RRFE Assist
RFE response workspace for immigration firms

Every issue the notice raises, found and cited.

Upload an RFE. Get each issue extracted, cited to the standard that controls it, and turned into an evidence checklist — ready for your review.

See how it works

A 30-minute walkthrough of a sample notice. No commitment.

One notice, three passes.

Everything the software does happens before an attorney opens the file — and nothing leaves it without one.

01 / READ

Every issue, pulled and cited.

Notice · Shen, W. — EB-1Ap. 3/11

Three issues raised against the initial filing:

  • criticalExtraordinary ability not established on this record8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3)
  • criticalJudging evidence shows co-review, not independent review§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)
  • minorSubmitted CV omits dates for judging engagementsEvidence gap

The notice is parsed into discrete issues, each tied to the regulation or precedent that governs it — Kazarian for EB-1A, Dhanasar for a national-interest waiver.

02 / ASSIGN

Evidence, split by who owes it.

Evidence checklist2 of 4 cleared
Dated adjudication records naming a sole reviewerFirm · filed Oct 29
Letters distinguishing role from team participationClient · received Oct 31
Updated CV with judging datesClient · outstanding
Comparative evidence of recognition in the fieldFirm · outstanding

Each issue becomes a checklist item assigned to the client or the firm, so the chase lives in one place instead of an email thread.

03 / REVIEW

Nothing filed without sign-off.

Response outlineawaiting review
I. Extraordinary ability, generally
Reframes the record against the Kazarian two-step, citing recognition already on file.
II. Judging criterion
Submits sole-reviewer records; distinguishes the co-review evidence already submitted.
III. Sustained acclaim
Cross-references exhibits 4, 7 and 11 past the filing date.
Requires attorney approval before anything is filed

A structured response outline lands in your queue. You edit, approve, or reject each section. The software never files, sends, or decides.

Notice · Shen, W. — EB-1Ap. 3/11

Three issues raised against the initial filing:

  • criticalExtraordinary ability not established on this record8 CFR § 204.5(h)(3)
  • criticalJudging evidence shows co-review, not independent review§ 204.5(h)(3)(iv)
  • minorSubmitted CV omits dates for judging engagementsEvidence gap
Evidence checklist2 of 4 cleared
Dated adjudication records naming a sole reviewerFirm · filed Oct 29
Letters distinguishing role from team participationClient · received Oct 31
Updated CV with judging datesClient · outstanding
Comparative evidence of recognition in the fieldFirm · outstanding
Response outlineawaiting review
I. Extraordinary ability, generally
Reframes the record against the Kazarian two-step, citing recognition already on file.
II. Judging criterion
Submits sole-reviewer records; distinguishes the co-review evidence already submitted.
III. Sustained acclaim
Cross-references exhibits 4, 7 and 11 past the filing date.
Requires attorney approval before anything is filed

Why a general-purpose AI doesn't do this.

The gap isn't writing quality. It's that answering an RFE is a procedural task with a controlling standard behind every paragraph.

A chat assistant and a spreadsheetRFE Assist
The notice read line by line, issues copied out by hand.Each issue extracted on upload, with the governing citation attached.
Citations that sound right and occasionally aren't.Citations drawn from the standard that actually controls the issue, shown so you can check them.
Evidence chased across email between attorney, paralegal and client.One checklist that says who owes what, and what is still outstanding.
Deadlines in a calendar reminder, separate from the work.Deadline, stage and review queue on the same record as the response.

The three questions every attorney asks.

Answered plainly, because they're the right questions.

Will it invent citations?

Every citation is surfaced next to the issue it supports so you can verify it in one glance, and the analysis is constrained to the standards for the petition type rather than generated freely. Verification stays yours — that’s the point of showing the work.

Does it replace my judgment?

No. It produces an outline and a checklist; you decide what the argument is. There’s no auto-file, no auto-send, and no path where a response reaches USCIS without an attorney approving it.

What happens when the standard shifts?

The controlling standards are configuration, not training data — when policy guidance moves, the mapping is updated centrally rather than waiting on a model. Open matters show you which standard they were analyzed against.

Client files, handled like client files.

Immigration matters carry some of the most sensitive material a firm holds. This is the part we'd want answered first too.

Identifying numbers masked first

SSN, A-number, passport numbers and labeled dates of birth are stripped from the notice before it reaches any model — so what it analyzes is the argument, not your client's identifiers.

Encrypted and access-logged

In transit and at rest, with per-user access records your firm can audit.

Isolated per firm

Your matters stay in your own environment, never pooled with another firm's.

Never used to train models

Files are processed to do your work and nothing else, with retention bounded by your terms.

Your paper, signed

We sign your confidentiality and data-processing terms as part of onboarding, not after.

Where this is today

RFE Assist is pre-launch. The analysis runs end to end, and we're working with a small number of founding firms to harden it against real notices before opening it up.

That's the trade on a call: you see exactly what the analysis produces, and we hear where it falls short of what your practice actually needs.

Priced per firm, not per seat.

Adding a paralegal shouldn't be a budget decision, so the license doesn't work that way.

License
One firm, unlimited seats

Everyone who touches a matter gets access — attorneys, paralegals, and staff — on a single firm-level license scoped to your caseload.

Onboarding
Scoped to your workflow

The RFE module is already built, so onboarding is days rather than months. Workflow mapping and integrations are quoted after we've seen how your firm actually works.

Questions firms actually ask.

Which petition types are supported?

H-1B, EB-1A, EB-2 NIW and I-485 today, each analyzed against the standard that controls it. Others get added as firms bring them to us.

What if the analysis misses something?

It produces a draft outline and a checklist, not a filing. Each issue is shown with the citation behind it so you can check the reasoning rather than take it on trust, and nothing reaches USCIS without an attorney approving it. The work it saves is the first pass, not the judgment.

How long does onboarding take?

Days, not months, for the RFE module as it stands. Anything custom is scoped separately after a conversation.

Who is building this?

A small team, pre-launch, working directly with the first firms using it. You'll talk to the people building it, not a sales function.

See what it produces.

A short call, no obligation. We'll walk through a notice end to end — the issues it raises, the citations behind them, and the evidence checklist that comes out.