How AI Search Is Recommending Immigration Law Firms: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Wildes & Weinberg remains the category's recommendation leader in October 2026 with 87.0% valid recommendation coverage, holding a 65.3 point lead over the next most-recommended firm, Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners at 21.7%. The leader's coverage was effectively unchanged from July 2026 (-0.1 points) after dipping to 86.0% in September 2026, so the top of the field held its position while the contest beneath it shifted.

Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners was the only brand to register movement large enough to be classified as significant, rising from 2.9% in July 2026 to 21.7% in October 2026, up 18.8 points, its third consecutive monthly gain. Within the 46 qualified October observations, that is 10 valid recommendations, up from 2 in July 2026, with its top-three rate climbing from 1.4% to 15.2%.

The sharpest decline surfaced in placement rather than presence. Wildes & Weinberg's top-three rate fell from 72.9% in July 2026 to 50.0% in October 2026, down 22.9 points, and its rank-one rate fell from 38.6% to 17.4%, down 21.2 points, even as its raw mention presence stayed near nine in ten observations at 87.0%. Barst & Mukamal and Transparent Justice Law Firm both recorded 0.0% coverage in October 2026, the only two tracked brands with no mentions or recommendations in the qualified set, while Spar & Bernstein returned to a positive reading after a zero month.

Against the prior month, Wildes & Weinberg added 1.0 point (86.0% to 87.0%) and Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners added 7.7 points (14.0% to 21.7%), while Spar & Bernstein moved off zero from 0.0% to 4.3%. The category was stable at the top for a fourth straight month, with the notable repositioning occurring between the challenger cluster below the leader.

Each monthly run begins with prompt-surface observations (unique questions) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. In July 2026 the run began with 238 observations (227 unique questions); in October 2026 it began with 53 (50 unique questions). Of those, 106 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor in July 2026 and 53 did so in October 2026; 80 were relevant and 26 irrelevant in July 2026, against 50 relevant and 3 irrelevant in October 2026. The public metrics use the 70 qualified observations in July 2026 and the 46 qualified observations in October 2026 that survive both qualification stages.

Key Findings

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• What is the difference between the raw prompt collection universe and the qualified analysis set?
• How many qualified observations does the October 2026 benchmark use as its public denominator?

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

The collection has narrowed across the series, from 70 qualified observations in July 2026 to 55 in August 2026 and 50 in September 2026 before reaching 46 in October 2026. Against that smaller denominator, each valid recommendation carries more weight: one recommendation equals roughly 2.2 percentage points of coverage in October.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The recommendation-shaped answer share bottomed at 46.0% in September 2026 before recovering to 63.0% in October 2026, while the valid recommendation shortlist share reached its highest point of the series at 97.8%.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which firm leads immigration law firm recommendations in October 2026?
• Where did the category move beneath the leader this month?

A Stable Leader Above a Challenger Cluster That Is Repositioning

Wildes & Weinberg holds the lead at 87.0% coverage while Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners reached 21.7%, narrowing the gap between the top two brands to 65.3 points from 72.0 points in September 2026. The reordering below the leader, not the leadership itself, is where the category moved this month.

Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners was the only brand whose coverage movement exceeded the normal range of variation. The remaining shifts in the category resulted from the combination of smaller movements across several brands.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Which immigration law firm registered the only significant movement in October 2026, and how large was it?
• Did Wildes & Weinberg's top-three and rank-one placement rates change even though its coverage held steady?
• Which firms recorded 0.0% recommendation coverage in October 2026?

Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners: A Third Consecutive Gain Lifts the Challenger Clear

Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners lifted its recommendation coverage from 2.9% in July 2026 to 21.7% in October 2026, up 18.8 points, the benchmark's only significant riser this cycle. The prior month sat at 14.0%, meaning the firm added 7.7 points from September 2026 to October 2026 on top of gains in August and September, a three-month upward streak.

The firm's placement profile improved alongside coverage, with top-three recommendations rising from 1.4% in July 2026 to 15.2% in October 2026 and rank-one placement moving from 1.4% to 4.3%. In absolute terms, October 2026 brought 10 valid recommendations, 7 top-three placements, and 2 first-position recommendations within 46 qualified observations.

The distinction to note is breadth versus depth: the firm is now recommended in roughly one in five qualified observations, but it converts only a portion of those into top-three placement and a smaller share into first position. The counts remain modest against the leader's volume, and the gap to Wildes & Weinberg narrowed only because the challenger rose, not because the leader fell.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the 10 October 2026 recommendations concentrate around a specific practice area, question type, or surface that the earlier single-digit readings did not reach.

Wildes & Weinberg: Presence Holds Near Nine in Ten While Placement Quality Slips

Wildes & Weinberg's recommendation coverage moved from 87.1% in July 2026 to 87.0% in October 2026, down 0.1 points, a change classified as stable, after a prior-month reading of 86.0% in September 2026. Raw mention presence stood at 87.0% in October 2026 against 88.6% in July 2026, down 1.6 points, so the firm continued to be surfaced in nearly nine of every ten qualified observations.

The sharper movement was in placement quality. The firm's top-three rate fell from 72.9% in July 2026 to 50.0% in October 2026, down 22.9 points, and its rank-one rate fell from 38.6% to 17.4%, down 21.2 points. That is 23 top-three placements and 8 first-position recommendations in October 2026, against 40 valid recommendations overall.

The distinction is between visibility and position. The leader is still recommended in the great majority of qualified observations, but a materially smaller share of those appearances now land in the top three or at first position. Coverage remains dominant; the strength of each recommendation is what moved.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types and surfaces account for the shift from top-three placement to lower positions, and whether the answers where the leader slipped are the same answers where the rising challenger appeared.

Barst & Mukamal: A Full Exit from the Qualified Set

Barst & Mukamal's recommendation coverage fell from 4.3% in July 2026 to 0.0% in October 2026, down 4.3 points, after earlier readings of 1.8% in August 2026 and 0.0% in September 2026. The series shows a decline across four months, with the brand's last positive reading in August 2026.

Raw mention presence also stood at 0.0% in October 2026 against 5.7% in July 2026, down 5.7 points. The firm recorded no mentions and no valid recommendations anywhere in the 46 October qualified observations.

The distinction is that this is now a full absence rather than a conversion problem. Barst & Mukamal is not appearing in answers and failing to convert; it is not appearing at all. Transparent Justice Law Firm shares this position in October, with neither firm recording a mention or a valid recommendation in the qualified set.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which July 2026 and August 2026 recommendations disappeared, and whether the absence tracks the narrowing prompt set or a genuine loss of recognition in the answers collected.

Spar & Bernstein: Back Into Positive Coverage

Spar & Bernstein's recommendation coverage rose from 2.9% in July 2026 to 4.3% in October 2026, up 1.4 points, recovering from a 0.0% reading in September 2026. The prior-month comparison is the sharper one: coverage moved up 4.3 points from September 2026 to October 2026.

The firm's raw mention presence stood at 6.5% in October 2026, up 0.8 points from 5.7% in July 2026, with 3 mentions producing 2 valid recommendations, 1 top-three placement, and 1 first-position recommendation in the 46 qualified observations.

The distinction is that presence now converts into recommendation again, which it did not in September 2026, when 2 mentions produced zero valid recommendations. The counts are small enough that a single observation shifts the percentage, so the reading is directional.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the 2 October 2026 recommendations repeat the prompt that produced the firm's September mentions without conversion.

Bretz & Coven: A Second Consecutive Month on the Board

Bretz & Coven's recommendation coverage moved from 1.4% in July 2026 to 4.3% in October 2026, up 2.9 points, after a 0.0% reading in August 2026 and 4.0% in September 2026. The series shows the firm absent in August and present in each of the two months since.

Placement improved with coverage: the top-three rate moved from 0.0% in July 2026 to 4.3% in October 2026, and rank-one placement from 0.0% to 2.2%. October 2026 carried 2 valid recommendations, both in the top three, one of them at first position, from 2 mentions in the 46 qualified observations.

The distinction is that presence and recommendation are now equal at 4.3%, meaning every appearance converted. At 2 valid recommendations, the movement is not classified as significant, and a one-observation change would move the rate by roughly 2.2 points.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the 2 October 2026 recommendations sit on the same surface or question type that produced the September 2026 reading, or represent a widening base.

Transparent Justice Law Firm: A Third Consecutive Month at Zero

Transparent Justice Law Firm recorded 0.0% recommendation coverage in October 2026, its third consecutive month at zero after a single 1.4% reading in July 2026. Raw mention presence also stood at 0.0% in October 2026 against 1.4% in July 2026, down 1.4 points.

Wildes & Weinberg records 87.0% recommendation coverage in October 2026, while Transparent Justice Law Firm stands at 0.0%. The more consequential comparison is what happened beneath the leader: Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners moved from 2.9% in July 2026 to 21.7% in October 2026, an 18.8-point gain, while Transparent Justice Law Firm's single July recommendation — which appeared at first position — has not recurred in the three months since. The gap between an established, actively growing competitor set and a brand at 0.0% coverage is a material gap, not a narrow one, and the direction of travel is away from Transparent Justice Law Firm rather than toward it: as the field's second position strengthened, this brand's only prior foothold disappeared and has not returned.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the specific July 2026 prompt that produced the rank-one recommendation was collected again in August, September, or October, and with what outcome.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters do the qualified observations actually represent?
• What can this benchmark tell readers about how AI systems position immigration law firms on pricing or head-to-head comparison?

All 46 qualified observations in October 2026 fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster, as did all 50 in September 2026, 55 in August 2026, and 70 in July 2026. The Pricing & Value and Multi-Brand Comparison clusters registered zero observations in every month of the series. The public benchmark therefore measures which firm AI systems name when a buyer asks directly for a recommendation, and it cannot yet answer how AI systems position firms on cost, fee structure, or head-to-head comparison, because no qualified observations in those classes have been collected.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• What is the highest-priority diagnostic for each tracked immigration law firm in October 2026?
• Which firms need attention on coverage versus placement quality?

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

Questions This Section Answers

• What prompt-level data supports the recommendation metrics in this report?
• Does source presence prove that a citation caused a firm to be recommended?

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery research program.

• AI Visibility Industry Market Methodology
• AI Visibility Industry Market Metrics
• AI Visibility Industry Market Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Small-count movement: With 46 qualified observations in October 2026, a single valid recommendation equals roughly 2.2 percentage points of coverage. Several brand-level movements described in this report reflect changes of one or two recommendations and should be read at that scale.
• Qualified denominator vs raw collection: All brand-level percentages use the qualified observation set (46 in October, 50 in September, 55 in August, 70 in July) as the denominator, not the larger raw prompt collection (53, 63, 236, and 238 respectively). This isolates recommendation behavior from collection volume.
• Instrument breadth: Qualified surface breadth was 2 of 6 canonical AI surface families in July 2026 and 5 of 6 in October 2026, so the current month samples a wider surface universe than the baseline.
• Directional analysis: Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating and does not, by itself, establish the cause of those changes. This is particularly true where a single recommendation difference drives the movement.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

The aggregate percentages in this report answer which firms AI systems recommend and how often. Beneath those numbers sit more specific questions: which high-intent prompts a brand wins, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. None of those questions can be answered from the public benchmark alone.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It turns the benchmark's directional signals into a concrete plan for closing the gap to the category leader or defending an existing position.

Request an AI visibility audit