ANPV and SAPV v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Upper Tribunal (IAC) · Sep 29, 2025
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The cited Honduras country-guidance authority did not exist. The purported decision was not found, and the alternative authorities produced by counsel concerned Pakistan or an interim order and did not support claims about systemic fear and impunity in Honduras. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records Order to Show Cause. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Order to Show Cause in Upper Tribunal (IAC). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The cited Honduras country-guidance authority did not exist. The purported decision was not found, and the alternative authorities produced by counsel concerned Pakistan or an interim order and did not support claims about systemic fear and impunity in Honduras. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Order to Show Cause in Upper Tribunal (IAC). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Microsoft Copilot is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Order to Show Cause
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
10 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The cited Honduras country-guidance authority did not exist. The purported decision was not found, and the alternative authorities produced by counsel concerned Pakistan or an interim order and did not support claims about systemic fear and impunity in Honduras.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The cited Eritrea authority did not exist. The substitute case, BF (Eritrea) v SSHD, concerned interpretation of administrative policies and did not address section 8 credibility considerations.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The authority existed but was misrepresented as establishing trauma-informed principles for evaluating fragmented or emotionally charged testimony. The court found that it concerned the use of plausibility in credibility assessments and did not support the ground.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The citation identified the Court of Appeal decision, but counsel produced the Supreme Court decision instead. Neither decision supported the proposition advanced concerning documentary evidence.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The case was cited as supporting a section 8 argument about plausible, fear-based decisions under threat. The court held that JT (Cameroon) was the leading section 8 authority but did not support the proposition made in the grounds.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The case name and citation did not match: [2020] UKSC 9 was MS (Pakistan) v SSHD, a human-trafficking case, not SC (Protection), and it did not concern internal relocation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The authority was used to support the proposition that cumulative past harm could sustain ongoing risk, but the cited paragraphs merely recounted case history and witness evidence and contained no such holding.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The authority concerned the best interests of children in an extradition context and did not support the Article 3 ECHR proposition advanced in the grounds. The judge noted that Article 3 was not even mentioned in the relevant judgment.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | R (YH) v SSHD was cited for a section 8 credibility argument, but the case concerned fresh protection claims and paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules and was accepted to be irrelevant.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The citation belonged to AM (Cameroon), not AM (Afghanistan). The actual case concerned procedural impropriety and did not introduce feasibility standards for internal relocation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in ANPV and SAPV v Secretary of State for the Home Department?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The cited Honduras country-guidance authority did not exist. The purported decision was not found, and the alternative authorities produced by counsel concerned Pakistan or an interim order and did not support claims about systemic fear and impunity in Honduras. Outcome: Order to Show Cause.
- Why does ANPV and SAPV v Secretary of State for the Home Department matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Order to Show Cause in Upper Tribunal (IAC). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about ANPV and SAPV v Secretary of State for the Home Department?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this ANPV and SAPV v Secretary of State for the Home Department summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.