BIA Imposes Reciprocal Discipline on Attorney Suspended by the Ninth Circuit Over AI-Generated Brief Errors

In a precedent decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals has imposed a six-month reciprocal suspension on an attorney who had already been suspended by the Ninth Circuit after filing a brief containing errors traced to generative AI use. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.103(a) and (b), a certified record of a federal court suspension triggers immediate suspension before the Board and creates a rebuttable presumption that equivalent discipline is warranted, which the attorney can overcome only with clear and convincing evidence of a due process violation, an "infirmity of proof," or a "grave injustice."

The Board rejected each of the attorney's arguments for avoiding reciprocal discipline. It held that the Ninth Circuit had properly inferred, from circumstantial evidence including an implausible explanation and a pattern of similar conduct, that the attorney knew his brief contained fabricated or erroneous material. And distinguishing hardship from injustice under Matter of Kronegold, the Board emphasized that professional conduct standards do not bend based on the tools an attorney uses to prepare a filing — discipline for AI-related errors, including citations to nonexistent cases, is ordinary professional regulation rather than an outlier result.

The full text of Matter of Mike Singh Sethi can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1463666/dl?inline

BIA Denies Reinstatement to Attorney Suspended in One Jurisdiction Despite Standing Restored Elsewhere

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied a petition for reinstatement filed by an attorney indefinitely suspended from practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, and DHS since 2011, holding that regaining good standing in one state does not satisfy the regulatory definition of "attorney" where the petitioner remains barred from practicing in a federal appellate court.

The Board held that the regulatory definition requires a petitioner to show she is not under any order restricting her practice of law in any jurisdiction, and that the petitioner's resignation from a circuit court's bar in lieu of disciplinary proceedings remained unaddressed regardless of her reinstatement before a state supreme court. The Board also found reinstatement independently unwarranted because the attorney had registered for an EOIR identification number and appeared in several immigration court cases while still under suspension.

The full text of Matter of Jones can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1458896/dl?inline

Ninth Circuit Sanctions Attorneys for AI-Hallucinated Immigration Briefs

The Ninth Circuit has sanctioned immigration attorneys after briefing in an asylum, withholding, and CAT case included nonexistent cases, fabricated quotations, and mischaracterizations of real authority. The Court emphasized that the use of AI is not itself sanctionable, but that signing and filing briefs containing false authorities and unsupported propositions violates counsel’s obligations.

The Court imposed monetary sanctions, suspended the attorneys from Ninth Circuit practice for six months, referred the matter to the California State Bar, and required future Sethi Law Group filings to disclose whether AI was used and to certify that all citations and quotations were personally verified by the signing attorney. The Court also explained that when an attorney discovers a hallucinated citation, simply replacing it without disclosing the fabrication is insufficient.

The full text of Lnu v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/06/03/24-4790.pdf

Seventh Circuit Denies Cancellation Petition and Sanctions Counsel for AI-Hallucinated Brief

The Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Mexican respondent who sought non-LPR cancellation of removal. The agency denied cancellation based on a domestic violence conviction and, independently, because the respondent failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen wife.

The Court held that Illinois battery under 720 ILCS 5/12-3(a)(1) qualifies as a crime of violence and that the respondent’s mother and siblings were protected family members for purposes of the domestic violence ground. The Court also found that the hardship issue was waived and, alternatively, that substantial evidence supported the agency’s hardship determination. The Court sanctioned counsel $5,000 after the opening brief included fabricated quotations, misstated cases, and record assertions contradicted by the evidence.

The full text of Perez-Castillo v. Blanche can be found here: https://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/OpinionsWeb/processWebInputExternal.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2026/D06-01/C:25-1988:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:3550588:S:0

BIA Upholds Suspension of Attorney who had his Legal Assistant Impersonate him During Telephonic Hearings

In a published decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the suspension of an attorney who repeatedly had his legal assistant impersonate him during telephonic hearings.  The Board agreed that the attorney had assisted in the unauthorized practice of law, and upheld a 16 month suspension from practice before the immigration agencies and a 7 year ban on telephonic appearances.

The full text of Matter of P. Singh, Attorney can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/623226/download

Seventh Circuit Chastises Attorney for Repeatedly Making the Same Procedural Error

Shaohua He  filed applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.  When his applications were denied, he appealed the denial to the Board of Immigration Appeals, who affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision.  He then hired a new attorney, who, instead of filing a petition for review with the Seventh  Circuit, filed a motion to reconsider with the Board of Immigration Appeals.  By the time the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion, the 30 day window to file a petition for review of the underlying denial of He's applications had expired.  Thus, all He could do was to file a petition for review of the denied motion to reconsider.  Unfortunately, his attorney focused exclusively on the denial of his applications for relief, and did not address why the denial of the motion to reconsider (the issue before the Seventh Circuit) was inappropriate.  The Seventh Circuit signaled out He's attorney by name, noting that he had repeatedly made this procedural error.  The court ordered its clerk's office to send the decision to the Illinois State Bar for any disciplinary action the Bar deemed necessary against the attorney.  The court also noted that if the attorney continued this behavior, it could initiate disciplinary action against him for filing frivolous appeals.

This is the second published decision from the Seventh Circuit this month that identifies an immigration attorney by name and chastises him for inadequate representation.  Seventh Circuit attorneys (and all attorneys for that matter) beware!  You need to understand the rules of appellate court jurisdiction so that you do not forfeit your client's right to an appeal! 

The full text of He v. Holder can be found here: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D03-27/C:14-3104:J:Hamilton:aut:T:fnOp:N:1523999:S:0