Almeida Porfirio v. Mullin
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · D.D.C. · District of Columbia bar guidance
Conduct
Opposition to a transfer motion cited two D.D.C. decisions the court could not locate, quotations it could not find, and mischaracterized holdings, including the court's own.
Consequence
No finding and no sanction. The court transferred the case to N.D. Tex. and left any inquiry into the brief's preparation to the transferee court.
Lesson
Here the court flagged AI hallmarks in its opinion but held off, because counsel had not been heard; the question traveled with the transferred case.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Almeida Porfirio v. Mullin, Civil Action No. 25-4055 (RC), Memorandum Opinion (D.D.C. July 23, 2026) (Contreras, J.), ECF No. 9
- Decided
- July 23, 2026
Summary
Catarina Almeida Porfirio, a Brazilian citizen living in Utah, sued the Secretary of Homeland Security and the USCIS Director in the District of Columbia over the denial of her EB-1A visa petition by a Texas field office; the government moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas or the District of Utah and to dismiss. Her opposition brief, filed by counsel, cited "Ravenell v. Van Buren, 2019 WL 6619363, at *5 (D.D.C. Dec. 5, 2019)," which the government and the court could not locate, and "Hand & Hand, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Services, 21 F. Supp. 3d 8 (D.D.C. 2014)," which the court "has been unable to locate." The court could not find a quotation the brief attributed to Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Bosworth, found no support for propositions the brief attributed to Wolfram Alpha v. Cuccinelli, In re Scott and Greater Yellowstone, and wrote that the brief "appears to severely mischaracterize case holdings and dispositions," for example describing the court's own Wolfram decision as "denying transfer" when that case was transferred to Illinois.
- AI tool:
- Suspected AI, tool not identified (the court wrote that the errors "bear the hallmarks of reliance on an artificial intelligence tool" but made no finding that anything improper was done)
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court declined to make any finding or open an inquiry and left the matter to the transferee court
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
Judge Rudolph Contreras granted the government's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice. In a closing section titled "Potential Improper Preparation of Opposition Brief," the court said it "harbors some concern" and that "[i]t is not acceptable to submit filings to the Court containing false, misleading, or nonexistent quotations or authorities," citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2) and D.C. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3(a)(1). It then held back: "At this juncture, however, it would be premature for the Court to find that anything improper was done in the preparation of the opposition brief, and the Court makes no such finding at this time," because counsel had no opportunity to respond. It would not open an inquiry, leaving to "the sound judgment of the transferee court how to handle the matter," while noting that the errors "bear the hallmarks of reliance on an artificial intelligence tool" and that "if this case somehow returns to this Court, the Court may inquire further."
Why does Almeida Porfirio v. Mullin matter for law firms using AI?
Judge Contreras made no finding of misconduct, and the opinion says so plainly: “it would be premature for the Court to find that anything improper was done in the preparation of the opposition brief, and the Court makes no such finding at this time.” The reason was procedural fairness. Counsel “has had no opportunity to address the Court’s concerns,” and because the case was leaving the district, the court would “leave to the sound judgment of the transferee court how to handle the matter.”
The record the court assembled is still specific. Two authorities cited for venue points could not be found: Ravenell v. Van Buren, which the government had flagged in its reply, and Hand & Hand, LLC v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. A quotation attributed to Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Bosworth was language the court could not find in that opinion, and the brief described the court’s own Wolfram Alpha decision as “denying transfer” when it had transferred the case. The court surveyed the range of responses other courts have used (striking filings, show-cause orders, grievance referrals) and noted that the combination “bear[s] the hallmarks of reliance on an artificial intelligence tool,” without adopting any of them.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that a written opinion can put a brief’s defects on the public record even when the court imposes nothing. Here the court’s closing section also traveled with the case to the Northern District of Texas, where the question of how to handle it remained open as of the order.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Verify that every cited case exists before relying on it for a procedural point; here one venue authority could not be located by the government or the court, and another by the court.
- Review whether the brief describes a cited case's disposition correctly. The court noted the brief called its own Wolfram decision "denying transfer" when it had transferred the case.
- Consider that a court declining to act can still put concerns on the record. The opinion expressly left "to the sound judgment of the transferee court how to handle the matter."
Sources
Primary sources
- The order prints the Ravenell citation two ways: "2019 WL 6619363" on page 13 (quoting the opposition) and "2019 WL 6617363" on page 16 (describing the government's reply). The entry quotes the page 13 form; which number the opposition used was not checked against the brief.
- The court made no finding of AI use or of any impropriety; the AI reference is its observation that the errors "bear the hallmarks" of an AI tool. The order does not name the attorney who filed the opposition.
- Whether the Northern District of Texas, as transferee court, took any action on the brief after July 23, 2026 was not checked.