Immigration tech in immigration law: Why software doesn't replace lawyers – Mirko Vorreuter on the Legal Tech Podcast

An online form can be filled out in ten minutes, an upload portal set up in an afternoon. And yet, months later, the application sits unprocessed at the immigration office – or the embassy rejects the visa with a justification that no one in the company can understand. Attorney Mirko Vorreuter, a specialist in immigration law at VisaGuard, discussed precisely this gap between digital efficiency and the actual administrative reality in the Legal Tech Directory podcast. The episode title is deliberately provocative: "Why Immigration Tech Tools Don't Work in Immigration Law." For HR departments, international professionals , and expats, the conversation is at least as insightful as it is for the legal tech industry itself.

What was the podcast episode about?

The interview focused on three questions that occupy us daily as a law firm: What can digital tools actually achieve in immigration law? Where are their limitations? And how is generative AI changing the way clients find their lawyers? We summarize the key findings and contextualize them from the perspective of our clients – especially for companies that bring skilled workers from the USA , Great Britain , or Canada to Germany, and for the skilled workers themselves.

What can immigration tech really achieve today?

Most immigration tech providers focus on areas where processes can be easily standardized: forms, document management, data collection, and data transfer to authorities. This works well for straightforward cases. A software developer from Toronto with a recognized university degree, a signed employment contract , and a salary above the threshold for the EU Blue Card according to Section 18g of the German Residence Act (AufenthG) primarily needs a complete list of documents and a well-prepared application. Here, tools can genuinely save time.

In legal practice, however, the other cases are predominantly encountered: foreign qualifications that are not clearly recognized, changing employers mid-proceedings, the refusal of approval by the Federal Employment Agency under Section 39 of the Residence Act, or rejection by the embassy. The standardized cases are rarely the ones that cause sleepless nights for employers and professionals.

Why is 80 percent of legal work communication?

Mirko Vorreuter estimates that around 80 percent of his work consists of consulting and communication – with clients, employers, embassies, immigration authorities , the Federal Employment Agency, or a court . Crucial to this is not just information, but strategy, risk assessment, and experience, and sometimes also emotional support.

This aligns with what we've seen in hundreds of cases. A US manager whose residence permit has expired and who only holds a temporary residence permit under Section 81 Paragraph 4 of the German Residence Act doesn't ask for a form. He asks if he can fly to Chicago for his father's funeral without jeopardizing his residency status. And a human resources department whose new team leader from Great Britain has been waiting weeks for a consulate appointment doesn't need an upload button, but rather someone to actively manage the accelerated skilled worker procedure under Section 81a of the German Residence Act with the relevant authority.

Where do AI and Legal Tech reach their limits?

Standardized processes such as document requests, forwarding, or recurring emails can be easily automated – we do this ourselves in our firm. Things become problematic as soon as a case deviates from the norm. Then, knowledge that isn't found in any legal commentary is crucial: what additional documents a particular immigration authority requires in practice, how differently individual case workers interpret the same regulation, or when a friendly phone call to inquire about the status of a case is more effective than a formal complaint.

Furthermore, there are strategic decisions that no system can make for you. Whether filing an action for failure to act under Section 75 of the German Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO) is advisable after three months without a decision, or whether it would unnecessarily strain the relationship with the authority, is a case-by-case assessment. The legal boundary is also clearly defined: According to Section 3 of the German Legal Services Act (RDG), an individual legal review constitutes a legal service that may only be provided by authorized individuals. A chatbot knows the law, but neither your specific case nor the current practices of the authority that decides on it.

Why do applicants and authorities often talk past each other?

According to Mirko Vorreuter, a key problem in immigration law is mutual understanding. Foreign applicants are often unfamiliar with the German administrative system and frequently do not speak German – even though German is the official language according to Section 23 of the Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG). At the same time, many authorities are heavily burdened and communicate tersely and formulaically. This results in misunderstandings that unnecessarily prolong procedures.

A typical example from our practice: A Canadian project manager receives a hearing notice pursuant to Section 28 of the German Administrative Procedure Act (VwVfG), interprets it as a mere inquiry, and responds with a brief email in English. What appears to be a formality is, in reality, the last opportunity to avert a rejection. Lawyers therefore assume a kind of translation function – not only linguistically, but also between the logic of the administration and the expectations of their clients. This is precisely where Mirko Vorreuter sees the greatest future potential of specialized AI: as a bridge that makes official letters understandable without replacing legal assessment.

How is AI changing law firm marketing?

Mirko Vorreuter also spoke openly about how VisaGuard itself uses generative AI – especially in content production and marketing. Traditional SEO is losing importance because users are increasingly directing their questions to ChatGPT, Gemini, or other language models. For law firms, it will therefore be crucial to be perceived by these systems as a relevant source and as an expert in specific case scenarios.

For our readers, this means: If you ask an AI about your visa or residence permit , the answer is a good starting point. However, it does not replace checking whether your specific situation corresponds to the standard case.

What does this mean for employers and international professionals ?

We are well aware of the realistic alternatives to legal representation: waiting, submitting the application independently, or relying on legal tech platforms and general information. For simple cases, this may suffice. However, as soon as a request for additional information, a hearing, a rejection, or a change in status is imminent, time becomes a critical factor. The deadline for filing an appeal against a rejection notice, according to Section 74 of the German Administrative Court Procedure Act (VwGO), is typically only one month. Those who have only filled out forms by then risk losing valuable options – for the company, in the worst-case scenario, the urgently needed skilled worker ; for the skilled worker and their family , their planned future in Germany.

Conclusion: Technology for the standard, experience for the individual case.

The discussion in the Legal Tech podcast illustrates what we experience daily: Immigration tech speeds up simple procedures, but it doesn't solve the problems for which clients need a lawyer. The value of legal work in immigration law lies in strategy, communication, and practical knowledge – not in filling out forms. We use technology where it saves our clients time and apply our experience where the individual case is crucial. If your case is stalled or a letter from the authorities raises questions, contact us early.

You can listen to the full episode with Mirko Vorreuter on Spotify and Apple Podcasts .