectively policing certain crimes or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.

(6) To be cognizable, a particular social group must exist independently of the harm asserted in an application for asylum.

(7) An applicant seeking to establish persecution based on violent conduct of a private actor must show more than the government’s difficulty controlling private behavior. The applicant must show that the government condoned the private actions or demonstrated an inability to protect the victims.

(8) An applicant seeking asylum based on membership in a particular social group must clearly indicate on the record the exact delineation of any proposed particular social group.

(9) The Board, immigration judges, and all asylum officers must consider, consistent with the regulations, whether internal relocation in the alien’s home country presents a reasonable alternative before granting asylum.

Credible Fear

USCIS Memorandum on Processing Reasonable Fear, Credible Fear, Asylum and Refugee Claims in Light of Matter of A-B

\ James Pittman is co-founder of Docketwise and was previously engaged in the private practice of US Immigration Law. He also regularly teaches Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes on immigration law topics and legal ethics. He is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and is a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law.

‍

The creation of the DACA program by the Obama administration in 2012 brought hope to over a million young people who who were brought to the United States without immigration documents as children. DACA is an acronym for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Created by Executive Order, this program allowed those without legal status to be protected from deportation and apply for work authorization if they were under 16 when they were brought to the US, graduated from or were currently enrolled in high school or had earned a General Equivalency Diploma (GED), and did not have a criminal record, among other requirements. Hundreds of thousands of young people appllied for DACA status, were granted work authorization, and have been moving forward with their lives.\ \ However, President Donald Trump, since his emergence as a national political figure, has criticized and attacked DACA and promised to rescind the executive order that created it. Soon after his inauguration, he began to fulfill this promise. On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Sessions made a public statementannouncing the rescission of DACA. The same day USCIS issued a Memorandum stating that USCIS would no longer accept initial DACA requests or renewal requests except for those that fit within a certain narrow time-frame.

\ The actions of the AG and USCIS provoked a wave of litigation. At the present time there are two federal injunctions in place, aJanuary 9, 2018 injunctionfrom the Northern District of California, and a February 13, 2018 injunctionfrom the Eastern District of New York. Essentially these judicial decisions require USCIS to hold open the DACA program on the same terms as it existed before the AG’s announcement. USCIS is not presently accepting requests from individuals who have never before been granted deferred action under DACA, nor is it accepting any requests for Advance Parole based on a grant of DACA.\ \ Tips for Preparing DACA Application Packages:

• DACA requests are filed on Form I-821D. Applications for Employment Authorization based on a DACA request are filed on Forms I-765 and I-765WS. Attorneys entering their appearance to represent the Applicant must file Form G-28.
• Applicants who previously received DACA and whose DACA expired on or after Sept. 5, 2016, may still file a DACA renewal request. They should list the date their prior DACA ended in the appropriate box on Part 1 of the Form I-821D.
• Applicants who previously received DACA and whose DACA expired before Sept. 5, 2016, or whose most recent DACA grant was previously terminated, cannot request DACA as a renewal because renewal requests typically must be submitted within one year of the expiration date of the last period of deferred action approved under DACA. Instead, these Applicants may nonetheless file a new initial DACA request in accordance with the Form I-821D and Form I-765 instructions. To assist USCIS with reviewing ther DACA request for acceptance, if filing a new initial DACA request because the Applicant’s DACA expired before Sept. 5, 2016, or because it was terminated at any time, please list (if available) the date the prior DACA grant expired or was terminated on Part 1 of the Form I-821D.

James Pittman is co-founder of Docketwise and was previously engaged in the private practice of US Immigration Law. He also regularly teaches Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes on immigration law topics and legal ethics. He is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey and is a graduate of Northeastern University School of Law.

‍

Of all areas of the law, immigration practice can be one of the most personally meaningful, as it involves helping clients work through profoundly significant life transitions.

That said, running an immigration law firm can be difficult work. Luckily, like in many other fields, technology has made everything a bit easier. Using it effectively can lead to increase business and reduced costs. For many lawyers, technology is a real no-brainer, but the most difficult part is knowing how to start. Luckily, doing so is more straightforward than one might think!

By necessity, immigration law requires the submission of extensive forms to federal agencies like USCIS. This used to mean hours of tedious data entry, done mostly by hand. Now though, immigration software has made this part of the practice easier than ever before! Technology has allowed for the preparation of these forms to be almost fully automated, leaving more time for the work that really matters.

Software provides a user-friendly interface for organizing cases, establishing timelines, and delegating work to team members

But immigration software does more than just simplify the completion of forms! It can also double as a robust case management platform. In other words, the software provides a user-friendly interface for organizing cases, establishing timelines, and delegating work to team members.

Put simply, technology can increase the efficiency of law firms that handle immigration cases. It boils down to this—less time spent on each case equals more cases which equals more impact. Rather than doing mindless clerical work, attorneys can spend more of their valuable time helping clients.

Here are some of the features which make technology such a boon to the field of immigration law:

Send Personalized Questionnaires to Clients

One of the first steps in an immigration case used to be having clients sit down with a pen and paper to write down an exhaustive array of personal information, some of which might not even be applicable in their particular case. Requiring everything from citizenship status to marital details to past employment, this process could be quite lengthy.

These sorts of dynamic features greatly reduce the time and effort needed to gather pertinent client information.

Now though, immigration case management software like Docketwise makes it possible for attorneys to streamline the information collection process by sending personalized questionnaires to their clients. These questionnaires allow lawyers to choose which specific questions to ask on a case-by-case basis, meaning that clients only have to provide information that is really needed. Questionnaires also come professionally branded with a firm’s individual logo, and have multilingual functionality, meaning they can easily be toggled to whichever language a client is most comfortable with. These sorts of dynamic features greatly reduce the time and effort needed to gather pertinent client information.

Create and Edit Forms with Ease

Immigration software handles not only the completion of forms, but also the selection of forms in the first place, a process which can be complicated.

As previously noted, technology has helped automate the job of completing forms for immigration proceedings. Much of this is due to the advent of smart forms, which can populate long, complicated documents with client information in a single click.

The data is received through the aforementioned questionnaires, stored in a digital profile, and matched to forms as needed through a finely-tuned software. These smart forms feature complicated logic that can determine the exact array of forms to prepare based upon the details of the case.

Immigration software handles not only the completion of forms, but also the selection of forms in the first place, a process which can be complicated. Reputable services include every form an immigration practitioner might need, even the most obscure. In special cases, attorneys can also create and edit forms from scratch for ease and flexibility. Notice an input error, or want to change something later? Forms can be easily edited after the fact.

With the ability to produce hundreds of pages in just minutes, this technology can save vast amounts of time and effort.

Organize and Delegate Cases to Staff

Aside from expediting the process of creating forms, immigration software can also serve as a fully functional case management platform. This means that it often includes an array of useful administrative features, which allow immigration law firms to sort their work in an intuitive fashion.

Cases can be assigned to particular members of a team, so each individual knows what he or she is responsible for. Time-sensitive tasks can be given due dates, which will trigger automated reminders as deadlines approach.

Immigration software also allows attorneys to write notes for each particular case, in order to keep track of useful details. All this comes in a single, centralized location, making for an easy and efficient workflow. Because of this all-in-one functionality, practitioners do not have to switch between platforms while working, which makes things simpler.

Store Client Information Securely on the Cloud

Another benefit of immigration case management software is cloud-based storage, which makes it possible for lawyers to access their cases from anywhere. Rather than having data stored on in-house servers or in physical form, immigration software provides firms a secure home for their cases online. Accessible only through password-protected logins, which can be issued to multiple team members, immigration software provides attorneys a user-friendly repository of client information.

Out of the office?

Traveling?

No problem.

This interface can be accessed with just an internet connection. With this emerging technology, different individuals in an immigration law firm can access case information no matter where they are. Attorneys should make sure to look for a service which employs a highly-trusted cloud encryption protocol, like Docketwise’s Amazon S3, to ensure that data is being handled with the utmost care.

Ignore the Hassle and Danger of Regular USCIS Changes

USCIS rolls out changes to its many forms on a regular basis. Keeping up with each new edition can be a huge headache

From smaller cosmetic updates to more substantive overhauls, USCIS rolls out changes to its many forms on a regular basis. Keeping up with each new edition can be a huge headache.

Luckily, immigration software like Docketwise closely monitors these updates, and adjusts accordingly within just a few business days of a change. Subscribers never have to worry about filing outdated versions of forms, and can instead focus their attention on more substantive areas of their practice. These updates, as well as round-the-clock customer service, are included with the basic package.

Intrigued about all the ways in which technology can help streamline your immigration law practice? See for yourself with a 30 day free trial of Docketwise, and experience all that a comprehensive case management software has to offer your firm.

‍