Martha Liliana Picon-Diaz et al. v. Pamela J. Bondi

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Menera, 60 F.4th 1289 (10th Cir. 2023), which involved a they were targeted because of their familial relationship to criminal defendant's challenge to his sentence, see id. at 1291. “someone perceived as defiant to a criminal organization” Petitioners’ counsel relies on or quotes from this apparently because “the threats in this case followed [the] uncle's fictitious Rodriguez-Romero case multiple other times in his resistance to extortion and his subsequent shooting.” Id. at brief. See Pet'rs’ Br. at 8, 9, 11, 15, 18, 19, 22. 19. Petitioners further argue that the BIA misapplied the “one central reason” standard because “[t]hat standard does not Petitioners’ counsel did not file a reply brief, where he might require a persecutor to expressly declare their motives but have explained this fabricated citation. If counsel made a allows adjudicators to consider indirect evidence, including citation error, we have not been able to deduce what it might the sequence of events, patterns of threats, and the broader be. We have not uncovered any relevant federal case similarly social and political context.” Id. at 23–24. captioned or containing any of the quotations that counsel attributes to this apparently nonexistent case.2 This line of argument fails to persuade us that the BIA erred. This case citation and the quotations and propositions First, Petitioners never testified that there was any link attributed to it appear fabricated. This is likely the result of between the uncle's shooting in 2020 and the threats to their Petitioners’ counsel's use of a generative artificial intelligence son in 2022, so there is no evidence that would support a tool as a research and drafting aid without adequate review finding that the threats to their son were on account of their of the results the tool generated. See Wadsworth v. Walmart family membership to the uncle. Inc., 348 F.R.D. 489, 497 (D. Wyo. 2025) (“It is ... well- known in the legal community that AI resources generate Second, the IJ and the BIA considered the circumstantial fake cases.”). Such fabrications are often referred to as evidence Petitioners claim is relevant to their application, “AI [h]allucinations,” which happen “when an AI [model] so there was no misapplication of the “one central reason” generates fake sources of information.” Id. at 493 (internal standard. quotation marks omitted). We must, of course, disregard Third, Petitioners’ argument is contrary to our decision in Petitioners’ reliance on this case.3 a factually analogous case, Orellana-Recinos. There, gang members repeatedly threatened a mother that she and her So doing, we disagree with Petitioners’ argument son would “pay” if the son refused to join the gang and sell regarding recognition of a particular social group. Although drugs. 993 F.3d at 853 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Authorities cited in the passage: Rodriguez-Romero v. Garland, 60 F.4th 1283 (10th Cir. 2023) · Counsel repeatedly cited and quoted a non-existent Tenth Circuit decision captioned 'Rodriguez-Romero v. Garland · See Wadsworth v. Walmart family membership to the uncle. Inc