HomeCasesREDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

D. Oregon · May 19, 2026

OR / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsimmigrationtrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel's Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF No. 34) contained fabricated case citation(s); the Court allowed an amended filing (ECF No. 40). Outcome: Allowed to correct filing.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Allowed to correct filing; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and immigration involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Allowed to correct filing in D. Oregon, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and immigration involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Allowed to correct filing in D. Oregon, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Oregon

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMay 19, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeAllowed to correct filing

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Allowed to correct filing

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel's Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF No. 34) contained fabricated case citation(s); the Court allowed an amended filing (ECF No. 40).
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel's Response to Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 36) contained fabricated case citation(s); the Court allowed an amended filing (ECF No. 41).

Questions this record answers

What happened in REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services?: Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel's Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF No. 34) contained fabricated case citation(s); the Court allowed an amended filing (ECF No. 40). Outcome: Allowed to correct filing.
Why does REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and immigration involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Allowed to correct filing in D. Oregon, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services?: 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 REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 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.

Michael J. Cross v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al.D. Oregon · Jun 29, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Steven Nemec v. Kelsey Kanoelani Alao and Alyssa Jade AlaoD. Oregon · Apr 10, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Yves Hector Vimegnon v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.D. Oregon · Mar 30, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Stafford v. Andrew Taffet, et al.D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Zack Jones v. Target CorporationD. Oregon · Mar 6, 2026same court · fake citations + trial McNeal v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555; Safeway, Inc.D. Oregon · Jan 22, 2026same court · fake citations + trial

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 Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Oregon

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMay 19, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeAllowed to correct filing

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel's Suggested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (ECF No. 34) contained fabricated case citation(s); the Court allowed an amended filing (ECF No. 40).

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel's Response to Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 36) contained fabricated case citation(s); the Court allowed an amended filing (ECF No. 41).

Questions this record answers

What happened in REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services?

Why does REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services?

Which source supports this REDACTED v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 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.