What the software is allowed to do
Read a document. Compute a date. Compare two dates and say they disagree. Count down. Show a record back to the person it belongs to. All of it traceable to a document somebody confirmed.
About
A law firm that got tired of watching preventable things happen.
Aruna is the software side of Aruna Law Firm, a United States immigration practice. We build for the part of immigration that is not really a legal question at all: who holds which document, which date comes next, and whether the dates agree with each other.
One firm, two audiences
Vigil is for the organisations that sponsor people. Anchor is for the people being sponsored. The same dates, held from both sides.
Written by the people who file
Every rule in these products came from attorneys who prepare the petitions, and each one is testable against a real document.
Used before it was sold
Vigil ran our own client compliance before it was offered to anyone else. Anchor was built for the questions our clients kept asking between filings.
The Line We Draw
Software computes. Attorneys advise. Nothing in the middle.
This is the decision that shapes both products, and it is worth stating plainly because most companies in this space blur it.
What it is never allowed to do
Interpret a case. Recommend a filing. Tell somebody to wait, to travel, or to act. Those are legal judgments, they depend on facts no product knows, and they belong to an attorney who is accountable for them.
Why the line holds in practice
It is built into the structure rather than the wording. Automatic document reading writes raw fields and nothing else, and a person confirms every value before anything is computed from it. A field nobody confirmed contributes nothing.
Where advice comes from instead
From Aruna Law Firm, under a written engagement. Using either product does not create an attorney-client relationship, and neither product pretends to.
The Firm
Aruna Law Firm is accountable for both.
These are not products from a startup that read about immigration law. They are built and operated by a practising immigration firm, which is also the reason they refuse to give advice: we know what advice requires.
If your question is about your own case rather than about software, that is a consultation, and it belongs with the firm.
Talk to the people who built it.
Demos, questions about how a rule is computed, or a workflow you think should be a product. All of it reaches the same small team.