
6 minute read
HUMANIZING IMMIGRATION THROUGH TECHNOLOGY
Immigration lawyer Will Tao on rethinking immigration systems with artificial intelligence
The Registrar staff
At a time when immigration policies are more systematic than they are humanistic, British Columbia-based immigration lawyer Will Tao (he/him) is pushing for change with bringing his unique perspectives and expertise to the table.
Tao has carved a professional niche for himself by combining legal expertise with a deeply empathetic approach to his clients' experiences. A prolific writer and policy advocate, he is also the cofounder of Heron Law Offices and creator of the award-winning Vancouver Immigration Blog.
Drawing from his career in immigration law, Tao emphasizes the critical intersection of immigration and modern regulation and the potential of emerging technologies to humanize the processing of applications for those seeking to immigrate to Canada.
A voice for change
Tao's professional trajectory is shaped by his personal experiences as a child of Chinese immigrants, his connection to ethnocultural and Indigenous communities in Canada, and his deep interest in people and their stories.
Having worked with highly respected law firms in Vancouver, including Larlee Rosenberg and Edelmann & Co, he developed a deep understanding of the legal field, particularly in navigating complex cases involving immigration. However, Tao always thought about the structural inequities in legal practice, both internally and externally. “I didn’t resonate with the fully corporate practice, where I’d just help people move in masses here and not really think about the people at the end of the day,” he says. “[Immigration law] is whiteness personified. You're in a white space, and I felt I was always being that kind of outsider on the inside. Am I invited to the leadership conversations? Do you want me in the future role of a partner? When should I speak? When should I not speak?”
These experiences directly tied into his professional philosophy when establishing the award-winning Heron Law Offices, Tao’s law firm that placed first in national and regional Tier 1 rankings from Best Lawyers for immigration law practice areas in 2025.
Artificial intelligence in licensing and professional regulation
Tao is deeply passionate about new technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, and its application in regulation. He emphasizes the critical role of regulatory safeguards in maintaining standards and ensuring accountability, especially as emerging technologies present both opportunities and challenges for end users. He envisions developed frameworks that integrate technology without losing the human touch, and he actively highlights on how AI and automation can streamline immigration processes in Canada.
“That's leading to the work I'm doing around automation and technology,” Tao says. From the applicant's perspective, individuals want to tell their stories, differentiate their cases, and have their unique situations fully understood, with their documents and letters genuinely considered.”
He asserts that AI cannot replace the nuanced judgment of human processing and cautions legal professionals against a potential over-reliance on technology. This reliance may stem from the mindset of ‘tech solutionism’ which is the belief that technology will improve over time “The current system, driven by advanced analytics, often relies on algorithms to profile applicants based on factors such as their country of origin, citizenship, gender, and age—elements beyond their control and, at times, beyond their understanding.”
One solution Tao calls for is ensuring that tech tools are designed with inclusivity in mind, so that vulnerable and underserved communities aren’t marginalized in the immigration process. He emphasizes the need to address the foundational issues in how these programs were initially implemented in Canada to ensure automation and technology tools are fair and equitable.
"The starting point [in Canada] is examining how these programs were initially rolled out,” Tao says. “Initially, there was no tool to bulk-process visitors, work permits or render certain decisions. Instead, these systems were quietly implemented, often through litigation, without public transparency or announcements about their purpose or functionality. It wasn’t until issues were raised—such as the disproportionately high refusal rates for Francophone students, which became a political debate and led to parliamentary committee hearings where I testified—that the government started sharing information. Even then, the information presented was, in my view, somewhat misleading."
Drawing on his experience as chair of the City of Vancouver's 'Cultural Communities Advisory Committee', Tao compares the current approach to a flawed development model.
“Sometimes, these projects developers would come to our committee right at the last minute when their project was already done, just to get us to rubber-stamp them and have a report saying they talked to us, without showing they’ve done appropriate studies on racial bias, gender assessments, and have opportunities for critique before approval,” Tao explains.
“Individuals want to tell their story and differentiate their cases without a system working off advanced analytics that treats them as algorithmic data points,” he adds. “We’re advocating to humanize this discussion and remind decision-makers there needs to be meaningful human involvement in the process first.”
Human-centred oversight
The concept of "human in the loop" remains pivotal to AI applications used in operations, Tao explains, but he cautions against assuming that human intervention eliminates bias. “Humans can bring their own biases or simply act as rubber stamps, perpetuating the same issues automation seeks to address,” he says. “There needs to be meaningful human involvement, not just a human in the loop to actually have human feedback on the system, but being invited to the table to discuss it, speaking to the people who are most impacted.”
Rethinking how decision-making processes in the AI era are implemented is crucial, Tao highlights, as courts now require disclosure on an individual’s use of AI during proceedings. “The courts do want to know when folks are using these tools and trying to figure out ways to protect individuals, especially self-represented applicants, from the harms of hallucination or misrepresenting in their work.”
Like any other emerging tech that garners organizational interest, Tao admits that his views are still evolving as he continues his research on this topic. “I would like to use the word expert very lightly,” he said, but affirms that he is committed to exploring these complexities and advocating for systems that prioritize fairness and equity.”
Advice for regulatory professionals
When asked what advice he would offer to professionals in the regulatory sector, Tao was clear: focus on building relationships. He believes regulation is not just about enforcing rules but creating trust and fostering engaging dialogue with stakeholders, including lawyers, advocacy groups, and the communities they serve.
“If you set some good guiding standards now and at least get people to be aware of both the benefits and harms of these technologies, you can shape some behaviour to avoid negative consequences,” Tao concludes. “Bringing AI to the masses and thinking about ways to reach those who’ve historically been impacted, could lead to systems that are more inclusive and better reflect the realities and needs of immigrants.”