Spain is rewriting its migration rules: the main problem now is knowing exactly which rule applies to each person

Interview provided by Nataliia Fursenko for publication in Agente Lex.

Spain is going through a period of deep transformation of its migration system. The application of the new European Pact on Migration and Asylum, the preparation of a new Asylum Act, the adaptation of Organic Law 4/2000 and the effects of the extraordinary regularisation are shaping an increasingly dynamic legal environment.

In this context, the challenge for a migrant is no longer just finding a rule. They must also work out whether that rule is in force, whether it applies to their situation, which procedure applies, which authority is competent, which documents they need and what their next step should be.

Nataliia Fursenko, who presents herself as a PhD in Law, international jurist and LegalTech researcher, author of the Legal Bridge Method and developer of the LegalPilot and AI Legal Relocation Assistant projects, talks about this new reality. Her work focuses on reducing the distance between people and complex legal systems through a combination of legal methodology, source verification, jurisdiction analysis and professional human oversight.

Nataliia, what is happening right now with the Spanish migration system? Can we speak of a structural change?

Yes. And it is important to understand that we are not facing the modification of a single procedure. Several levels of regulation are interacting at the same time: European Union law, Spanish legislation in force, the rules on international protection, administrative procedures and new legislative initiatives. For the migrant this means that finding a law is no longer enough. They must identify their legal situation, the current version of the rule, the applicable procedure, the competent authority and the correct next step.

Is the main problem, then, too much information?

To a large extent, yes. Today there is an enormous amount of legal information: official pages, legislation, administrative instructions, social media, blogs, forums and artificial intelligence tools. But access to information does not necessarily mean effective access to the law. A person can read many sources and still not know which rule applies exactly to their case. This is where what I call a legal navigation gap appears: the distance between the formal existence of a rule and a person's real ability to understand it, verify it and act correctly on that basis.

Why is this gap especially visible in migration matters?

Because migration law depends on many elements that can change the outcome: nationality, date of entry, length of residence, family situation, employment, administrative history, documentation, type of previous authorisation, deadlines and transitional regime. Two people with apparently similar stories may need different procedures. That is why a generic answer can be insufficient or even harmful if it is presented as an individual solution.

What has the extraordinary regularisation shown in this respect?

It has shown the enormous scale of the need for legal guidance. When hundreds of thousands of people must determine whether they meet the requirements, which documents to submit and how to prove their situation, the question stops being purely administrative. Digitalisation makes filing easier, but it does not replace prior legal interpretation. Being able to submit an application online does not necessarily mean understanding which is the right application, what effects it produces or what alternative exists if a person does not meet a condition.

Can digitalisation even create a false sense of simplicity?

Exactly. A simple interface can hide a complex legal decision. If a portal lets you file an application in a few minutes, the user may assume the procedure is also legally simple. But before pressing "send" there are questions about eligibility, evidence, deadlines, compatibility between procedures and future consequences. Digitalisation should simplify administrative access, but it must not make legal complexity invisible.

How important is it to distinguish between a rule in force and a reform in preparation?

It is fundamental. In periods of legislative reform, texts in force, preliminary drafts, proposals, drafts, instructions and news circulate at the same time. For a professional the difference between them is obvious; for a person looking for an immediate solution, it is not always. A responsible legal tool must make clear what is law in force, what is a legislative proposal, what is an administrative interpretation and what is a doctrinal or institutional opinion.

What should legal technology do, then, before offering an answer?

It should follow a structured sequence: identify the jurisdiction, understand the factual context, classify the legal question, verify the temporal validity of the rule, locate the official source, flag the limits of the available information and determine whether the case requires professional intervention. That order matters. Technology should not start by generating conclusions; it should start by verifying the legal framework.

This is where your Legal Bridge Method comes in. What exactly does it consist of?

The Legal Bridge Method starts from a simple observation: people describe their problems in everyday language, while the law organises those same problems through jurisdictions, legal categories, requirements, procedures and consequences. The methodology builds a bridge between both levels. Its aim is to turn a human situation into an understandable legal structure: diagnosis of the problem, regulatory map, strategic explanation, systemic protection and legal documentation. In a digital environment, that logic can become a legal navigation architecture.

What is the original contribution of this approach?

My contribution lies in structuring legal navigation as a process in its own right and not as a mere search for documents or generation of texts. It is not only about finding a law, but about connecting facts, jurisdiction, temporal validity, authority of the source, risks and the need for human oversight. That architecture is especially relevant when a person moves between countries or between different migration regimes.

How does that methodology translate into LegalPilot?

LegalPilot is a practical application of this logic. I conceive it as an information and legal navigation assistant based on artificial intelligence. Its function is not to replace a lawyer or issue legally binding decisions. Its function is to help the person structure the problem, identify the relevant sources, understand possible next steps and recognise when to turn to a qualified professional.

And what is the difference between LegalPilot and AI Legal Relocation Assistant?

LegalPilot has a broader vocation as legal navigation infrastructure. AI Legal Relocation Assistant focuses especially on situations of international mobility and relocation: residence, documentation, family, work, access to services and coordination between different jurisdictions. Both projects share the same central idea: technology must reduce the distance between the person and the legal system without displacing human professional responsibility.

Can artificial intelligence tell a person which migration route to choose?

It can help identify potentially relevant options, organise information and ask the right questions. But an individual legal recommendation can depend on documents, evidence, administrative history and risks that require professional analysis. That is why I distinguish between legal navigation and legal decision. The first can rely heavily on technology. The second, when it significantly affects a person's rights and interests, requires responsibility, review and human control.

What is the biggest risk of AI in immigration?

False confidence. An answer can be very well written and legally wrong because it uses an outdated rule, the wrong jurisdiction or fails to consider an essential piece of data. In law, the appearance of precision is not the same as legal precision. That is why a responsible tool must show the source, the relevant date or validity, the territorial scope and the limits of the answer.

Is the ability to say "there is not enough information" part of a responsible AI?

Yes. In fact, it is an essential capability. A serious legal system must be able to detect when it does not have enough data to reach a reliable conclusion. Saying "this information does not allow an individual assessment" can be more professional than producing a definitive answer. Uncertainty must be visible, not hidden under convincing language.

What does human-in-the-loop mean in this context?

It means that human oversight is built into the design of the system, not added at the end as a simple warning. Artificial intelligence can support the search, classification, organisation and explanation of information. But when an issue requires assessing individual facts, documents, evidence or strategy, there must be a clear path to qualified legal assistance.

How does all this change the work of the immigration lawyer?

I do not think the main development is the replacement of the lawyer. I think it will be a professional transformation. The jurist will have to know how to work with artificial intelligence systems, assess the quality of sources, detect algorithmic errors, protect confidential data and keep responsibility for legal decisions. The professional advantage of the future will not be competing with AI, but knowing how to use it, supervise it and correct it within a legally responsible workflow.

Why is this issue not only Spanish?

Because the difficulty of navigating complex legal systems exists in many countries. International mobility forces people to deal with multiple regimes of residence, work, family, protection and documentation. The technological solution cannot automatically transfer the law from one jurisdiction to another, but it can use a common methodology to identify jurisdiction, source, validity, context and the need for professional intervention.

What can Spain contribute to the international debate on migration LegalTech?

Spain brings together several especially interesting elements: a high volume of international mobility, strong administrative digitalisation, constant interaction between national law and European Union law, and a society in which immigration has a growing weight in the labour market and economic life. This makes the country an important place to study how to combine administrative efficiency, access to legal information and the protection of rights.

What is your contribution to solving this problem, specifically?

My work tries to build a methodology that can become a practical infrastructure for access to law. The Legal Bridge Method provides the legal logic; LegalPilot makes it possible to move that logic into the digital environment; AI Legal Relocation Assistant applies it to the context of cross-border mobility. The common goal is for a person to be able to move from a complex situation to a structured legal route, based on verifiable sources and with a clear point of referral to a professional when necessary.

How would you sum up the model you propose?

Simply: Person → AI-assisted legal navigation → Verified official sources → Legal professional → Responsible legal decision. Technology has an important place, but it replaces neither the official source nor professional judgement.

What should be the guiding principle of the digitalisation of justice?

Artificial intelligence must expand the capabilities of jurists and of people, not replace human legal responsibility. Digitalisation must reduce the distance between citizens and the law, not create a new layer of opacity. That is why today we must talk not only about technological progress, but about precision, transparency, data protection, effective access to fundamental rights and human oversight.

What is the central question for the future?

The problem is no longer only whether a rule exists or whether it is available on the internet. The real question is whether a person can find it, understand it, verify that it is still in force and know how to apply it correctly to their situation. That is, in my opinion, one of the main challenges for migration law and digital justice in the coming years.

Conclusion

Spain shows with particular clarity a phenomenon that affects many digital democracies: the more complex and dynamic the regulatory framework becomes, the greater the need for tools that help people find their way without turning the legal decision into an opaque or purely automated process. The challenge for the next generation of LegalTech will not be simply to produce more answers. It will be to offer better routes: routes based on the correct jurisdiction, official sources, regulatory validity, transparency and human oversight.

Official references for context

References provided by the editorial team, not by the interviewee:

• The European Pact on Migration and Asylum has applied since 12 June 2026, according to the Ministry of the Interior's note of 25 August 2026, which also reports that the Council of Ministers approved that day two preliminary bills: a new asylum act and a partial reform of Organic Law 4/2000.
• Instruction of 11 June 2026 of the Undersecretariat on the processing of international protection applications following the full application of EU Regulations 2024/1348 and 2024/1351 (Official State Gazette of 13 June 2026).
• Royal Decree 316/2026 of 14 April, amending the Regulation of Organic Law 4/2000, approved by Royal Decree 1155/2024.