Annex III point 7High-risk domain

AI in migration, asylum and border control

A legal and fundamental-rights driven overview for AI systems in migration, asylum and border control.

Annex III point 7 requires careful interpretation because affected persons are often vulnerable and decisions can have major consequences.

Scope according to the guidelines

The routes are polygraphs, risk assessment for entry/stay, assistance with asylum/visa/residence applications and detecting/recognising/identifying persons.

Classification question

Is AI used to support access, stay, application assessment or identification in a migration context?

Read Article 6 classification rules Open Annex III legal text Use the Annex III classifier

What the Commission draft guidelines say

Summary by Praxikon of the draft of 19 May 2026. The draft is not binding; the final guidelines have not yet been published.

Point 7 covers competent public authorities and EU bodies in migration, asylum and border control, where their use is permitted by law. The draft reads it alongside the European border systems such as SIS, EES, ETIAS and Eurodac: AI built into those systems for decisions about persons falls under point 7. Verification of travel documents is excluded from point 7(d). The draft gives sorting documents in a file as an example of a narrow procedural task under Article 6(3); substantive assessment of an application is not.

Examples that are high-risk

AI scoring travel authorisations or visa applications on risk.
Language analysis to assess the origin of an asylum seeker.
Facial recognition at the border for one-to-many identification.

Examples that can fall outside

A plain passport check where the traveller presents themselves.
Placing documents in fixed folders of a file.
Statistical reports without assessing individuals.

Falling outside depends on the intended purpose and on the Article 6(3) exception, which never applies to profiling.

The overview of all eight areas and the dates is on Annex III of the AI Act; the Article 6(3) filter is explained in the Commission guidelines on high-risk AI.

Sources and status

This route is based on the Commission draft guidelines for high-risk classification, published on 19 May 2026. The examples are not exhaustive and may change when the guidance is finalised.

Always check Article 6 and Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 as well. This page supports classification and evidence work, but it is not a supervisory decision.

Commission draft guidelines Official EU AI Act Article 6 on Praxikon Annex III on Praxikon 2026 guidance overview on Praxikon

High-risk obligations

If an AI system is high-risk under Annex III, classification and evidence should be linked to the relevant obligations for providers and deployers.

Article 9: Risk management system Article 10: Data and data governance Article 11: Technical documentation Article 12: Logging Article 13: Transparency and instructions for use Article 14: Human oversight Article 15: Accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity Article 26: Deployer obligations Article 27: FRIA where Article 27 applies

Use case guidance

Point 7(b)

Risk assessment for entry or stay

AI assessing risks of persons seeking to enter or stay in the EU.

Point 7(c)

Assistance with asylum, visa and residence applications

AI supporting authorities in examining applications and associated complaints.

Point 7(d)

Detecting, recognising or identifying persons

AI for detection, recognition or identification in migration, asylum or border control contexts, excluding travel-document verification.

What to document

Intended purpose and context of use.

Why Article 6(2) and Annex III do or do not apply.

Whether the Article 6(3) filter may apply, and whether profiling blocks it.

Which provider and deployer obligations are triggered.

Fundamental rights review

Use this route for careful high-risk and fundamental-rights analysis.

Start risk scan Schedule intake Expert page

Frequently asked questions

Short answers for classification, evidence and next steps under Annex III.

When should migration and asylum be assessed under Annex III?

The routes are polygraphs, risk assessment for entry/stay, assistance with asylum/visa/residence applications and detecting/recognising/identifying persons. The practical starting question is: Is AI used to support access, stay, application assessment or identification in a migration context?

Which use cases are included in Migration, asylum and border control management?

This domain page expands the main routes: Risk assessment for entry or stay, Assistance with asylum, visa and residence applications and Detecting, recognising or identifying persons. For each system, check the intended purpose, the output and the impact on access, rights or safety.

What should be documented before obligations are determined?

Document the intended purpose, use context, relevant Annex III route, Article 6(3) assessment, any profiling, provider/deployer roles and the required safeguards.