Immigration Law Firms AI Visibility Ranking Trends - November 2026

Answer capsule

The November 2026 Immigration Law Firms benchmark compares 6 companies across 83 AI answers that met its inclusion rules. Wildes & Weinberg leads with 20 recommendations (24.10% of answers). At least one tracked company was recommended in 27 answers; some answers recommended several companies.

The rankings distinguish being mentioned from receiving an affirmative recommendation, then examine placement and the wording used about each company. Earlier monthly results show how counts and rates changed, with each month using its own answer total. These results describe the answers reviewed, not product quality or customer satisfaction. Differences between monthly samples limit comparisons and do not establish why a result changed.

For the strategic interpretation of this benchmark, read CiteWorks Studio's analysis of How AI Search Is Recommending Immigration Law Firms

Industry leaderboard

Questions This Section Answers

• How do Immigration Law Firms rank by recorded AI recommendations in November 2026?

The leaderboard orders firms by how many recorded answers affirmatively recommended them. That count is a narrow measure: a firm can appear often without being endorsed, and endorsement can occur without a prominent position. Ties reflect equal recommendation counts, so shared ranks do not imply identical reach or framing.

Mentions, recommendations, shortlist placements and first-place placements answer different questions and should be read separately. Placements are nested within recommendations rather than additional wins. A high recommendation count alongside a lower mention count, or the reverse, describes different patterns of visibility and endorsement in the selected answers.

Key findings

Tracked-company answer coverage

Questions This Section Answers

• How often did the November 2026 Immigration Law Firms answer sample recommend any tracked company?

27 distinct answers recommended at least one tracked company. Counting each company recommendation separately gives 27, because an answer can recommend several companies. Answers with no tracked recommendation may still have recommended companies outside this comparison.

Every qualified answer mentioned at least one tracked company, but only a minority recommended one. Most answers therefore named firms without an affirmative endorsement of any tracked company. This gap between appearance and endorsement is the central distinction in the coverage results.

No answer recommended more than one tracked company, so company recommendation totals sum to the answer count here. Answers without a tracked recommendation may still have recommended firms outside this comparison, so the coverage figures describe this tracked set only, not the whole answer space.

Reach and affirmative recommendation

Wildes & Weinberg ranks 1 by recommendation count. Mentions: 68 (81.93%); recommendations: 20 (24.10%). Top 3 placements: 16 (19.28%); first-place placements: 15 (18.07%).

Wording about the company: 36 positive, 32 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 29.4%. The net framing score was 0.53 (defined in Methodology).

48 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 80.00% were Top 3 and 75.00% were first-place.

Wildes & Weinberg leads on recommendation count, but its mentions far outnumber its recommendations. Most answers that named the firm did not endorse it, so reach and affirmative recommendation diverge sharply in this sample. The recommendation-to-mention ratio captures that gap without implying anything about clients or outcomes.

Among recorded recommendations, most were placed in the top three and in first position. Those placements are subsets of the recommendation count, not separate achievements. The ranking reflects endorsement volume, not the breadth of appearance.

Recommendation order and placement

Placement describes where a recommended firm appeared in an answer's ordering. Top-three and first-place counts are contained within recommendations, so they cannot be added to recommendation totals. A firm with few recommendations can still have all of them placed highly, which is a different pattern from broad but lower-placed endorsement.

Recommendation-to-mention ratios vary across firms and describe the recorded answers only. Where the mention base is small, a strong ratio rests on few observations and should be read cautiously. None of these figures measure customer conversion or sales.

Classified framing in context

Framing classifies the wording surrounding each mention as positive, neutral or negative. It is not a measure of reputation, customer sentiment or firm quality, and it does not explain why recommendations occurred or did not. Neutral wording is common and does not indicate disapproval.

Several firms recorded no negative mentions, while others recorded none at all because they were never mentioned. The net framing score summarizes positive minus negative wording relative to all mentions. Differences in framing across firms should be read alongside mention volume, since sparse mentions make framing proportions unstable.

Company results in detail

Wildes & Weinberg

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Wildes & Weinberg mentions, recommendations and placement?

Wildes & Weinberg ranks 1 by recommendation count. Mentions: 68 (81.93%); recommendations: 20 (24.10%). Top 3 placements: 16 (19.28%); first-place placements: 15 (18.07%).

Wording about the company: 36 positive, 32 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 29.4%. The net framing score was 0.53 (defined in Methodology).

48 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 80.00% were Top 3 and 75.00% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Wildes & Weinberg's mention count rose from 40 to 68, while its recommendation count fell from 40 to 20. The recommendation rate was 86.96% and 24.10% respectively.

Wildes & Weinberg holds the top recommendation count and by far the widest mention reach in this sample. Its framing was entirely positive or neutral, with no negative wording recorded. Yet most mentions carried no recommendation, so appearance and endorsement diverge markedly for this firm.

Its recorded recommendations were mostly placed in the top three and in first position. The month-to-month comparison shows mentions rising while recommendations fell, and the recommendation rate dropped accordingly. That comparison covers separate monthly samples and does not establish why the change occurred.

Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners mentions, recommendations and placement?

Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners ranks 2 by recommendation count. Mentions: 14 (16.87%); recommendations: 4 (4.82%). Top 3 placements: 4 (4.82%); first-place placements: 4 (4.82%).

Wording about the company: 4 positive, 10 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 28.6%. The net framing score was 0.29 (defined in Methodology).

10 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 100.00% were Top 3 and 100.00% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners' mention count rose from 10 to 14, while its recommendation count fell from 10 to 4. The recommendation rate was 21.74% and 4.82% respectively.

Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners ranks second on recommendation count with modest mention reach. Its wording was mostly neutral, with a smaller positive share and no negative mentions. The recommendation-to-mention ratio is close to the leader's, though it rests on a much smaller base of mentions.

All of its recorded recommendations were placed in the top three and in first position, a pattern of concentrated high placement rather than broad endorsement. The monthly comparison shows mentions rising while recommendations fell; the separate samples do not explain that movement.

Spar & Bernstein

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Spar & Bernstein mentions, recommendations and placement?

Spar & Bernstein ranks 3 by recommendation count. Mentions: 12 (14.46%); recommendations: 3 (3.61%). Top 3 placements: 3 (3.61%); first-place placements: 3 (3.61%).

Wording about the company: 5 positive, 7 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 25.0%. The net framing score was 0.42 (defined in Methodology).

9 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, 100.00% were Top 3 and 100.00% were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Spar & Bernstein's mention count rose from 3 to 12, while its recommendation count rose from 2 to 3. The recommendation rate was 4.35% and 3.61% respectively.

Spar & Bernstein ranks third on recommendation count with limited mention reach. Its framing was a mix of positive and neutral wording, with no negative mentions recorded. The recommendation-to-mention ratio sits below the two firms above it, and the small mention base makes that ratio sensitive to a few answers.

Every recorded recommendation was placed in the top three and in first position. The monthly comparison shows both mentions and recommendations rising, though the recommendation rate eased slightly. These are separate samples, and the figures do not establish why the counts moved.

Barst & Mukamal

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Barst & Mukamal mentions, recommendations and placement?

Barst & Mukamal ranks 4 by recommendation count. Mentions: 0 (0.00%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was Unavailable. The net framing score was Unavailable (defined in Methodology).

0 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Barst & Mukamal's mention count stayed at 0, while its recommendation count stayed at 0. The recommendation rate was 0.00% and 0.00% respectively.

Barst & Mukamal recorded no mentions and no recommendations in this month's answers, so its placement counts are also zero and its framing score is undefined. These are measured zeros, not missing observations. With no mentions, ratios that require a mention base cannot be computed.

The monthly comparison shows mentions and recommendations both at zero, continuing a pattern of absent appearance in the recorded samples. The results describe only the answers reviewed and say nothing about the firm beyond them.

Bretz & Coven

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Bretz & Coven mentions, recommendations and placement?

Bretz & Coven ranks 4 by recommendation count. Mentions: 3 (3.61%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 0 positive, 3 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was 0.0%. The net framing score was 0.00 (defined in Methodology).

3 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Bretz & Coven's mention count rose from 2 to 3, while its recommendation count fell from 2 to 0. The recommendation rate was 4.35% and 0.00% respectively.

Bretz & Coven recorded a few mentions but no recommendations, so its placement counts are zero and its recommendation-to-mention ratio is zero rather than undefined. All of its mentions carried neutral wording, with no positive or negative framing recorded. The firm therefore appeared in answers without affirmative endorsement.

The monthly comparison shows mentions rising slightly while recommendations fell to zero. Because the monthly samples differ, that comparison describes the recorded change without explaining it.

Transparent Justice Law Firm

Questions This Section Answers

• What do the November 2026 AI answer results show about Transparent Justice Law Firm mentions, recommendations and placement?

Transparent Justice Law Firm ranks 4 by recommendation count. Mentions: 0 (0.00%); recommendations: 0 (0.00%). Top 3 placements: 0 (0.00%); first-place placements: 0 (0.00%).

Wording about the company: 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative mentions. The proportion of mentions that also included a recommendation was Unavailable. The net framing score was Unavailable (defined in Methodology).

0 mentions had no recorded recommendation. Of recorded recommendations, Unavailable were Top 3 and Unavailable were first-place.

From October 2026 to November 2026, Transparent Justice Law Firm's mention count stayed at 0, while its recommendation count stayed at 0. The recommendation rate was 0.00% and 0.00% respectively.

Transparent Justice Law Firm recorded no mentions and no recommendations in this month's answers, leaving placement counts at zero and framing undefined. These are measured zeros rather than absent data. With no mention base, recommendation-to-mention and framing ratios cannot be computed.

The monthly comparison shows mentions and recommendations both at zero, consistent with absent appearance across the recorded samples. The figures describe only the selected answers and do not characterize the firm itself.

Earlier ranking snapshot context

Questions This Section Answers

• How do the available Immigration Law Firms snapshots from July 2026 to November 2026 differ in recommendation coverage and measurement scope?

Only months with verified results are shown. Monthly sample coverage is listed in Methodology.

The monthly table shows separate selected samples, and the number of answers and AI services covered differs between months. Counts and rates should be read together: a firm's recommendation count can fall while its mention count rises, because the two measure different things. Rank positions are shown alongside these counts rather than derived from them alone.

Comparisons across months describe recorded results in different samples. They do not establish why counts or rates changed, nor do they demonstrate stable standing or the effect of any intervention.

What the November Rankings Show

The November results separate four questions that are easily conflated. Reach asks how often a firm appeared; recommendation asks whether an answer affirmatively endorsed it; placement asks where an endorsed firm sat in the ordering; framing asks how the wording was classified. A firm can be prominent on one measure and weak on another.

The leaderboard ranks by recommendation count alone, so it should not be read as a summary of visibility or framing. Nested placement counts and recommendation-to-mention ratios add texture but rest on small bases for most firms. Together the measures describe the selected AI answers, not customers, sales or firm quality.

Methodology

Questions This Section Answers

• How were the November 2026 Immigration Law Firms AI visibility measures counted, and what do they not establish?

This benchmark has partial coverage: 1 of 3 planned question categories contributed usable observations; 2 contributed none. This describes question-category coverage, not demonstrated platform outages. Findings apply to the available answer set.

The month in the title is the reporting period. The exact dates when the original AI answers were collected have not been verified.

Each company is counted at most once in each answer that meets the benchmark rules. A recommendation requires both an affirmative endorsement and positive wording. Mention, recommendation, Top 3 and first-place rates use the full benchmark answer total. Top 3 and first-place results are included within recommendations, not added to them.

The recommendation-to-mention ratio divides recommendations by mentions. It describes AI answer wording, not customer conversion. Net framing is positive minus negative mentions, divided by all mentions, on a scale from -1 to +1. It does not measure customer satisfaction or company quality.

Market: US; 6 tracked companies. AI services represented: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews.

Research screening totals (answer observations can include repeated questions):

The source does not provide a reader-facing definition of “reserved”; that screening label is reported without inferring a reason for exclusion. Only the included benchmark answers form the rate denominator.

One answer can mention or recommend several companies. Adding company totals would therefore count some answers more than once. The results describe the AI answers reviewed, not independently verified facts about the companies or their products.

Monthly sample coverage:

The answer samples differ between months. These comparisons show how the recorded results changed; they do not establish why they changed.

Coverage is partial: only one of three planned question categories contributed usable observations, and the exact collection dates were not verified. Findings apply to the available answer set. Each company is counted at most once per answer, and a recommendation requires both affirmative endorsement and positive wording.

Mention, recommendation and placement rates share the full answer denominator, and placements are nested within recommendations. The recommendation-to-mention ratio describes answer wording, not conversion, and net framing is not a measure of customer satisfaction or firm quality. Monthly samples differ in size and services covered, so comparisons show recorded change without explaining it.