Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Jul 31, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 27, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Asif v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 1402
FedCFamC2G (Division 2) · Jul 22, 2026
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | ChatGPT produced fabricated details relating to a 'No 3' judgment and admitted fabricating those details when interrogated by the Judge. Outcome: Application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay First Respondent's costs of 9,097.93; Court criticised AI-generated submissions and noted possibility of above-scale costs due to AI hallucinations.. The self-represented Applicant admitted using ChatGPT to draft written submissions which contained hallucinated and incorrect authorities, paragraph references, and propositions. The Court identified fabricated details (including a ChatGPT-created account concerning a 'No 3' judgment) and multiple mis-citations/misrepresentations (eg. incorrect paragraph citation in Garikimukku, improper use of Inderjit and Patel citations). The Court criticised the AI-generated material, treated it as imposing an additional burden on the respondent and the Court, and ordered costs (with consideration of above-scale costs because of the AI usage).
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay First Respondent's costs of 9,097.93; Court criticised AI-generated submissions and noted possibility of above-scale costs due to AI hallucinations.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay First Respondent's costs of 9,097.93; Court criticised AI-generated submissions and noted possibility of above-scale costs due to AI hallucinations. in FedCFamC2G (Division 2). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | ChatGPT produced fabricated details relating to a 'No 3' judgment and admitted fabricating those details when interrogated by the Judge. Outcome: Application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay First Respondent's costs of 9,097.93; Court criticised AI-generated submissions and noted possibility of above-scale costs due to AI hallucinations.. The self-represented Applicant admitted using ChatGPT to draft written submissions which contained hallucinated and incorrect authorities, paragraph references, and propositions. The Court identified fabricated details (including a ChatGPT-created account concerning a 'No 3' judgment) and multiple mis-citations/misrepresentations (eg. incorrect paragraph citation in Garikimukku, improper use of Inderjit and Patel citations). The Court criticised the AI-generated material, treated it as imposing an additional burden on the respondent and the Court, and ordered costs (with consideration of above-scale costs because of the AI usage).
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay First Respondent's costs of 9,097.93; Court criticised AI-generated submissions and noted possibility of above-scale costs due to AI hallucinations. in FedCFamC2G (Division 2). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CourtFedCFamC2G (Division 2)
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 22, 2026
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeApplication dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay First Respondent's costs of 9,097.93; Court criticised AI-generated submissions and noted possibility of above-scale costs due to AI hallucinations.
Known amount$1
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay First Respondent's costs of 9,097.93; Court criticised AI-generated submissions and noted possibility of above-scale costs due to AI hallucinations.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | ChatGPT produced fabricated details relating to a 'No 3' judgment and admitted fabricating those details when interrogated by the Judge.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Submission cited a non-existent paragraph [39] in Garikimukku; the Court noted paragraph [39] does not exist.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant's submissions relied on Inderjit in a manner the Court found the case did not support (misstated principle).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Applicant referenced 'Patel 2026' in a likely AI-driven miscitation; the Court noted the citation was unintended and likely meant Patel 2019.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | AI-generated written submissions contained hallucinated authorities and repetitive, substantively weak material imposing extra burden on respondent and Court.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Asif v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 1402?
- Fabricated: Case Law | ChatGPT produced fabricated details relating to a 'No 3' judgment and admitted fabricating those details when interrogated by the Judge. Outcome: Application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay First Respondent's costs of 9,097.93; Court criticised AI-generated submissions and noted possibility of above-scale costs due to AI hallucinations.. The self-represented Applicant admitted using ChatGPT to draft written submissions which contained hallucinated and incorrect authorities, paragraph references, and propositions. The Court identified fabricated details (including a ChatGPT-created account concerning a 'No 3' judgment) and multiple mis-citations/misrepresentations (eg. incorrect paragraph citation in Garikimukku, improper use of Inderjit and Patel citations). The Court criticised the AI-generated material, treated it as imposing an additional burden on the respondent and the Court, and ordered costs (with consideration of above-scale costs because of the AI usage).
- Why does Asif v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 1402 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Application dismissed; Applicant ordered to pay First Respondent's costs of 9,097.93; Court criticised AI-generated submissions and noted possibility of above-scale costs due to AI hallucinations. in FedCFamC2G (Division 2). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Asif v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 1402?
- 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 Asif v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2026] FedCFamC2G 1402 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.