A federal appeals court has shut the door on a Polish woman’s quest for a green card while simultaneously issuing a stern warning to her attorney for filing a brief filled with “hallucinated” legal citations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled Monday that it lacks the power to review the government’s denial of an immigration waiver for Danuta Dec.
However, the legal victory for the Department of Homeland Security was nearly overshadowed by a sharp rebuke of Dec’s lawyer, who submitted a brief containing two non-existent court cases and a fabricated quotation—errors the court noted are “tell-tale signs” of artificial intelligence.
A Hard Line on Immigration Waivers
Danuta Dec, a native of Poland, has lived in the United States for roughly 20 years. While she was approved for a family-based visa in 2009 through her sister, her long-term unlawful presence made her “inadmissible” under federal law.
Normally, this requires a ten-year wait outside the country before a visa can be issued.
READ: Wisconsin Mom Tells 911 “She Needs A Hearse” After Stabbing Death Of 14-Year-Old Daughter
Dec sought a waiver of this waiting period following the death of her mother in 2020, arguing that the loss constituted an “extreme hardship.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the request, noting that since her sister—not her late mother—was the original petitioner for her visa, the specific “death of a relative” protection she invoked did not apply.
Chief Judge Michael Brian Brennan, writing for the three-judge panel, affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of the case. The court held that because Congress committed waiver decisions to the “sole discretion” of the Secretary of Homeland Security, federal judges have no jurisdiction to second-guess those outcomes.
“No review means no review,” Brennan wrote, quoting a previous 2024 decision. “The statute does not need to list all of the many potential legal theories that are not reviewable.”
The “AI Hallucination” Controversy
The most striking portion of the opinion involved the conduct of Dec’s attorney. During oral arguments in February, the court questioned the lawyer about two citations and a quote in her brief that did not exist in any legal database.
The attorney denied using AI tools like ChatGPT, telling the court in a follow-up letter that she was “way too technologically challenged” to even attempt using the software. She claimed she likely “copied and pasted” the section from an old brief but could not find the original source.
The court didn’t buy the excuse but stopped short of heavy fines. While the judges acknowledged that AI “hallucinations” are becoming “repeat offenders” in modern courtrooms, they focused on the basic duty of a lawyer to verify their work.
“Our concern lies with trained lawyers failing to check the accuracy of legal citations and quotations in their filings,” the opinion stated. “We remind counsel that this is easier now than ever.”
A Public Admonishment
While the court declined to officially sanction the attorney—citing her ten years of practice, her heavy caseload due to Chicago’s immigration surge, and her “sincere apology”—it issued a formal public admonishment.
The ruling serves as a high-profile reminder to the legal community that “honesty and vigilance” remain mandatory, regardless of whether a lawyer uses a search engine or an AI bot.
For Dec, the ruling means her legal options are effectively exhausted unless the government initiates formal removal proceedings, which would provide a different, albeit riskier, path to judicial review.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
