AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
Search free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 13, 2026 · Latest decision Nov 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesLiu v. Rubio
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Liu v. Rubio

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

D. D.C. · Nov 4, 2026

DC / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsimmigrationtrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff cited four purported federal district court decisions; the Court found one apparently miscited and could not locate two others, leaving their existence uncertain. The Court treated the citations as undermining the filing's credibility.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. D.C.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff cited four purported federal district court decisions; the Court found one apparently miscited and could not locate two others, leaving their existence uncertain. The Court treated the citations as undermining the filing's credibility.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. D.C.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

District of ColumbiaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore DCOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. D.C.
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitD.C. Circuit
DateNov 4, 2026
First seenNov 13, 2026 (in this dataset)
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff cited four purported federal district court decisions; the Court found one apparently miscited and could not locate two others, leaving their existence uncertain. The Court treated the citations as undermining the filing's credibility.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Liu v. Rubio?
Fabricated: Case Law | The plaintiff cited four purported federal district court decisions; the Court found one apparently miscited and could not locate two others, leaving their existence uncertain. The Court treated the citations as undermining the filing's credibility.
Why does Liu v. Rubio matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in D. D.C.. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Liu v. Rubio?
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 Liu v. Rubio 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.

Catarina Almeida Porfirio v. Homeland Security, et al.D. D.C. · Jul 23, 2026same court · fake citations + immigrationMatiella v. Murdock Street, LLCD. D.C. · Oct 27, 2026same court · trialGarner v. Transit Employees Federal Credit UnionD. D.C. · Sep 22, 2026same court · trialX. v. CanadaD. DC · Jan 16, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsVokshi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)Federal Court of Canada · Nov 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceOscar Danilo Montealto Garcia v. Todd Lyons, et al.C.D. California · May 14, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in source

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.