Intake and evidence
Automate immigration document collection with structured evidence requests, evidence gap queues, attorney-controlled review, and cleaner case-prep workflows.
Book a workflow review See the gap queueImmigration document collection automation manages requesting, chasing, completeness, and missing-item follow-up. It is distinct from document automation, which classifies and extracts received files for use in forms, letters, evidence maps, and packet preparation.
Teams that spend too much time chasing clients, reconciling uploads, and rebuilding the same document checklists across case types.
Operator workflow
The expensive failure is not a missing passport scan. It is discovering, two days before attorney review, that the file has documents with no issue date, uploads in the wrong category, untranslated civil records, or employer support letters that do not match the petition theory. A document collection system should turn those gaps into a working queue with owners and review status.
| Gap signal | Queue owner | Automation action | Human review point |
| Required item not uploaded | Client success or paralegal | Send a case-specific request with deadline, examples, and portal link. | Confirm whether the item is truly required for the case strategy. |
| Uploaded file has unclear date, name, or document type | Intake specialist | Flag the field, ask for clarification, and keep the file out of the draft-ready set. | Reviewer approves the corrected label before drafting. |
| Foreign-language record appears untranslated | Operations lead | Route to translation workflow and hold downstream drafting dependency. | Attorney or qualified reviewer checks whether translation standards are met. |
| Employer letter conflicts with case facts | Attorney reviewer | Show the mismatch next to intake notes and prior drafts. | Attorney resolves the substantive issue before filing work continues. |
Pick ten active matters and ask: can the team see every missing, unclear, stale, or attorney-blocked document in one queue without opening the CRM, inbox, shared drive, and spreadsheet separately? If not, the collection workflow is still leaking work.
Do not let software decide eligibility, waive evidence, or give legal conclusions. The safer pattern is structured collection, gap detection, source visibility, and attorney-controlled review.
| Problem | Common failure | Automation target |
| Client requests | Generic checklists | Case-specific evidence requests |
| Follow-up | Manual reminders | Gap-based follow-up queues |
| Attorney review | Unsorted uploads | Organized, source-linked evidence packets |
Infinity can compare the matter against a case-specific request list, identify missing or unclear uploads, assign the next action, and trigger supported follow-up workflows based on what the case still needs.
Attorneys decide legal sufficiency and whether evidence requirements have been met. Automation keeps the operational queue current and sends approved information into downstream case preparation.
Because late or incomplete evidence creates drafting delays, review churn, and avoidable client follow-up.
Generic portals that collect files but do not structure evidence around the legal workflow.
The CRM can stay the matter system while automation handles the evidence workflow around intake, review, and drafting.