HomeCasesPasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)

Federal Circuit and Family Court · Feb 3, 2026

AustraliaEditorial impact: highfake citationsbar referraladministrativeappellate

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | A case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court found it was AI-generated and refused to reproduce it. Counsel admitted the citations came from an AI-generated Google summary. Outcome: Bar Referral.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | A case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court found it was AI-generated and refused to reproduce it. Counsel admitted the citations came from an AI-generated Google summary. || Fabricated: Case Law | A second case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court determined it was a hallucinated authority produced by AI and did not rely on it. || Fabricated: Case Law | A third case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court treated it as an AI hallucination and the solicitors withdrew reliance on the citation.
Why it matters now: Never cite from AI-generated Google summaries; treat any Overview snippet as unverified until confirmed in primary databases.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Never cite from AI-generated Google summaries; treat any Overview snippet as unverified until confirmed in primary databases.

Record details

CourtFederal Circuit and Family Court

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateFeb 3, 2026

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeBar Referral

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

Bar Referral

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | A case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court found it was AI-generated and refused to reproduce it. Counsel admitted the citations came from an AI-generated Google summary.
Fabricated: Case Law | A second case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court determined it was a hallucinated authority produced by AI and did not rely on it.
Fabricated: Case Law | A third case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court treated it as an AI hallucination and the solicitors withdrew reliance on the citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)?: Fabricated: Case Law | A case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court found it was AI-generated and refused to reproduce it. Counsel admitted the citations came from an AI-generated Google summary. Outcome: Bar Referral.
Why does Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) matter for legal AI risk?: Never cite from AI-generated Google summaries; treat any Overview snippet as unverified until confirmed in primary databases.
What does the public record establish about Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) 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.

Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and CitizenshipFederal Circuit and Family Court · Dec 22, 2025same court · fake citations + administrative JNE24 v Minister for Immigration and CitizenshipFederal Circuit and Family Court · Aug 15, 2025same court · fake citations + administrative Lutfi v. TuckerFederal Circuit and Family Court · Jan 16, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate McCarthy v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration3rd Cir. CA · Mar 27, 2026fake citations + bar referral · same recorded tool: Unidentified ELG20 v Minister for Immigration and CitizenshipFederal Circuit and Family Court · Mar 5, 2026same court · fake citations + appellate Tekla & TeklaFederal Circuit and Family Court · Dec 23, 2025same court · fake citations + appellate

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Never cite from AI-generated Google summaries; treat any Overview snippet as unverified until confirmed in primary databases.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | A second case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court determined it was a hallucinated authority produced by AI and did not rely on it.

Fabricated: Case Law | A third case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court treated it as an AI hallucination and the solicitors withdrew reliance on the citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)?

Why does Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) matter for legal AI risk?

Never cite from AI-generated Google summaries; treat any Overview snippet as unverified until confirmed in primary databases.

What does the public record establish about Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)?

Which source supports this Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) 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.