The Ultimate Guide to Intake for Immigration Organizations

Intake is how an immigration organization gathers a prospective client's facts, checks for conflicts, screens the matter, and decides what help it can offer. Good intake collects each fact once, in the client's language, and gets the case to the right person with every deadline already on the calendar.

When intake goes wrong, the damage usually shows up weeks later. An attorney opens a file and finds no date for the next hearing. A paralegal calls a client back for the third time because nobody asked about a 2019 trip to Guatemala. Most problems like these trace back to a process that was never written down.

What is intake at an immigration organization?

Three different activities get called "intake," and different people should do each one.

Screening is the short first pass: what does this person want, is it a matter we handle, is a deadline close, and could there be a conflict. It can take 10 minutes on the phone or at a clinic table.

Intake (often called full intake) is the detailed fact-gathering that follows a decision to look at the case more closely. It covers identity, immigration history, prior filings, court and criminal history, family, travel, and documents. Most of the staff time goes here, and so does most of the rework.

Consultation is where an attorney or accredited representative applies the law to those facts and explains the person's options. That is legal advice, and it belongs to people authorized to give it.

At a typical nonprofit, an intake coordinator handles first contact and screening, paralegals or trained volunteers run full intake, and attorneys and DOJ-accredited representatives run consultations. At a small firm one person may do all three, which makes the line between gathering facts and giving advice easier to blur.

The difference between screening and intake matters most when you design forms. A screening form should be short enough to finish in one sitting, and every answer it collects should carry into the full intake so the client never answers the same question twice.

Who can do intake, and where is the line?

Anyone your organization trains can collect facts and explain how your process works. Representing someone before the government is a separate matter, and the federal rules are specific about who may do it.

For matters before the Department of Homeland Security (which includes USCIS), 8 CFR 292.1(a) lists who may represent others: attorneys, supervised law students and law graduates, certain "reputable individuals," accredited representatives, accredited officials of the person's own government, and, for matters outside the United States, certain foreign attorneys. Paragraph (e) closes the list: "Except as set forth in this section, no other person or persons shall represent others in any case." The parallel rule for the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals is 8 CFR 1292.1.

The reputable-individual category in 292.1(a)(3) is narrow: no payment, usually a pre-existing relationship with the client, and no one who "regularly engages in immigration and naturalization practice or preparation." It does not cover paid staff or regular volunteers.

Nonprofits have a path that firms do not: the Recognition and Accreditation (R&A) program run by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Under 8 CFR 1292.11, a non-profit, federally tax-exempt organization that serves primarily low-income and indigent clients can be recognized. Under 8 CFR 1292.12, it can then have non-attorney employees or volunteers accredited. A partially accredited representative may represent clients only before DHS. A fully accredited representative may also appear before the immigration courts and the Board. Accreditation lasts 3 years and is tied to the organization; as EOIR's program page puts it, "Accredited Representatives may only provide immigration legal services through Recognized Organizations."

The notario problem

Intake staff regularly meet people who have already paid someone for help. USCIS explains the confusion: in many Spanish-speaking countries a "notario" is a lawyer with special credentials, but "In the United States, however, notary publics are not authorized to provide legal services." The same page states: "Only an attorney or an accredited representative working for a Department of Justice recognized organization can give you legal advice and represent you in your immigration case."

So ask early whether anyone else has helped the person with an immigration matter, and get copies of anything filed. If a client asks how to check who they are dealing with, point them to USCIS's page on avoiding scams.

A script for when a client asks for advice

Clients ask for advice during intake all the time, and they deserve a straight answer. This line works for most staff:

"That's an important question, and it's one for [name of the attorney or accredited representative]. I'm writing it down exactly as you asked it so they can go over it with you."

Then write the question in the file, word for word. Exactly where the line sits for non-attorney staff also depends on your state's rules on the unauthorized practice of law, so have your supervising attorney write down what staff may and may not say, and train everyone to it.

The five stages of a good intake process

First contact and triage. Capture who the person is, how to reach them safely, what language they prefer, and whether a date is coming up. Someone with a hearing next week needs a different path from someone asking about naturalization in general. Record the date of first contact, because you will need it to measure response times.

Conflict check. Run the check on names (the client, a spouse, the petitioner or beneficiary, and any adverse party) before you take the full story. ABA Model Rule 1.18 calls a person who consults a lawyer about possibly forming a client-lawyer relationship a "prospective client." One of the ways paragraph (d) lets a firm keep working after a lawyer receives disqualifying information depends on that lawyer having taken "reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client." Collecting only names and the basic matter until the check clears is the plainest way to meet that standard.

Screening. A screening form answers one question: is this a matter we handle? It should not try to decide eligibility. Its job is routing, whether to full intake, a clinic day, a partner organization, or straight to an attorney when a deadline is close.

Full intake. Aim for a record complete enough that the attorney or accredited representative can prepare for the consultation without calling the client first.

Decision and handoff. Put the decision in writing. If you take the case, the engagement letter should say what you will and will not do. Model Rule 1.2(c) allows a lawyer to "limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent," which covers common nonprofit models such as a naturalization workshop or help with a single form. If you decline, send a non-engagement letter so the person knows they are not represented, and name any deadline you spotted. States adopt their own versions of these rules, so check your state bar's rules on limited-scope representation before you standardize the letters.

What should an immigration intake form ask?

Organize the form by subject so each fact has one obvious home. Adjust the wording in the table below to your practice areas and to the way your clients talk.

Collect only what the matter needs. A DACA renewal screening does not need a 10-year address history, and every extra field is more data you have to protect. Ask each question the way a client can answer it, too: "Have you ever been in removal proceedings?" means little to many people, while the court-history question in the table gets a real answer.

If most of your intake is on paper today, the move from paper to digital intake starts with this same exercise of deciding which questions each matter type needs.

Which red flags should intake catch early?

Intake does not decide any of the issues below. It flags them in writing for an attorney or accredited representative to review before anything is filed. Several come straight from Form N-400, so they belong in any intake that might lead to naturalization.

• Pending removal proceedings or a prior removal order. N-400, Part 9, asks "Have you EVER been placed in removal, rescission, or deportation proceedings?" and "Have you EVER been removed or deported from the United States?" Under 8 CFR 316.5(c)(3), leaving the United States while under an order of removal terminates permanent resident status. If the person has any court history, look up the case on EOIR's Automated Case Information portal (it asks for the A-Number and nationality) and record what it shows.
• Criminal history, including sealed or expunged records. The N-400 tells applicants to list each crime or offense "even if your records have been sealed, expunged, or otherwise cleared," and even if someone, including a judge, told them it is no longer on their record. The instructions warn that an applicant who does not report offenses "may be denied naturalization even if the original offense was not a crime for which we would deny your application."
• Long trips abroad. Under 8 CFR 316.5(c)(1)(i), an absence of between 6 months and 1 year during the required residence period disrupts continuous residence for naturalization unless the applicant can establish otherwise. Under (c)(1)(ii), an absence of 1 year or more disrupts it. Part 8 of the N-400 asks for every trip outside the United States in the last 5 years except day trips completed within 24 hours, so collect exact dates.
• A false claim to U.S. citizenship. Part 9, Item 1 asks: "Have you EVER claimed to be a U.S. citizen (in writing or any other way)?" Ask about job and benefit applications too, since a client may not think of a checked box as a claim.
• Unlawful voting. Item 2 asks whether the person has "EVER registered to vote or voted in any Federal, state, or local election in the United States," and notes that someone who lawfully voted only in a local election open to noncitizens may answer "No." Ask about registration and voting as separate questions.
• Selective Service. Items 22.a to 22.c ask whether the applicant is a male who lived in the United States at any time between his 18th and 26th birthdays and, if so, whether he registered. The instructions warn that someone who "refused to or knowingly and willfully did not register" may be unable to establish good moral character or attachment to the principles of the Constitution.

Write down the client's answer, the date, and who asked. A note like "some travel" is how issues get missed.

Which deadlines does intake have to catch?

Of all intake failures, a missed deadline is the hardest to undo. Put each deadline in your case system on the day of intake, with a named owner, even if the organization has not accepted the case yet.

• The next hearing date. If the person is in immigration court, find the next hearing date before anything else. EOIR's Automated Case Information portal gives basic status for certain cases, but EOIR notes that it "will not reflect a new hearing date until a new date has been set by the immigration court," and that hearing notices and other court documents are the official source. Ask for the most recent hearing notice and compare the two.
• The asylum one-year filing deadline. Under INA 208(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B), an asylum applicant must show "by clear and convincing evidence that the application has been filed within 1 year after the date of the alien's arrival in the United States." Subparagraph (D) allows exceptions for changed circumstances that materially affect eligibility and for extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay. Record the arrival date and how the client knows it; whether an exception applies is for the attorney.
• The appeal deadline at the Board of Immigration Appeals. EOIR's current guidance says the Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26) "must be received by the BIA no later than 30 calendar days after the immigration judge renders an oral decision or mails a written decision." The Board counts from receipt and does not follow the mailbox rule. One caution: the eCFR text of 8 CFR 1003.38 still shows a February 2026 interim rule that would have cut the deadline to 10 days for many appeals, but a federal court vacated that change before it took effect, and EOIR Policy Memorandum 26-02 confirms the 30-day deadline. Count the days the moment someone arrives after a judge's decision.
• RFE and NOID response dates. Under 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8)(iv), a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny "will indicate the deadline for response." An RFE response period cannot exceed 12 weeks, a NOID period cannot exceed 30 days, and additional time to respond "may not be granted." Use the date printed on the notice, and ask the client when it arrived.
• The N-400 early-filing window. Under 8 CFR 334.2(b), a naturalization application "may be filed up to 90 days prior to the completion of the required period of residence." The N-400 instructions apply this to both the 5-year path and the 3-year path for spouses of U.S. citizens, require every other requirement to be met on the filing date, and warn: "We will reject your application if you submit it too early." Per the USCIS Policy Manual, the 90 days are counted back from the day before the applicant would first meet the residence requirement. Calculate the earliest filing date at intake.
• DACA renewal timing. USCIS recommends submitting a DACA renewal request "between 120 and 150 days (4 to 5 months) before the expiration date" on the current approval notice. If a client's expiration date is inside that window, or has passed, flag it the same day.

More dates follow after filing, such as biometrics appointments and interviews. Tracking USCIS case status in the same system that holds the intake record puts each new date in front of the person who owns the case.

How do you run intake in the client's language?

Ask for the preferred language first, before any other question, and record it where every later step can see it. Then:

• Use qualified interpreters instead of the client's children or other relatives. A relative may soften an answer about an arrest or a past marriage, and the client may not want family to hear it.
• Keep the client's answer in the original language alongside the English version. When a date or a name is disputed later, the original is what you check.
• Translate the explanations as well as the questions. A client who does not understand why you are asking about voting will not answer carefully.
• Record who interpreted or translated, and when.

Documents need their own step. Under 8 CFR 103.2(b)(3), any document containing foreign language submitted to USCIS "shall be accompanied by a full English language translation which the translator has certified as complete and accurate, and by the translator's certification that he or she is competent to translate from the foreign language into English." The N-400 instructions add that the certification must include the translator's signature, printed name, signature date, and contact information. At intake, list which documents are not in English so translation starts early.

Language access at a busy clinic raises staffing questions beyond this checklist, such as how to cover a language you see only a few times a year.

How do you protect what clients tell you at intake?

People tell intake staff things they have never told anyone, like an old arrest or a document they bought years ago. Protecting that information starts before the person becomes a client.

Model Rule 1.18(b) says that even when no client-lawyer relationship follows, "a lawyer who has learned information from a prospective client shall not use or reveal that information," except as the rules would permit for a former client. Under paragraph (c), receiving information that could be significantly harmful to the prospective client can disqualify the lawyer, and the lawyer's firm, from representing someone with materially adverse interests in the same or a substantially related matter. So a declined prospect's file needs the same protection as a client's. Your state's version of Rule 1.18 is the one that applies, so check it, and hold every staff member and volunteer who touches intake to the same practice.

Practical controls:

• Collect only the fields each matter needs, and delete screening data for people you do not serve on a set schedule that matches your retention policy.
• Limit access by role. A volunteer who books appointments does not need criminal-history answers.
• Keep client information out of personal email, personal phones, and consumer messaging apps unless a written policy covers them.
• Label confidential files and messages as confidential.
• Train staff and volunteers on your rules when they start and again every year.
• Ask every vendor that stores client data how it protects that data, and get the answer in writing.

ABA Formal Opinion 477R concludes that a lawyer "generally may transmit information relating to the representation of a client over the internet" when the lawyer "has undertaken reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorized access," but "may be required to take special security precautions" when an agreement with the client or the law requires it, "or when the nature of the information requires a higher degree of security." Immigration intake records often fit that last description.

How do you know your intake process is working?

Track a handful of numbers, and capture the dates that make them possible at each step:

• Time to first response. The gap between first contact and the first substantive reply. A slow first reply matters most for people with deadlines, who may turn to whoever answers first.
• Screening-to-intake completion rate. Of the people you screened in, how many finished a full intake. Break it down by language to see whether one group is dropping off.
• Re-contact rate. How often staff call a client back for a fact that intake should have collected. Track which questions cause the callbacks, then rewrite those questions.
• No-show rate. For scheduled intakes and consultations, broken down by language and by how the appointment was booked.
• Screenings that become cases. The share of screenings that end in full or limited-scope representation. A very low share can mean your outreach reaches many people you cannot serve.

Watch the trend from month to month rather than chasing another organization's numbers, since caseloads and practice areas vary too much to compare.

Paper, spreadsheets, or intake software?

All three can work. The useful question is where each one breaks.

Paper costs nothing to start and still works at a clinic with no internet connection. It breaks down when two people need the same file, when you need every client with a hearing next month, or when someone has to retype the form into a case system.

Spreadsheets and general-purpose online forms fix searching and sharing. One wrong sharing setting can expose every row, and they rarely handle other languages or conditional questions well.

Intake software built for legal work handles branching questions, languages, and handoff to other systems, but it costs money and takes time to set up. Some products are case management systems with an intake form attached; others focus on intake and pass the data along.

Whatever you choose, require these:

• The client-facing parts work in the languages your clients speak.
• Clients can complete it on a phone.
• You can export the data in a structured format, or send it to your case management system, so nobody retypes it.
• Access is controlled by role, with a record of who viewed or changed what.
• Your staff can change the questions without hiring a developer.
• The vendor states in writing where the data is stored and who can see it.

Where Parasource fits

Parasource handles the capture side of this process. Clients complete conversational intake in 11 languages, and it collects facts without ever giving advice. Your organization writes its own questionnaires in a form builder, starting from templates if you want them, and a screening form's answers carry forward into the fuller intake so nobody asks twice.

For staff, Parasource flags issues such as criminal history, extended travel, prior removal, false citizenship claims, and Selective Service, with citations to the governing law, for a caseworker to review. It calculates deadlines and sends reminders, and it hands the structured record off to Clio. Parasource never files anything with USCIS or the immigration court. Your attorneys and accredited representatives do that.

Sources

• 8 CFR 292.1: Representation of others
• 8 CFR 1292.1: Representation of others
• 8 CFR 1292.11: Recognition of an organization
• 8 CFR 1292.12: Accreditation of representatives
• EOIR: Recognition and Accreditation (R&A) Program
• USCIS: Avoid Scams
• USCIS: Common Scams
• ABA Model Rule 1.18: Duties to Prospective Client
• ABA Model Rule 1.2: Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer
• ABA Formal Opinion 477R: Securing Communication of Protected Client Information
• USCIS: N-400, Application for Naturalization
• Form N-400, edition 01/20/25 (PDF)
• Instructions for Form N-400 (PDF)
• 8 CFR 316.5: Residence in the United States
• 8 CFR 334.2: Application for naturalization
• USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 12, Part D, Chapter 6: Jurisdiction, Place of Residence, and Early Filing
• 8 U.S.C. 1158: Asylum
• EOIR: Appeal an Immigration Judge's Decision
• EOIR Policy Manual 3.5: Appeal Deadlines
• EOIR Policy Memorandum 26-02: Deadline for Appealing an Immigration Judge Decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (PDF)
• 8 CFR 1003.38: Appeals
• 8 CFR 103.2: Submission and adjudication of benefit requests
• EOIR: Automated Case Information
• EOIR: Check Case Status
• USCIS: Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)