An Immigration Intake and Evidence Checklist That Survives Handoff

An immigration intake is useful when another person in the firm can open the matter and understand what is reported, what is documented, what conflicts, and what counsel still needs to decide. A completed questionnaire by itself does not meet that standard.

The intake should gather the client’s account, connect material facts to documents, branch by matter type and procedural posture, and preserve uncertainty. It should also avoid asking every client for the firm’s entire immigration checklist. Overcollection creates review work, privacy exposure, and confusion without making the file more complete.

Start with identity and case anchors

Create the stable record before branching into a petition or application workflow:

• legal name, other names used, date and place of birth;
• A-number, USCIS online account number, and receipt numbers where applicable;
• current address, safe mailing address, phone, email, and language needs;
• current status or reported posture, with the source and expiration date;
• prior filings, decisions, entries, departures, and proceedings; and
• petitioner, beneficiary, sponsor, derivative, employer, or family relationships relevant to the matter.

Every identifier should retain its source. A name reported in intake, a name on a passport, and a name on an I-94 may differ. The intake should show the discrepancy rather than quietly choosing one value.

Branch the request after counsel identifies the pathway

A family adjustment, consular matter, naturalization case, humanitarian filing, employment petition, and removal matter should not begin with the same evidence list. Maintain a stable core, then attach a pathway-specific checklist that counsel has approved.

The branch should distinguish:

• facts needed to evaluate the matter;
• evidence ordinarily expected for the selected filing;
• documents required by the current form instructions;
• items the client says do not exist or cannot be obtained;
• originals that must be preserved or presented later; and
• issues that should not be converted into client-facing conclusions.

The USCIS forms index is the appropriate starting point for current forms and instructions. For matters in immigration court, the firm should keep the current EOIR Policy Manual and the court’s specific orders beside the intake path. A template copied last year should not be treated as present-day authority.

Treat each document as evidence, not an attachment

For every requested item, record:

This makes “received” a meaningful status. A cropped image, expired record, partial notice, untranslated certificate, or document belonging to the wrong family member should not clear the requirement.

Keep translations and signatures visible

Translation status belongs on the requirement, not in a staff member’s memory. Record the source language, translation received, translator certification, and attorney acceptance. Preserve both the source document and translation as a pair.

Signature checks also need their own state. USCIS explains in its Policy Manual chapter on signatures that form-specific instructions matter and that a typed name is not generally a valid handwritten signature for a paper request. The intake system can identify a blank signature field or a mixed-edition packet; counsel and current instructions determine what is acceptable for the filing.

Build a chronology before form population

Dates from passports, I-94 records, visas, notices, prior filings, court records, and client recollection should be organized into one chronology with source states. Do not force a disputed date into a clean timeline.

Useful states include:

• documented;
• client reported;
• inferred from another event;
• conflicting;
• missing source; and
• attorney resolved.

The chronology can then populate reviewable form data. If the form field does not preserve the underlying source, the firm loses the ability to explain how the answer was produced.

Use exact client requests

The portal request should name the person, document, page or side, period, and defect. A good replacement request sounds like this:

Thank you for sending the notice. We received pages 1, 2, and 4. Please upload page 3 and the response cover sheet from the same notice. A phone photo is fine if all four corners and the full page are readable.

That instruction is easier to follow than “please resend the complete notice,” and it gives staff a clear rule for rechecking the replacement.

Give the attorney an intake exception list

The attorney should not have to read every upload to find the open issues. The handoff should contain a short exception list showing:

• identity or date conflicts;
• missing status or entry evidence;
• prior filing or proceeding that needs records;
• relationship or household fact that remains unsupported;
• form-edition, signature, or translation issue;
• deadline or notice requiring immediate review; and
• client statement that should not be converted into a factual conclusion without counsel.

This is also the moment to confirm whether additional evidence is actually needed. A checklist is a control, not a license to collect sensitive documents without purpose.

The intake control sheet

For each matter, preserve the pathway, current authority checked, client requirements, source status, discrepancies, client requests, attorney decisions, and final handoff date. That record can support form population, evidence assembly, deadline work, and later RFE review without re-interviewing the client or rebuilding the history.

Where DocketBuddy fits

DocketBuddy connects practice-specific intake, document requirements, exact client follow-up, notices, forms, status work, and attorney exceptions on one immigration matter. The system can extract and organize facts, but it does not choose the legal pathway, resolve credibility, determine admissibility, or release a filing without attorney review.