The immigration law library your AI can cite.

Passim gives Claude and ChatGPT the full body of U.S. immigration law, from the INA to the unpublished decisions they can’t search on their own. Your AI reads the sources and links to them, so you can check its work.

Start your free trial

14 days free with a card, then $29 a month. Cancel anytime.

Featured in AILA’s 2026 Innovator Spotlight

Works withClaudeChatGPTand other AI assistants

youMCPYouask in plain languageYour AIClaude, ChatGPT, or another AIPassimthe library and the citator youMCPYouask in plain languageYour AIClaude, ChatGPT, or another AIPassimthe library and the citator
285,000+unpublished BIA decisions
169,000+AAO decisions
4,500+Board precedents, with a citator

Refreshed from more than 120 official sources, most of them daily.

Also searchable: more than 9.9 million state and federal court opinions from across the country.

What changes when your AI has Passim

Ask the same questions you ask now. Your AI can pull the decisions, statutes, and guidance behind the answer and link to each one, so you can read them yourself.

  • Find decisions on your facts.Ask for cases that look like yours. Your AI searches more than 285,000 unpublished BIA decisions and 169,000 AAO decisions, and each result links to the PDF and is labeled non-precedential.
  • See how a case has been treated.ImmCite, our citator, shows what later decisions did to a precedent and quotes them. If nothing’s flagged, the case can still be bad law. Read the case before you rely on it.
  • Work from current law.The INA, the CFR, the USCIS Policy Manual, the FAM, the practice manuals, and the Visa Bulletin, each cited to the section.
  • Keep the AI you already use.There’s nothing to install and nothing new to learn. Add Passim once, then ask questions in the same chat you use now. If an answer has no Passim links, tell it to use Passim.

A real answer

We asked Claude this on September 13, 2026, with Passim connected, and this is what came back. Every link opens the decision’s PDF in EOIR’s reading room.

Scroll inside the answer for all 32, or replay it.

Start your free trial
Claude, with the Passim connector
Searching 256,315 unpublished BIA decisions
Reading 32 decisions in full

I found 32 on-point cases. In 25 the Board found the hardship itself or upheld a judge who did, five were sent back for a proper hardship analysis, and two are procedural rulings worth knowing. Newest first.

The Board found the hardship

BIA, May 22, 2024, on appeal from Pearsall Single father with sole custody of four U.S. citizen children, among them twins with ADHD, learning disabilities, and speech disorders. The Board held the judge had applied the wrong test by asking whether the children would lose all schooling, found the hardship itself, and sent the case back only for the discretion question. Decision PDF
BIA, Mar. 11, 2024, on appeal from Hartford Ecuadoran parents of a U.S. citizen son who had been accepted into a professional soccer club’s academy, held a merit scholarship, spoke no Spanish, and carries an EpiPen for severe food allergies. The Board reversed the judge, found that the cumulative hardship met the standard, and remanded for background checks, over a dissent without opinion. Decision PDF
BIA, Apr. 5, 2023, on appeal from Tucson A house cleaner earning $250 a week, sole provider for four U.S. citizen children and her permanent-resident mother; her teenage daughter has chronic liver disease and will likely need a transplant. The Board compared the family to Recinas, found the hardship in the aggregate, reversed the good-moral-character finding too, and remanded for the discretion question. Decision PDF
BIA, Mar. 8, 2022, on appeal from Salt Lake City Father of two U.S. citizen children; his daughter had depression, anxiety, and a documented history of self-harm and suicidal ideation after his arrest. On de novo review the Board found the hardship, held him eligible and deserving of cancellation, and remanded only for background checks. Decision PDF
BIA, Mar. 30, 2020, on appeal from New York Ecuadoran parents of an 11-year-old son with autism who is mostly nonverbal and struggles with transitions, and an infant daughter deaf in one ear and partly deaf in the other. The Board held that even an interruption in the children’s therapy would be hardship substantially beyond the ordinary, found the parents eligible and deserving, and remanded for background checks. Decision PDF
BIA, Mar. 26, 2020, on appeal from Harlingen A mother in end-stage renal failure, on dialysis three times a week and waiting for a kidney transplant, whose two U.S. citizen children would go with her to Mexico. The Board found that the burden on the children of securing her care there without interruption, while supporting the family, was exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and granted cancellation in discretion. Decision PDF
BIA, Mar. 23, 2020, on appeal from Seattle Four U.S. citizen children under five: one with a heart murmur, one who had cranial surgery, one with an uncorrected cleft palate, plus a diabetic permanent-resident father he helped care for. The Board reversed the judge’s hardship finding and sent the case back for findings on physical presence and good moral character. Decision PDF
BIA, Apr. 26, 2018, on appeal from Detroit Sole provider for two U.S. citizen sons, one who had cranial surgery as a toddler and needs continuing follow-up, the other with severe asthma and repeated hospital stays. The Board found the hardship on de novo review, over a dissent, and remanded for background checks. Decision PDF
BIA, Apr. 13, 2018, on appeal from Miami A widowed Guatemalan father, sole support of two U.S. citizen children since their mother died in 2007, who speaks Quiché, has no formal education, and cannot read or write. The Board found the hardship in the totality, held that he merits relief in discretion, and remanded for background checks. Decision PDF
BIA, Apr. 11, 2018, on appeal from Memphis Three U.S. citizen children whose mother had struggled with drug addiction, left the family for a year, and served ten months in prison; the eldest has serious mental-health problems and the youngest a heart condition. Calling it a close case, the Board found the hardship in the aggregate and held the father eligible. Decision PDF
BIA, Feb. 26, 2018, on appeal from Los Angeles An illiterate farm laborer with cognitive difficulties from a head injury, sole provider for four U.S. citizen children, whose eldest daughter was in therapy for depression and anxiety. The Board rejected the judge’s comparison to Monreal, found the hardship, and said a discretionary grant was warranted. Decision PDF
BIA, Jan. 24, 2018, on appeal from New York Indian father whose eldest U.S. citizen daughter has profound developmental delays requiring constant supervision, special education, and extensive rehabilitative services. The Board found both the continuous physical presence and the hardship and held that he merits relief, over a dissent on the presence question. Decision PDF
BIA, Dec. 21, 2017, on appeal from New York Malian father of three U.S. citizen daughters, whose eldest daughter in Mali had already been subjected to female genital mutilation against his wishes. The Board found clear error in the judge’s prediction that he could protect the girls, held that the risk was exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and reversed the denial. Decision PDF
BIA, Dec. 13, 2017, on appeal from Florence A detained father whose 8-year-old U.S. citizen son has significant intellectual and emotional developmental delays, special education, and several therapies. The Board found that separation from a father who had been an active participant in the boy’s care was hardship substantially beyond the ordinary, and remanded for background checks. Decision PDF
BIA, Nov. 7, 2017, on appeal from Philadelphia A restaurant owner with nearly 20 years in the country, employing about 30 people, whose U.S. citizen daughter was the qualifying relative. The Board called it a close case but found the hardship on de novo review, exercised discretion in his favor despite back taxes, and remanded for background checks. Decision PDF
BIA, Aug. 3, 2017, on appeal from Los Angeles The youngest U.S. citizen daughter has a learning disability and receives special education services. The Board found the requisite hardship in a short decision, over a dissent that considered the learning issues not severe. Decision PDF
BIA, Aug. 2, 2017, on appeal from Batavia A detained father whose U.S. citizen child’s mother has significant medical problems; since his detention the family had faced an eviction notice with no relatives able to help and no government assistance. The Board called it a very close case but found the hardship under Recinas and Monreal. Decision PDF

The Board upheld a judge who found it

BIA, Apr. 5, 2024, DHS appeal from New York The judge granted cancellation to a Peruvian father on hardship to his U.S. citizen children, and DHS appealed. The Board found no clear error in the detailed written decision and upheld the hardship finding. Decision PDF
BIA, Mar. 29, 2023, DHS appeal from Los Angeles The judge relied on expert testimony about the mental health of the respondent’s U.S. citizen son. Calling the case close in some respects, the Board held the findings were a permissible view of the record and affirmed the grant. Decision PDF
BIA, Feb. 14, 2022, DHS appeal from Charlotte The judge found hardship to a permanent-resident husband and an 11-year-old U.S. citizen daughter. The Board adopted and affirmed the decision under Burbano and dismissed the DHS appeal. Decision PDF
BIA, May 24, 2018, DHS appeal from Lumpkin Primary provider for six U.S. citizen children; during his detention his diabetic wife and the children had to move under threat of eviction. The Board agreed that at least one child would suffer hardship substantially beyond the ordinary and affirmed the grant. Decision PDF
BIA, May 7, 2018, DHS appeal from Lumpkin DHS challenged only the hardship finding for a respondent facing removal to El Salvador. The Board found no clear error in the facts and affirmed in a one-page decision. Decision PDF
BIA, Feb. 26, 2018, DHS appeal from Atlanta A pro se respondent’s grant, challenged by DHS on hardship to her qualifying relatives if she were removed to El Salvador. The Board affirmed the judge’s conclusion in a one-page decision. Decision PDF
BIA, Feb. 16, 2018, DHS appeal from San Francisco Two U.S. citizen sons with speech and language delays tied to hearing loss, whose therapy would not be available in Mexico, and a permanent-resident wife who would have to leave a professional job. The Board affirmed the hardship finding and, despite several DUI convictions, the favorable exercise of discretion. Decision PDF
BIA, Nov. 2, 2017, DHS appeal from Lumpkin The judge granted cancellation on the aggregate hardship factors, including the health problems of two U.S. citizen children. The Board found no basis to reverse and dismissed the DHS appeal, with one member dissenting on the hardship issue. Decision PDF

Sent back for a proper hardship analysis

BIA, Mar. 27, 2023, on appeal from El Paso The judge weighed hardship to only one of three U.S. citizen children, two of whom have learning disorders. The Board reversed the discretionary denial and sent the case back. Decision PDF
BIA, Dec. 28, 2022, on appeal from Seattle The judge found the spouse’s autoimmune disease, back injuries, abuse history, and a prior suicide attempt, but never analyzed how removal would affect her ability to care for the two U.S. citizen children. Remanded under Recinas for hardship in the aggregate. Decision PDF
BIA, Sept. 27, 2022, on appeal from Newark The judge found hardship to an autistic U.S. citizen son but denied relief in discretion. The Board sent the case back for a proper weighing of the equities. Decision PDF
BIA, Apr. 11, 2022, on appeal from Orlando Seven qualifying relatives, including a stepson with ADHD and a wife with three herniated discs. The Board sustained the appeal because the judge had not applied Monreal and Recinas or weighed all seven relatives in the aggregate. Decision PDF
BIA, July 11, 2017, on appeal from Los Angeles The judge never treated the U.S. citizen spouse as a qualifying relative. The Board remanded for a hardship analysis that includes her. Decision PDF

Procedural rulings worth knowing

BIA, Oct. 18, 2021, on appeal from Seattle After the hearing the respondent’s wife was diagnosed with colon cancer requiring surgeries and chemotherapy. The Board granted his motion to remand so the new hardship evidence could be considered. Decision PDF
BIA, Nov. 9, 2021, motion to reopen from San Diego Reopened after Pereira v. Sessions so the respondent could apply for cancellation on hardship to his U.S. citizen child, who has an individualized education plan. Granted and sent back to the immigration judge. Decision PDF

All of these are non-precedential: cite them as examples, not authority, and read each decision before you rely on it. The published anchors are Monreal, Andazola, Recinas, and J-J-G-.

What you can ask

Ask the way you’d ask a colleague.

  • Is Matter of L-E-A- (A.G. 2019) still good law in the Fourth Circuit?

    Caution. The Fourth Circuit rejected it in Garcia v. Garland, 73 F.4th 219, but the Attorney General reinstated it for the agency in R-E-R-M- & J-D-R-M-, 29 I&N Dec. 202 (A.G. 2025). Your AI gets the language from each decision.

  • Check every citation in this brief and flag anything overruled, vacated, or amended.

    Your AI sends the citations to Passim and gets back each case’s treatment, quoted from the decision that treated it, plus the current text of each statute and regulation. That’s your chance to catch a vacated case or a stale subsection before you file.

  • What are the immigration consequences of a Texas assault conviction under § 22.01?

    The text of the statute, plus the Board and circuit decisions that have interpreted it.

  • Find unpublished BIA decisions where the Board found exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.

    Searches more than 285,000 unpublished Board decisions and 169,000 AAO decisions. Each result links to its PDF.

  • Draft the hardship argument for this cancellation case, citing the standard and recent decisions.

    Your AI writes the draft. Passim gives it the authority: Monreal, Andazola, Recinas, and J-J-G- with their current treatment, plus recent unpublished decisions where the Board found the hardship, each linked to its PDF.

  • Is EB-3 India current this month?

    This month’s Visa Bulletin, past months if you need them, and which chart USCIS is using.

  • What was the asylum grant rate at the Chicago immigration court in fiscal 2026 for represented respondents?

    A rate calculated from EOIR’s own case data, showing the grants, denials, and excluded cases behind it. It describes past outcomes and does not predict yours.

  • How have Southern District of New York judges ruled in I-485 delay suits?

    How many written decisions went each way, the median delay, and the decisions themselves, with the TRAC factors where a judge weighed them. District decisions are persuasive only, and the outcome labels are machine-read.

What’s in the library

Primary legal sources, organized for immigration research.

Counts as of November 10, 2026. “Updated” is the last time we refreshed that source. See every source, with its exact count and what it covers.

You can read the Board’s precedent decisions free in our reader.

Your plan also includes a separate national library of more than 9.9 million opinions from CourtListener’s archive. ImmCite doesn’t cover those, and some decisions appear in both.

ImmCite is Passim’s citator. It shows the later decisions that affirmed, limited, vacated, overruled, or reinstated a precedent, and quotes them. If nothing’s flagged, the case can still be bad law.

Try it free for 14 days

Sign up, then add Passim to the AI you already use. It takes a few minutes and there’s nothing to install.

Start your free trial

$0 today

For 14 days
Full access, free. You’ll need a card to start.
After that
$29 a month or $299 a year per person, plus tax.
To cancel
Cancel before the 14 days end and you won’t be charged.

Your Claude or ChatGPT subscription stays separate.

Add Passim to your AI

Here’s how, once you’ve signed up. Use the same email you signed up with.

Search for BIA Edge. That’s our old name, and Claude’s directory still shows it while our rename is in review. It’s the same product.

  1. Open Settings, then Connectors.On claude.ai or in the Claude desktop app.
  2. Find BIA EdgePassim AI in Discover and choose Connect to Claude.Search the directory.
  3. Sign in with your Passim email.Approve the connection, then ask a question and tell your AI to use Passim.
claude.ai · Settings › Connectors

Other assistants that support remote MCP servers can connect at https://mcp.biaedge.com/mcp. Buying for a firm? Everyone can be on one bill: see pricing.

Passim only sees what your AI sends it

When your AI needs the law, it sends Passim a research question and gets sources back.

Read the security page, including what isn’t audited yet.

  • Your AI decides what goes in each question.That can include details from your chat, so keep client names and identifying facts out. Your files and the rest of the conversation aren’t sent to Passim automatically.
  • We don’t keep your questions.We use the text of a question to answer it, then discard it. Usage records keep tool names and counts, and we aim to delete operational logs within 90 days.
  • Nothing you send trains a model.We don’t use your questions or account data to train anything, and we don’t pass your questions to another AI company. Claude or ChatGPT still sees your chat, under its own terms.
  • Everyone has their own login.No shared keys. One person’s access can be turned off without touching anyone else’s.
Chris Hammond

Built by an immigration attorney

I’m Chris Hammond, an immigration attorney in Houston. I built Passim because I wanted my AI to read what I read: the Board’s unpublished decisions, the Policy Manual, the memos buried in FOIA reading rooms. I read every message and answer within a business day.

Start your free trialConnect with me on LinkedIn