Pasuengos v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2)

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 3 de febrero de 2026, Federal Circuit and Family Court (Australia) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. A case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court found it was AI-generated and refused to reproduce it. Counsel admitted the citations came from an AI-generated Google summary.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. A second case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court determined it was a hallucinated authority produced by AI and did not rely on it.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. A third case cited at para [27] of the applicant's original submissions was non-existent; the court treated it as an AI hallucination and the solicitors withdrew reliance on the citation.

Desenlace

Bar Referral. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1852/Pasuengos_v_Minister_for_Immigration_and_Citizenship_3_February_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.