Apr 7, 2025

Building Global Trust and Security: A Framework for AI-Driven Criminal Scoring in Immigration Systems

Bugrahan Namdar, James Hamraie, Michael Bolleddu

The accelerating use of artificial intelligence (AI) in immigration and visa systems, especially for criminal history scoring, poses a critical global governance challenge. Without a multinational, privacy-preserving, and interoperable framework, AI-driven criminal scoring risks violating human rights, eroding international trust, and creating unequal, opaque immigration outcomes.

While banning such systems outright may hinder national security interests and technological progress, the absence of harmonized legal standards, privacy protocols, and oversight mechanisms could result in fragmented, unfair, and potentially discriminatory practices across

countries.

This policy brief recommends the creation of a legally binding multilateral treaty that establishes:

1. An International Oversight Framework: Including a Legal Design Commission, AI Engineers Working Group, and Legal Oversight Committee with dispute resolution powers modeled after the WTO.

2. A Three-Tiered Criminal Scoring System: Combining Domestic, International, and Comparative Crime Scores to ensure legal contextualization, fairness, and transparency in cross-border visa decisions.

3. Interoperable Data Standards and Privacy Protections: Using pseudonymization, encryption, access controls, and centralized auditing to safeguard sensitive information.

4. Training, Transparency, and Appeals Mechanisms: Mandating explainable AI, independent audits, and applicant rights to contest or appeal scores.

5. Strong Human Rights Commitments: Preventing the misuse of scores for surveillance or discrimination, while ensuring due process and anti-bias protections.

6. Integration with Existing Governance Models: Aligning with GDPR, the EU AI Act, OECD AI Principles, and INTERPOL protocols for regulatory coherence and legitimacy.

An implementation plan includes treaty drafting, early state adoption, and phased rollout of legal and technical structures within 12 months. By proactively establishing ethical and interoperable AI systems, the international community can protect human mobility rights while maintaining national and global security.

Without robust policy frameworks and international cooperation, such tools risk amplifying discrimination, violating privacy rights, and generating opaque, unaccountable decisions.

This policy brief proposes an international treaty-based or cooperative framework to govern the development, deployment, and oversight of these AI criminal scoring systems. The brief outlines

technical safeguards, human rights protections, and mechanisms for cross-border data sharing, transparency, and appeal. We advocate for an adaptive, treaty-backed governance framework with stakeholder input from national governments, legal experts, technologists, and civil society.

The aim is to balance security and mobility interests while preventing misuse of algorithmic

tools.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

No reviews are available yet

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

Building Global Trust and Security: A Framework for AI-Driven Criminal Scoring in Immigration Systems

},

author={

Bugrahan Namdar, James Hamraie, Michael Bolleddu

},

date={

4/7/25

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

Jan 11, 2026

Eliciting Deception on Generative Search Engines

Large language models (LLMs) with web browsing capabilities are vulnerable to adversarial content injection—where malicious actors embed deceptive claims in web pages to manipulate model outputs. We investigate whether frontier LLMs can be deceived into providing incorrect product recommendations when exposed to adversarial pages.

We evaluate four OpenAI models (gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-4.1, gpt-5-nano, gpt-5-mini) across 30 comparison questions spanning 10 product categories, comparing responses between baseline (truthful) and adversarial (injected) conditions. Our results reveal significant variation: gpt-4.1-mini showed 45.5% deception rate, while gpt-4.1 demonstrated complete resistance. Even frontier gpt-5 models exhibited non-zero deception rates (3.3–7.1%), confirming that adversarial injection remains effective against current models.

These findings underscore the need for robust defenses before deploying LLMs in high-stakes recommendation contexts.

Read More

Jan 11, 2026

SycophantSee - Activation-based diagnostics for prompt engineering: monitoring sycophancy at prompt and generation time

Activation monitoring reveals that prompt framing affects a model's internal state before generation begins.

Read More

Jan 11, 2026

Who Does Your AI Serve? Manipulation By and Of AI Assistants

AI assistants can be both instruments and targets of manipulation. In our project, we investigated both directions across three studies.

AI as Instrument: Operators can instruct AI to prioritise their interests at the expense of users. We found models comply with such instructions 8–52% of the time (Study 1, 12 models, 22 scenarios). In a controlled experiment with 80 human participants, an upselling AI reliably withheld cheaper alternatives from users - not once recommending the cheapest product when explicitly asked - and ~one third of participants failed to detect the manipulation (Study 2).

AI as Target: Users can attempt to manipulate AI into bypassing safety guidelines through psychological tactics. Resistance varied dramatically - from 40% (Mistral Large 3) to 99% (Claude 4.5 Opus) - with strategic deception and boundary erosion proving most effective (Study 3, 153 scenarios, AI judge validated against human raters r=0.83).

Our key finding was that model selection matters significantly in both settings. We learned some models complied with manipulative requests at much higher rates. And we found some models readily follow operator instructions that come at the user's expense - highlighting a tension for model developers between serving paying operators and protecting end users.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.