Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 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 passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1)
E.D. California · Jan 22, 2026
CA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsimmigrationtrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation. Outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Flores v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-00491, 2020 WL 1939565 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and provided a different, real citation.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in E.D. California, with the listed outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation. Outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in E.D. California, with the listed outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJan 22, 2026
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeOrder to inform client and staff of errors
Known amountNot recorded
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
Order to inform client and staff of errors
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 | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Flores v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-00491, 2020 WL 1939565 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and provided a different, real citation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner's reply cited 'Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019)', which the Court identified as an incorrect/nonexistent citation; petitioner later admitted error and submitted a different, real 'Phan' citation. Outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.
- Why does That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1) matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in E.D. California, with the listed outcome: Order to inform client and staff of errors.
- What does the public record establish about That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1)?
- 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 That Xiong v. Minga Wofford (1) 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.