The difference between therapy and forensic evaluations lies in their purpose and process. Therapy focuses on treating an individual’s mental and emotional health, while forensic evaluations are objective assessments conducted for legal decision-making, often involving courts or immigration proceedings.
This distinction is especially important in immigration cases where mental health professionals are called upon to evaluate claims of hardship, trauma, or psychological impact – not to provide treatment or support. At Immigration Psychology, we conduct independent, evidence-based forensic evaluations that remain objective, regardless of the retaining party.
Purpose: Clinical Therapy vs. Forensic Evaluation
Clinical therapy is therapeutic in nature. Its goal is to help clients manage symptoms, resolve psychological distress, and work through personal issues over time. It is typically client-centered, confidential, and focused on healing. The therapist is an advocate of the client.
In contrast, forensic evaluations (such as those used in immigration evaluations) are conducted to provide independent psychological opinions in immigration cases.
In immigration law, forensic psychological evaluations may be used to document:
- Extreme hardship in waiver cases
- Symptoms consistent with trauma in asylum or U visa petitions
- The mental health impact of domestic violence on VAWA petitions
- Psychological functioning of trafficking survivors seeking a T visa
Rather than helping the examinee process emotional pain, the immigration psychologist’s role is to provide an unbiased evaluation of the individual’s mental state and history relevant to the legal standard.
Relationship: Clinical Therapy vs. Forensic Evaluation
In therapy, the therapist and client work collaboratively over multiple sessions. Building a therapeutic alliance, based on trust, empathy, and ongoing support, is central to the healing process. The therapist serves as an advocate of the client.
On the other hand, a forensic evaluation typically involves one or two structured appointments. The immigration psychologist does not have an ongoing therapeutic relationship with the examinee and must avoid dual roles that might compromise objectivity. The psychologist acts as an independent examiner, not as an advocate or treatment provider.
This distinction protects both the integrity of the forensic opinion and the legal process. The forensic evaluation must be impartial, regardless of whether it supports or contradicts the goals of the immigration application.
Methodology: Clinical Therapy vs. Forensic Evaluation
Therapists may use various approaches depending on the needs of the client – cognitive behavioral therapy, trauma-informed care, or other modalities. Sessions are often exploratory, and the pace is guided by the client’s readiness and emotional tolerance.
In forensic psychological evaluations, however, methodology is standardized. The examiner conducts clinical interviews, uses validated psychological instruments, reviews relevant records, and integrates findings to answer specific legal questions.
These evaluations often follow guidelines from professional bodies such as the APA and AP-LS and they require expertise in both clinical psychology and legal matters such as applicable legal standards and rules of admissibility of evidence and expert testimony. The aim is not to treat, but to determine how mental health symptoms or conditions intersect with legal matters (such as extreme hardship or evidence of persecution in asylum claims).
Confidentiality: Clinical Therapy vs. Forensic Evaluation
In clinical settings, confidentiality is a core principle. Information disclosed in therapy typically remains private, with few exceptions (e.g., imminent risk or mandated reporting).
In contrast, forensic evaluations are not confidential in the same way. The examinee is informed in advance that their statements, test results, and evaluation findings may be disclosed in court or shared with immigration authorities. Transparency is critical; the immigration psychologist must clearly outline the limits of confidentiality at the start of the evaluation.
Intended Audience: Clinical Therapy vs. Forensic Evaluation
Clinical therapy is for the benefit of the client. The notes and observations are rarely shared with outside parties unless explicitly authorized.
Forensic evaluations are prepared for a third party – often an immigration judge, USCIS officer, or legal counsel. The evaluation must be written in clear, precise language, free from clinical jargon or emotional persuasion. It should address legal standards and remain grounded in objective findings.
An effective forensic evaluation report does not argue for or against a case. It presents relevant psychological information so the decision-maker can apply the law appropriately.
Immigration Psychology Conducts Independent Forensic Evaluations
Forensic evaluations are not a substitute for clinical therapy, nor are they meant to provide emotional care. They are legal tools grounded in objectivity, neutrality, and evidence.
At Immigration Psychology, each forensic evaluation is conducted in compliance with ethical standards. Our psychologists are independent examiners, not advocates, who deliver structured, evidence-based psychological assessments designed to clarify, not influence, legal outcomes.
If you’re an attorney, petitioner/applicant, or referring party seeking clarity about psychological evaluations in immigration proceedings, you can contact us for a complimentary consultation.