Immigration Appeals Board Suspends Lawyer Over AI-Invented Case Citations, Saying Misconduct Rules Apply Whatever the Tool

The Board of Immigration Appeals has barred a California lawyer from immigration courts, the Board and DHS for six months after the Ninth Circuit disciplined him over briefs citing cases that do not exist. The precedent makes a federal court’s AI sanction follow a lawyer across all of immigration practice.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has suspended Orange County, California, attorney Mike Singh Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, matching a Ninth Circuit suspension over briefs that cited invented cases and fabricated quotations. In Matter of Sethi, 30 I&N Dec. 112, designated as a precedent on Oct. 1, 2026, the Board held that a lawyer disciplined for “artificial intelligence hallucinations” and false statements to a court gets no special treatment: the ordinary rules of reciprocal discipline apply, whatever tool produced the errors.

For immigration lawyers, the reach of the order is the point. Suspension from practice before DHS covers USCIS, ICE and CBP, not just courtroom work, so a sanction that began in one federal appeals court now closes every door an immigration practice depends on. And the Board has made clear it will not reopen the federal court’s findings.

The denials did more damage than the software

The Ninth Circuit’s June 3 order in Lnu v. Blanche said plainly that it was not punishing anyone for using generative AI. What drew the sanction came afterward. Briefs in three immigration cases cited nonexistent decisions and quoted real opinions for language they do not contain. Pressed by the court, the lawyers called the errors typographical and denied using AI before conceding it may have been involved. The court found those statements knowingly or recklessly false, and noted Sethi’s own account that unlicensed brief writers drafted the arguments and that firm attorneys did not normally check citations. Bloomberg Law reported that the errors were ultimately traced to an unlicensed law school graduate at the firm who used AI without authorization.

The court imposed the same package on Sethi and William Rounds, who argued one of the cases:

Suspension: six months from practice before the Ninth Circuit.
Fine: $2,500 each.
Notice: copies of the order to clients, opposing counsel and judges in every pending case, and to every lawyer at their firms.
AI certification: for two years, a sworn statement in filings by them and their firms’ attorneys disclosing whether generative AI was used, naming the tool and certifying that every citation is real.
Bar referral: service of the order on the State Bar of California for further proceedings as appropriate.

The risk is not limited to free chatbots: the court cited a 2024 study that found the AI research tools from Westlaw and Lexis hallucinated in 17 percent and 33 percent of answers, respectively.

Why the Board would not take a second look

Under 8 C.F.R. 1003.103, a federal court’s suspension order is enough for the Board to suspend a practitioner immediately once EOIR and DHS disciplinary counsel petition for it, which they did jointly in June. The certified order creates a presumption of misconduct that a lawyer can overcome only with clear and convincing evidence of a due process violation, an infirmity of proof or a grave injustice. Sethi argued that he never knew AI was involved, that no other circuit had suspended a lawyer for AI conduct and that the suspension would cost him financially. The Board called the first argument an attempt to relitigate the Ninth Circuit’s findings, rejected the second because fabricated citations and false statements are misconduct with or without AI, and repeated its rule that financial hardship is not a grave injustice. “An attorney must conduct himself or herself in accordance with governing rules of professional conduct regardless of the tools he or she uses,” the Board wrote. The Board’s decision addresses only Sethi.

The suspension runs from June 13, the effective date of the Ninth Circuit order, so on its face it ends in mid-December. The order points Sethi to the reinstatement procedure in 8 C.F.R. 1003.107 and requires him to report any further discipline, including whatever the California bar decides.

The larger lesson is about supervision more than software. Immigration practice runs on volume, with petitions for review, BIA briefs and USCIS filings often drafted by non-lawyer staff. Sethi signals that EOIR will treat an unchecked citation as the signing attorney’s failure, and the Ninth Circuit’s disclosure requirement is a template other courts and adjudicators may borrow. Both rulings also show that the denial, not the mistake, is what turned an embarrassment into a suspension. For the clients in Lnu, the errors did not decide the case: the Ninth Circuit had granted their petition in November 2025 on other grounds.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts