How AI Search Is Recommending Immigration Lawyers: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

Upsolve remains the category leader in October 2026 with 20.6% valid recommendation coverage, holding a 3.0-point edge over Fragomen at 17.6%. The gap that once separated these two brands has compressed sharply across the series: the two sat 24.7 points apart in July 2026 and now sit 3.0 points apart, a 21.7-point narrowing that represents the most consequential repositioning in the category this month. No single month-over-month move cleared the significance threshold, and the category registered no significant decliner, so the story of October is consolidation rather than disruption.

Fragomen is the category's clear riser against the July baseline, moving from 4.3% valid recommendation coverage in July 2026 to 17.6% in October 2026, a significant 13.3-point gain. The brand also recorded a 7.5-point gain over September 2026, when it held 10.1%. Its raw mention presence climbed from 6.5% in July to 27.5% in October, and its recommended top-three and rank-one rates each stand at 12.8% for the month.

The sharpest decline belongs to Allmand Law, which fell from 4.3% coverage in July 2026 to 1.0% in October 2026, down 3.3 points against baseline and down 1.5 points from 2.5% in September. The move did not clear the significance threshold, but it occurred alongside a drop in raw mention presence from 4.3% to 2.0%. Upsolve's own baseline-to-current movement, down 8.4 points from 29.0% in July, reflects compression at the top rather than a loss of leadership.

Against the prior month, October restored the pattern Upsolve and Fragomen held in September: two brands separated by a small margin at the top, with a wider field of single-digit and zero-coverage brands behind them. The qualified observation count rose from 79 in September to 102 in October, moving back above the 93 recorded in July 2026.

Each monthly run begins with 565 prompt-surface observations (368 unique questions) across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe in October 2026. Of those, 564 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 311 were relevant and 253 were irrelevant. The public metrics use the 102 observations that survive both qualification stages. In July 2026, the run began with 426 prompt-surface observations (306 unique questions) with 213 relevant and 213 irrelevant, yielding 93 qualified observations.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brands had conflicting AI answers about ownership or pricing in October?
• Where did AI platforms disagree most sharply on immigration service costs?
• What kinds of factual conflicts showed up across AI platforms?

The benchmark detected 18 critical and high-severity factual inconsistencies across four companies and six AI platforms.

SimpleCitizen

AI platforms provided conflicting information about SimpleCitizen's current ownership at a critical severity level. When asked "Who is the owner of SimpleCitizen?", ChatGPT stated that SimpleCitizen is a privately held company with no single publicly identified owner, with ownership shared among founders and investors, citing the company's newsroom and about pages. Gemini stated that SimpleCitizen is owned by Fragomen, which acquired it in September 2020, citing Fragomen's acquisition announcement page.

Three high-severity pricing conflicts centred on SimpleCitizen's package prices. When asked "How much does SimpleCitizen cost?", Copilot stated the Essential package costs $599 while ChatGPT stated $249 for citizenship and green card renewal, citing the SimpleCitizen pricing page and the citizenship applications page respectively. Copilot stated the Enhanced package costs $899 while ChatGPT stated $389 for citizenship and green card renewal. Copilot stated the Professional package costs $1,299 while ChatGPT stated $615 for citizenship and green card renewal. Each conflict was flagged against the SimpleCitizen pricing page.

Boundless Immigration

Six high-severity pricing conflicts were detected for Boundless Immigration across ChatGPT, Google AI Mode, and Google AI Overviews. When asked "How much does boundless immigration charge?", Google AI Overviews stated the K-1 fiancé visa Essential plan costs $1,379 while ChatGPT stated $699, with flagged sources including a third-party review page and Boundless's own spousal visa page. For the same question, Google AI Overviews stated the K-1 Premium bundle costs $2,549 while ChatGPT stated $1,349. Google AI Overviews stated the marriage-based green card Premium package costs $1,349 while ChatGPT stated $1,549 for adjustment of status, with flagged sources spanning the Boundless services pages and the adjustment of status page. Google AI Overviews stated the marriage-based green card Essential plan costs $699 while ChatGPT stated $899 for adjustment of status.

When asked "How much does boundless immigration cost?", Google AI Mode stated the K-1 fiancé visa Premium service fee is $2,549 while ChatGPT stated $1,349. Google AI Mode stated the K-1 Essential service fee is $1,379 while ChatGPT stated $699. These conflicts cite Boundless's FAQs page, terms of use, a Reddit immigration thread, and a third-party review page.

Fragomen

Six high-severity conflicts were detected for Fragomen across ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and Perplexity. When asked "Is Fragomen considered big law?", Perplexity stated Fragomen is ranked on both the Am Law 100 and Am Law Global 100 while Copilot stated Fragomen ranks #62 in the Am Law 200 (2025), citing LinkedIn and a law firm profile page. ChatGPT stated Fragomen is a member of the Am Law 100 while Copilot stated it ranks #62 in the Am Law 200. Perplexity stated Fragomen is ranked on both the Am Law 100 and Am Law Global 100 while Gemini stated Fragomen operates outside the standard metrics used to track the traditional Am Law 100/200 highest-grossing general practice firms, citing a Reddit biglaw thread and a firm recognition page. ChatGPT stated Fragomen is a member of the Am Law 100 while Gemini stated it operates outside the standard Am Law 100/200 metrics.

Two high-severity salary conflicts were detected. When asked "How much do attorneys at Fragomen make?", Gemini stated mid-level associates (2 to 4 years) earn between $144,000 and $198,000 while Perplexity stated associate attorneys commonly reported around $100k to $125k per year. Gemini stated first-year associates typically start between $125,000 and $135,000 base salary while ChatGPT stated first-year and junior Business Immigration Associates earn about $133,000 to $166,000 base salary, citing Glassdoor and a Fragomen careers listing.

Upsolve

Two high-severity conflicts were detected for Upsolve across ChatGPT and Copilot. When asked "Is Upsolve considered a legal service?", Copilot stated Upsolve is not considered a legal service while ChatGPT stated Upsolve is generally considered a legal service (legal-aid/self-help legal service). When asked "What disqualifies you from using Upsolve?", ChatGPT stated Upsolve generally isn't a good fit when you have less than $10,000 in dischargeable debt, although there is no legal minimum debt amount for bankruptcy itself, while Copilot stated Upsolve requires at least $10,000 in unsecured debt to use its free filing tool and that users owing less will not qualify through the platform. The flagged source for the second conflict was Upsolve's own page on minimum debt requirements.

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How is the qualified benchmark set defined and why does it differ from the raw prompt universe?
• How did the qualified observation count change between July and October 2026?

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

The raw collection universe expanded from 426 prompts in July 2026 to 565 in October 2026, with the relevant set growing from 213 to 311 prompts. The qualified observation count moved from 93 in July to 65 in August, then to 79 in September, and back to 102 in October, so the current-month denominator is the largest of the series.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The recommendation-shaped answer share rose from 23.7% in July 2026 to 31.4% in October 2026, and the valid recommendation shortlist share moved from 25.8% to 33.3%. September 2026 held the lowest recommendation-shaped share of the series at 12.7%, so the October reading represents a return toward the July level rather than a new peak.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Who leads the immigration lawyer recommendations in October 2026?
• How has the gap between Upsolve and Fragomen changed since July?
• Which brands moved enough to count as a real change rather than normal variation?

Upsolve and Fragomen now sit in a tight leadership cluster three points apart, with the rest of the field below nine percent.

The only baseline-to-current movement that exceeded normal month-to-month variation for a brand was Fragomen's rise, which cleared the significance threshold. Upsolve's decline, Allmand Law's decline, and the smaller movements among John T. Orcutt, Sasser Law Firm, and the single-recommendation brands all stayed inside normal variation. The category-level change therefore reflects the combination of Fragomen's climb and a set of smaller movements rather than one dominant shift.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Why did Upsolve stay visible but lose top-three placements this month?
• What drove Fragomen's significant gain in coverage?
• Which brands moved most against their July 2026 baseline?

Upsolve

Upsolve's valid recommendation coverage moved from 29.0% in July 2026 to 20.6% in October 2026, a decline of 8.4 points against baseline. Against September 2026, when the brand held 16.5%, the current result represents a 4.1-point gain, so the baseline decline and the prior-month recovery tell different stories. The brand recorded 21 valid recommendations in October, the highest count in the series.

Placement quality softened against baseline even as raw presence stayed high. Upsolve's recommended top-three rate fell from 16.1% in July to 2.9% in October, and its rank-one rate fell from 12.9% to 2.9%. Both declines cleared the significance threshold. Raw mention presence moved from 53.8% in July to 46.1% in October. Net sentiment improved from 0.6 to 0.8.

Upsolve remains visible across nearly half of qualified observations while winning a top-three placement in fewer than three percent. That gap between presence and recommendation credit is the central feature of the brand's October position and predates the month's result.

Highest-priority diagnostic: which prompt clusters surface Upsolve as a mention without returning it as a top-three recommendation, and which brands occupy the top slots in those answers.

Fragomen

Fragomen's valid recommendation coverage rose from 4.3% in July 2026 to 17.6% in October 2026, a significant 13.3-point gain, the largest baseline-to-current movement in the category. The brand recorded 18 valid recommendations in October, up from 4 in July, and its 7.5-point gain over September's 10.1% did not itself clear the threshold.

Placement quality improved on every measured dimension. Fragomen's recommended top-three rate rose from 3.2% in July to 12.8% in October, and its rank-one rate matched at 12.8%, up from 3.2%. Raw mention presence climbed from 6.5% to 27.5% across the same span, a significant gain. Net sentiment held at 0.9.

Fragomen's 13 rank-one placements in October, against 3 in July, indicate the brand now occupies the top slot in a substantial share of the answers it enters. The move is the strongest single-brand repositioning in the series.

Highest-priority diagnostic: whether Fragomen's gains concentrate in specific prompt clusters or distribute across the qualified set, and which brands previously held those top placements.

Allmand Law

Allmand Law's valid recommendation coverage fell from 4.3% in July 2026 to 1.0% in October 2026, down 3.3 points against baseline and down 1.5 points from 2.5% in September. The brand recorded 1 valid recommendation in October, compared with 4 in July.

The decline coincided with a drop in raw mention presence from 4.3% in July to 2.0% in October. The brand's net sentiment score fell from 1.0 to 0.5 across the same span. No movement cleared the significance threshold.

Allmand Law placed first in July and holds a single rank-one placement in October, so the loss is both a coverage and a placement change. With 2 observations of presence in October, these percentages rest on very small counts and should be read alongside the absolute figures.

Highest-priority diagnostic: which July prompts returned Allmand Law in a top position and whether those prompts now route to Fragomen or another brand.

Boundless Immigration and Catholic Legal Immigration Network

Both brands returned to the recommendation set in October after sitting at 0.0% in September. Boundless Immigration held 2.0% coverage in October (2 valid recommendations), essentially flat against its 2.1% July baseline, and Catholic Legal Immigration Network moved from 1.1% in July to 2.0% (2 valid recommendations), a 0.9-point gain. Neither movement cleared the significance threshold.

Boundless Immigration entered at rank one in 1 of its 2 valid recommendations, while Catholic Legal Immigration Network entered at rank one in 1 of its 2. Boundless Immigration's raw mention presence sits at 7.8% in October, down from 12.9% in July, and its net sentiment held at 0.2. Catholic Legal Immigration Network's presence fell from 6.5% to 2.0%, while its net sentiment rose from 0.2 to 1.0.

Both brands hold two valid recommendations each, so a single placement change moves their rates by roughly one point. Presence and coverage diverge here: Boundless Immigration appears in more observations than it converts to recommendations, while Catholic Legal Immigration Network converts nearly all of its limited presence.

Highest-priority diagnostic: whether the September absence for both brands reflected a temporary measurement gap or a genuine routing change, and which prompts now return them at rank one.

John T. Orcutt and Sasser Law Firm

John T. Orcutt and Sasser Law Firm each reached 8.8% coverage in October 2026, a 2.3-point gain against their 6.5% July baselines. Both recorded 9 valid recommendations. The moves did not clear the significance threshold, and both represent a second consecutive monthly gain.

John T. Orcutt holds a recommended top-three rate of 6.9% and a rank-one rate of 2.9%, up from zero rank-one placements in July. Sasser Law Firm holds a top-three rate of 5.9% and a rank-one rate of 4.9%. Raw mention presence stands at 8.8% for both brands, and both recorded net sentiment of 1.0.

The two brands now hold identical coverage rates and identical valid-recommendation counts, with Sasser Law Firm carrying the stronger rank-one share. With 9 valid recommendations each, their rates rest on small counts and move meaningfully on a single placement.

Highest-priority diagnostic: whether the two-brand symmetry persists across prompts or whether each brand wins a distinct cluster of questions.

Cibik Law and Pollak PLLC

Both brands returned to the recommendation set in October at 1.0% coverage each, holding 1 valid recommendation apiece, after 1.3% each in September. Cibik Law moved from 0.0% in July to 1.0% in October, and Pollak PLLC matched that baseline-to-current change. Pollak PLLC recorded a rank-one placement; Cibik Law placed at rank two. Both hold net sentiment of 1.0.

These are single-observation movements: each brand recorded exactly 1 valid recommendation in October. Cibik Law holds raw mention presence of 1.0% and Pollak PLLC holds 1.0%, so both convert nearly all of their limited presence into recommendation credit.

Highest-priority diagnostic: which specific prompts produce these recommendations and whether they recur across months.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters are captured in the October benchmark?
• What can this benchmark say about how AI systems handle pricing or head-to-head firm comparisons?

In October 2026, all 102 qualified observations fell into the brand recommendation class. There were no qualified observations in the pricing and value or multi-brand comparison clusters. The public benchmark can currently answer which brands are recommended in direct request scenarios, but it cannot yet address how AI systems position brands on price, value, or head-to-head comparison. For a legal services category where cost and firm selection are often evaluated together, those question classes remain an open gap in the current observation set. The AI Response Inconsistency Alerts in this report show that pricing questions are being asked of AI platforms in this category and that the answers disagree; the same questions are not yet captured in the qualified recommendation set.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Which brands have the strongest coverage signals and which are still searching for traction?
• What are the highest-priority diagnostics for each brand in the recommendation set?
• Where does presence fail to convert into recommendation credit?

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

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

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 in these observations is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

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

• The October 2026 qualified set of 102 observations is the largest of the series, which affects the sensitivity of percentage movements relative to the smaller August and September sets. Brand-level rates should be read alongside their absolute valid recommendation counts.
• Small-count movements are present in this month's results: Boundless Immigration, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Allmand Law, Cibik Law, and Pollak PLLC each recorded between 1 and 2 valid recommendations. These counts are valid signals for a niche vertical and should not be dismissed because the numbers are small.
• Movements are measured against the baseline month (July 2026) as the reference point for the tables, with the August and September intermediate months discussed in prose where they provide sharper context.
• This analysis identifies brands with movement worth investigating. It does not establish the cause of those movements, which requires prompt-level and surface-level inspection.

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 where a brand stands, but not why. For Upsolve, which high-intent prompts still return the brand as the top answer, and which competitor takes the recommendation when it loses? For Fragomen, which prompt clusters drove the 13-point baseline gain, and did those prompts migrate from a specific brand? For brands holding no recommendation credit, which questions route to competitors instead?

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy.

Request an AI visibility audit