C
CaseBlink
CaseBlink is an AI case-preparation platform for US immigration attorneys and law firms, run by CaseBlink, Inc. of New York and founded in 2023. It organises and labels uploaded client documents, extracts data into USCIS forms, drafts support letters, briefs and RFE responses in the firm's style with citations to the uploaded evidence, researches AAO decisions, the USCIS Policy Manual and case law, and assembles tabbed, ready-to-file packets; its Autopilot agent, launched at the AILA 2026 conference, runs the full sequence in one click for attorney review.
It covers employment, family, humanitarian and naturalisation case types, and sells per seat from $100 a month, with AI drafting from the $200 Core plan. CaseBlink also runs a page for individual applicants that matches them with partner immigration firms that use the platform. It uses OpenAI under a zero-data-retention agreement and Google Cloud, and reports SOC 2 Type 1 (2024) and Type 2 (2025) audits. CaseBlink raised a $2 million pre-seed round led by Tower Research Ventures in March 2025, with immigration law firms among its investors, and says more than 100 firms use it.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
The models do the core work, which is the A band. CaseBlink's product is AI case preparation: models label and organise client documents, extract data into USCIS forms, summarise evidence, run immigration research and draft support letters, briefs and RFE responses, and the Autopilot agent runs the whole sequence from upload to assembled packet. Only the entry Lite plan (packet assembly and exhibit lists) works without the AI features. Verified 18 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Grounding is real and described, short of any accuracy measurement, which is the B band. CaseBlink says every output cites directly to the client's uploaded evidence so the attorney can verify it, that its research draws on AAO decisions, the USCIS Policy Manual and case law, and that it reviews uploaded documents for missing context and quality gaps. No accuracy or error rates are published, and the Service Agreement warns that AI output may contain errors or misleading information. Verified 18 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Human review before filing is the stated model, with citations as the review surface, short of thresholds or stopping points, which is the B band. Autopilot runs document organisation, research, drafting and packet assembly in one pass and then hands the attorney a complete packet to review before filing; the page for individual applicants says the attorney prepares the case using CaseBlink under their supervision. The Service Agreement says CaseBlink may review output before it is returned but does not guarantee it, and puts the risk of relying on output on the customer.
No confidence signal, checkpoint inside the Autopilot run or route for flagged errors is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Named customers and usage figures, without outcome measurement, which is the B band. CaseBlink shows logos of firms including Dorsey & Whitney, Dickinson Wright, Fakhoury Global Immigration, Clark Lau and Cline Williams, names twelve partner firms by city on its applicant page, and reports more than 100 firms, 1,000 users and 3,000 cases prepared (March 2025: more than 50 firms and 1,000 cases). Testimonials are named customer evidence, not outcome evidence (R122), and the 'five times faster filing' figure has no method behind it. Verified 18 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Confidentiality and zero retention with AI providers are in the published agreement, but the licence to use customer data is broad and privilege is not named, which is the B band. The Service Agreement (15 July 2026) says third-party AI tools acting for CaseBlink retain no customer data, requires written notice before any compelled disclosure, and its DPA requires deletion within 90 days of termination and lists OpenAI and Google as subprocessors; the security page adds isolated tenant environments and says client content is never used for model training.
Against that, section 1.4 licenses CaseBlink to use customer data to improve and develop its products, and neither the agreement nor the security page addresses privilege or work product. Verified 18 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point.
A clear position that the tool is not legal advice, with the attorney's role stated, short of jurisdiction limits, which is the B band. The Service Agreement says content is not legal advice, creates no attorney-client relationship and should not be acted on without a competent professional, and describes the service as a tool for legal professionals. CaseBlink also runs a consumer page that takes applicants' details and matches them with partner immigration firms; it says the attorney prepares the case under their supervision but carries no not-legal-advice statement and does not say whether partner firms pay for referrals. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behaviour: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Limitations are acknowledged without a governance programme, which is the C band. The Service Agreement lists the limitations of AI output, including errors, bias from training data and weak reasoning on complex tasks, and makes the customer responsible for any bias audits, notices or consents required where AI processes personal data. No internal owner, testing before release, bias assessment or evaluation of the immigration models is published. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
Retention, deletion, access, subprocessors and incident practice are published and specific enough to hold the vendor to, which is the A band. The Service Agreement binds CaseBlink's AI providers to retain no customer data; the DPA requires deletion within 90 days of termination, breach notification without undue delay with remediation and assistance, a named subprocessor list (Google, OpenAI, Slack, all processing in the US) with 15 days' notice of changes and a right to object and terminate, and annual audit rights satisfied by a SOC 2 report.
The security page adds AES-256 encryption, isolated tenants, SSO, role-based access and audit logs for sensitive operations. The breach clause sets no fixed hour window. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
A real published position with a cap and super-cap, and an express exclusion of AI output, which is the B band. The Service Agreement caps liability at 12 months of fees, raises the cap to twice that for breaches of data security or confidentiality involving customer data, and indemnifies the customer for claims that the service infringes a US copyright or trade secret, but excludes output from that indemnity, disclaims any warranty of the accuracy of output, and requires the customer to indemnify CaseBlink for claims arising from its use of output. Verified 18 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Connections are thin or unnamed, which is the C band. CaseBlink exports to Word and PDF, supports single sign-on through SAML 2.0 and OIDC with Okta, Azure AD and Google Workspace, and the Service Agreement mentions an API; the Pro plan (in beta) builds case management and a client portal into CaseBlink itself, and Enterprise offers custom integrations. No integration with an immigration case management system, document management system or other practice tool is named. Verified 18 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Hosting and options are described in real terms, short of region choices for standard plans, which is the B band. CaseBlink runs on Google Cloud Platform in isolated tenant environments; its subprocessor list puts all processing, including OpenAI, in the United States; and the Enterprise plan offers dedicated or private hosting and data residency. Which regions residency covers is not published. Verified 18 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
A named, dated attestation with reports available on request, short of evidence a reader can open, which is the B band. CaseBlink says it completed a SOC 2 Type 1 audit in 2024 and a SOC 2 Type 2 audit in 2025, audits annually, runs regular third-party penetration tests and a vulnerability disclosure programme, and lists 52 controls; the audit reports and its zero-data-retention agreement with OpenAI are available on request through trust.caseblink.com, which renders only in a browser and could not be read (R128). Verified 18 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The model provider is named and changes are contractually notified with a right to object, which meets the A band. The DPA's subprocessor list names OpenAI OpCo, LLC as the third-party AI deployment provider, processing in the United States, and requires 15 days' notice before any new subprocessor can access customer data, with a right to object and to terminate if the objection is not resolved; the security page describes a zero-data-retention agreement with OpenAI, available on request. The specific models and versions are not named. Flagged for sampling. Verified 18 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Prices are published, which is the A band. The pricing page lists Lite at $100 per seat per month (packet assembly), Core at $200 (AI drafting, case preparation and the Autopilot agent) and Pro at $300 (case management, in beta), each with unlimited cases and a 14-day free trial, with one month free on annual billing; Enterprise is custom. The Service Agreement sets out the per-seat reasonable-use limits, trial cancellation, renewal and fee-change terms. Verified 18 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Segments and matter types are set out in detail, short of stated limits on the AI, which is the B band. CaseBlink covers US employment visas (H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN, E-3), green cards (EB-1A, EB-1B, EB-1C, EB-2 NIW, PERM, EB-3), family-based petitions, humanitarian cases (asylum, DACA, TPS, U and T visas) and naturalisation, for solo practitioners through large firms and corporate immigration departments. It is built only for US immigration law; where drafting or research is weaker by case type is not stated. Verified 18 September 2026.
5 public documents
The public pages on file for CaseBlink, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
-
caseblink.com/service-agreement3 signals
Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice, Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
caseblink.com/security2 signals
Client Data in Training, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
caseblink.com/ai-for-immigration1 signal
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
caseblink.com/for-individuals1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Sep 18, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 18, 2026
$100 per seat per monthUSD, as published, never converted
- You pay for each person who uses CaseBlink, every month.
- The cheapest plan is $100 a month and only builds filing packets.
- The AI drafting and Autopilot start with the $200 Core plan.
- The $300 Pro plan adds case management and is still in beta.
- Every plan has unlimited cases and a 14-day free trial.
Per seat per month, unlimited cases subject to one professional's ordinary caseload: Lite $100 (packet assembly, no AI drafting), Core $200 (AI drafting, case preparation, Autopilot agent), Pro $300 (case management, beta); annual billing gives one month free; Enterprise custom, per seat or case cap. Source: https://www.caseblink.com/pricing and the Service Agreement (15 July 2026), read 18 September 2026.
Implementation: None published. All plans include a 14-day free trial; a payment method is taken at sign-up.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.
The security page says client data is never stored or trained on and that there is no model training on client content. No matching prohibition is in the Service Agreement (15 July 2026), whose section 1.4 licenses CaseBlink to use customer data to improve and develop its products and services; the agreement does bind third-party AI providers to retain no customer data.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
Fixed terms are published. The Service Agreement says third-party AI providers acting for CaseBlink retain no customer data, the security page says data is purged after each AI operation, and the DPA requires deletion of customer personal data within 90 days of termination. Case files, including AI output, are kept in the account for the life of the subscription.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.
Segregation is claimed at tenant level without matter-level detail. The security page lists isolated tenant environments and role-based fine-grained access controls, and the Pro plan adds team management; nothing describes restricting access to particular cases or clients within a firm.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The Service Agreement commits CaseBlink to give written notice before any disclosure required by subpoena or order, to let the customer intervene, and to cooperate in seeking protection; the DPA commits to notify the customer of government access requests. No transparency report is published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the licence or rights basis.
The research sources are named without a licence or provenance statement. CaseBlink says its immigration research draws on AAO decisions, the USCIS Policy Manual and case law; where the case law comes from and on what terms is not stated.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
Searched the product, security, pricing and Autopilot pages, llms.txt and the Service Agreement on 18 September 2026. No check that cited AAO decisions or case law remain good law is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behaviour
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. CaseBlink flags missing context and quality gaps in uploaded documents, but no behaviour for signalling uncertainty in drafts or declining to draft when evidence is missing is described.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin and trade press reporting on 18 September 2026 for court or agency records addressing fabricated content in output from CaseBlink. None located. This signal does not record litigation history of any other kind.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
Searched the product, security and applicant pages, llms.txt, the Service Agreement and a web search of the vendor's blog on 18 September 2026. No ethics opinion, court AI order or rule, or bar guidance is referred to.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.
Speed and efficiency are marketed without billing or disclosure guidance. CaseBlink says cases are filed weeks ahead and five times faster and that firms win more cases with less effort; nothing addresses how firms should reflect AI-assisted preparation in fees or tell clients about it.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A subprocessor and model provider list plus client facing disclosure material is published or available without an agreement in place.
Disclosure material is published without an agreement in place. The DPA in the public Service Agreement lists every subprocessor with its role and country, naming OpenAI as the AI model provider and Google as cloud host, with change notice and objection rights, and the security page offers the SOC 2 reports and the zero-data-retention agreement with OpenAI through the Trust Center.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
Searched the same surfaces on 18 September 2026. Output cites to uploaded evidence and the platform keeps audit logs of sensitive operations, but nothing records which parts of a filing were AI-generated or supports disclosure of AI use to USCIS or a court.