[00:00:00] Speaker 00:
I would like to reserve two minutes for rebuttal at the end.

[00:00:13] Speaker 00:
This case is primarily about the BIA and the immigration judge failing to consider all the relevant factors in making an adverse credibility finding.

[00:00:25] Speaker 00:
and ultimately in their determination to deny asylum, withholding, and convention against torture.

[00:00:31] Speaker 00:
Both either misrepresented the record or failed to address directly relevant facts that would undermine the adverse credibility determination that the immigration judge made

[00:00:43] Speaker 00:
first and probably the most clear, the BIA misrepresented the fact that the immigration judge did invoke the falsus in uno maxim.

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
The BIA stated that the judge did not invoke it, but the immigration judge quoted the falsus in uno maxim.

[00:01:03] Speaker 00:
The immigration judge cited to a case where he got the falsus in uno maxim.

[00:01:09] Speaker 00:
And that was one of only four cases total that the immigration judge cited in his oral decision.

[00:01:16] Speaker 00:
He included a separate addendum of law that had several other cases.

[00:01:21] Speaker 00:
But in his oral decision, there was only four cases cited.

[00:01:24] Speaker 00:
And that one, referring to the falsus in uno maxim, was one of them.

[00:01:29] Speaker 00:
So for the BIA to state that the immigration judge did not invoke the falsus in uno maxim, I think is just a clear misrepresentation of the record.

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
And that's a clear indication that the BIA did not consider all of the relevant factors when coming to its... What was wrong with invoking falseness in Nuno?

[00:01:48] Speaker 00:
There's nothing necessarily wrong with invoking it.

[00:01:51] Speaker 00:
How about in this case?

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
In this case, there is nothing wrong with invoking it at all, or in general.

[00:01:59] Speaker 00:
It's the fact that the BIA stated that the immigration judge did not invoke it.

[00:02:05] Speaker 00:
when it's clear on the face of the judge's decision that it was invoked.

[00:02:10] Speaker 00:
Now, the falsus inuno maxim can be used to say, hey, there is a problem or something, some inconsistency, some discrepancy here.

[00:02:21] Speaker 00:
And so I think we should apply it elsewhere.

[00:02:23] Speaker 00:
There's nothing wrong with doing that.

[00:02:25] Speaker 00:
But the way that the immigration judge did it and the fact that the BIA claimed that it was not invoked is the issue.

[00:02:32] Speaker 02:
Why is that a problem?

[00:02:33] Speaker 02:
If we agree with you that the immigration judge did actually invoke it, which I think that's a disputed question.

[00:02:40] Speaker 02:
But if we agree with you, why is that an error for the BIA to say that it didn't happen?

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
Because it's plain on its face that it didn't happen.

[00:02:50] Speaker 00:
So if the BIA is going to make that kind of an error on something.

[00:02:54] Speaker 02:
I'm trying to get at material.

[00:02:55] Speaker 02:
That's sort of a procedural point.

[00:02:57] Speaker 02:
But what does it mean in terms of the substance of the decision?

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
It indicates that if they did not notice that glaring error, that there may be other errors that they did not notice.

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
So nothing about that in and of itself is problematic in terms of reviewing the merits of this decision?

[00:03:12] Speaker 00:
I think that there is other issues because many of the specific issues or the specific discrepancies or inconsistencies that were raised themselves can be significantly undermined.

[00:03:26] Speaker 00:
And so I don't think that there's any material discrepancy.

[00:03:28] Speaker 03:
Well, the IJ did go through each of the alleged deficiencies in his credibility.

[00:03:35] Speaker 00:
He did.

[00:03:36] Speaker 00:
And there's many of them that I think are undermined.

[00:03:38] Speaker 00:
So why don't we just look directly at what he did, rather than worry about the...

[00:03:43] Speaker 00:
Certainly.

[00:03:44] Speaker 00:
And we can do that.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
One of the main issues was that they found that there were errors in the documents.

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
And so the sufficiency of the documents was not such that it could be that the documents submitted in support could be reliable or credible.

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
For example, the statements, the affidavits of the petitioner's father and the village elder, the Sarpanch, both of them included the same phrase.

[00:04:10] Speaker 00:
They said, my son, Malkit.

[00:04:12] Speaker 00:
Now, looking at the totality of the circumstances of both statements, that's clearly nothing more than a drafting error.

[00:04:20] Speaker 00:
Both of them contain boilerplate type language.

[00:04:23] Speaker 00:
The introductory two paragraphs are things like stating who they are, the fact that they have personal knowledge of what they're testifying to.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
their relationship to the different parties involved.

[00:04:34] Speaker 00:
That's fairly boilerplate language.

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
However, the rest of their statements are a mix of similar language but also unique language because both of them, the father and the Sarpanj, are testifying to events that both of them saw from their own perspectives.

[00:04:52] Speaker 00:
So there would be some overlap, but there also is some unique language.

[00:04:56] Speaker 04:
Isn't the officials

[00:04:59] Speaker 04:
statement in the affidavit is that he was quoting the father.

[00:05:04] Speaker 04:
I mean, you don't have to go that far.

[00:05:06] Speaker 04:
It's just an error because he was actually quoting somebody else, wasn't he?

[00:05:11] Speaker 00:
In that particular case, there's a lot of quoting back and forth of each other.

[00:05:15] Speaker 00:
But it just looks like it's a simple drafting error when looked in the totality of the circumstances.

[00:05:19] Speaker 03:
When I looked at it, it said, let's see, Jernal Singh, he was the

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
Leader.

[00:05:28] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:05:28] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:05:29] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:05:30] Speaker 03:
So he's the way I read this.

[00:05:32] Speaker 03:
He says, knowing the police is not going to help my son Malkit, he know and there's a word left out.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
Other option left but to leave from India with his family.

[00:05:43] Speaker 03:
His father, Ram Kalan, told me on December 15th, 2022 at the market.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
Now, that was raised to the BIA.

[00:05:57] Speaker 03:
I mean, they raised that.

[00:05:58] Speaker 03:
They pointed that out, that discrepancy.

[00:06:01] Speaker 00:
It was.

[00:06:01] Speaker 03:
And I think the last part, you know, just sort of gets dropped out by the IJ and by the BIA.

[00:06:09] Speaker 00:
And I think that another issue that the BIA makes or problem that the BIA makes with their decision is that they talk about that

[00:06:18] Speaker 00:
that phrase, that statement going to the core issue or a core issue of the case, which it's not really a core issue, it's simply kind of a generalized closing statement of their intentions.

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
It's not establishing any particular fact that either of those individuals saw or witnessed.

[00:06:37] Speaker 00:
And so I think that

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
That one particular discrepancy is either minor, not going to the heart of it, which would give it less weight, or is in a totality of the circumstances just obviously a drafting error.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
Another issue that the judge and the BIA both had was with the distinction between whether Malkit was a member of his political party or whether he was a worker in his political party.

[00:07:04] Speaker 00:
Now on his asylum application on page five,

[00:07:06] Speaker 00:
In response to a question, he wrote that he was a volunteer member of the party.

[00:07:12] Speaker 00:
On the next page, on page six of his application, it says that he was a worker for the party.

[00:07:18] Speaker 00:
Now in all of his testimony and all of the other documentation, it's pretty consistent and clear that he was a worker for the party, and his testimony makes that clear that that's important.

[00:07:27] Speaker 00:
But when the immigration judge mentioned and said that this is an important distinction and he put it wrong on his asylum application, the judge did not mention that on the very next page, on page six, he said that he was a worker.

[00:07:43] Speaker 00:
The judge also didn't mention that he had included the word volunteer before member, giving it that qualifier that it's not your regular typical member, that he was a volunteer member.

[00:07:54] Speaker 00:
So again, it appears that

[00:07:57] Speaker 00:
drafting error, something that was maybe not the most clear language is being used as something that is more significant than it is to find that the petitioner and his documentation is not sufficiently credible.

[00:08:14] Speaker 00:
Now, when the judge asked the petitioner on the record about this discrepancy, it's obvious that he did not know what the discrepancy or that the discrepancy existed.

[00:08:24] Speaker 00:
He just was

[00:08:26] Speaker 00:
the result of oversight or something like that.

[00:08:29] Speaker 00:
So again, the immigration judge and then the BIA to uphold it took a very minor error and blew it out of proportion, but did not mention and did not note the substantial facts that would have undermined their adverse credibility finding.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
Counsel, I want to shift gears a minute.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
Recently, on behalf of your client, a document was filed indicating that there were errors in the briefing that was submitted.

[00:08:54] Speaker 02:
and asserting that they were typographical errors, I'd like you to address that point and how they occurred.

[00:08:59] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:09:00] Speaker 00:
So there were two cases.

[00:09:02] Speaker 00:
The case names and the citations were somewhat garbled.

[00:09:07] Speaker 00:
On one, the case name that was cited in the brief was Eduardo, but the correct name should have been Udo.

[00:09:15] Speaker 00:
It stands for the same proposition.

[00:09:16] Speaker 00:
There's no difference in what the case stood for.

[00:09:19] Speaker 00:
And where the error came from,

[00:09:22] Speaker 00:
Not sure.

[00:09:23] Speaker 00:
It looks like it was a copy and paste error or something like that.

[00:09:27] Speaker 04:
Wasn't it the use of artificial intelligence?

[00:09:30] Speaker 04:
It was not used.

[00:09:31] Speaker 04:
Because you quote from Kamathos versus INS the phrase, an adverse credibility determination is not necessarily a death knell to cat protection.

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
And my clerk took a look at that case, and we couldn't find that phrase anywhere.

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
It just made up.

[00:09:51] Speaker 00:
I think that that phrase comes from a different case.

[00:09:55] Speaker 00:
I think Shrestha, another case that was cited, does use that phrase.

[00:10:00] Speaker 04:
But your brief gives it to the Kamala's case.

[00:10:05] Speaker 04:
Are you telling me the truth that you didn't use AI to beef up your brief here?

[00:10:12] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:10:13] Speaker 00:
AI was not used to beef up the brief.

[00:10:15] Speaker 04:
And also the case of Avedano, Hernandez versus Lynch, the phrase, the BIA must consider all evidence of record, including evidence of country conditions and assessing the possibility of future torture, is a hallucinatory phrase.

[00:10:30] Speaker 04:
It doesn't occur in that case.

[00:10:33] Speaker 00:
I don't think that's an exact quote that is discussing what the overall case stands for.

[00:10:38] Speaker 04:
No, no.

[00:10:38] Speaker 04:
Stick with the quote.

[00:10:39] Speaker 04:
Did you use AI in using that quote, counsel?

[00:10:43] Speaker 04:
No.

[00:10:44] Speaker 00:
So an individual who works at the office, drafts briefs, prepares them.

[00:10:57] Speaker 04:
Maybe the individual, did the individual use AI and report it to you?

[00:11:02] Speaker 00:
It is possible, but that person did not.

[00:11:07] Speaker 00:
That person did not indicate that they used AI.

[00:11:11] Speaker 00:
And there had been many conversations.

[00:11:13] Speaker 02:
Council, we're having a hard time believing that because of our review of this case.

[00:11:17] Speaker 02:
But we also looked at other cases from your office.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
And there are other cases that briefs have been filed that are currently pending in this court that have the same problem.

[00:11:25] Speaker 02:
And this doesn't look like a typographical error.

[00:11:27] Speaker 02:
It doesn't look like a copy and paste job.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
It looks like there is a use of technology being employed that is not being checked.

[00:11:35] Speaker 00:
There had been many conversations with that individual who was drafting to verify that AI was not being used.

[00:11:42] Speaker 00:
And that individual said that AI was not being used to draft the briefs.

[00:11:46] Speaker 00:
And that had been repeated many times.

[00:11:48] Speaker 03:
How can you have so many mistakes?

[00:11:51] Speaker 03:
It's just like it's made up.

[00:11:53] Speaker 00:
It doesn't make sense.

[00:11:57] Speaker 00:
We did ask that individual, and they stated that they did not use AI.

[00:12:01] Speaker 00:
It was regularly told to that person that AI was not to be used to draft the briefs.

[00:12:08] Speaker 00:
If there are some mistakes, and we tried to correct the mistakes that we did notice, but AI was not used, at least not to the knowledge of myself or the attorney filing the briefs, that it was used.

[00:12:25] Speaker 02:
So the person who does, I want to be clear what you just said, the person who's doing the drafting is not the person whose name is on the brief that gets filed in the court?

[00:12:32] Speaker 00:
No, the things that do get filed with the court get reviewed by the attorney.

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
Unless I'm missing something, your name is not on the brief.

[00:12:45] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
Why is that?

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
This fellow works for you?

[00:12:50] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:12:51] Speaker 00:
So the individual whose name is on the brief is Mike Sethi.

[00:12:55] Speaker 00:
He is the primary attorney in these cases.

[00:12:57] Speaker 00:
I work for him.

[00:13:00] Speaker 02:
Is the person who's doing the drafting a lawyer?

[00:13:03] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:13:04] Speaker 00:
It has graduated from law school, but it's not a lawyer.

[00:13:06] Speaker 00:
But that person is no longer with the office.

[00:13:11] Speaker 00:
But Mike Sethi is the primary attorney.

[00:13:15] Speaker 00:
That's why his name is on all of the briefing.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
Did you want to save time for rebuttal?

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
If I may.

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
All right, we'll hear from the government.

[00:13:52] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
May I please the court?

[00:13:54] Speaker 01:
My name is Linda Chang on behalf of the U.S.

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
Attorney General.

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
In today's case, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination for the three reasons discussed in the agency's decision.

[00:14:05] Speaker 01:
First, I will also address the fact that Your Honors picked up on this issue of whether the IJ referenced the falsus in UNO, falsus in omnibus maxim.

[00:14:14] Speaker 01:
There is nothing inherently impermissible about

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
stating this maxim as it is discretionary ability for the immigration judge to apply it.

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
In this case, the immigration judge did not... As to material matters, not as to collateral matters, correct?

[00:14:32] Speaker 01:
That's correct.

[00:14:33] Speaker 01:
And I think what your honor is getting at is in the case that it is cited from Yang versus Lynch,

[00:14:40] Speaker 01:
It was an adverse credibility case in merits hearing that was then being applied to a motion to reopen which is not what's happening in this case and in any event the immigration judge did not apply that Maxim as we see he went through very specific and cogent reason why decided then um I mean just for the heck of it I'm not sure this was an oral decision, so I can't you think he was thinking about it I

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
I can't be certain what was in the immigration judge's mind at the time.

[00:15:10] Speaker 03:
I mean, it's a pretty common maxim that we use.

[00:15:12] Speaker 03:
We use it in trial courts all the time.

[00:15:14] Speaker 03:
I mean, I instructed many juries.

[00:15:16] Speaker 01:
It is.

[00:15:16] Speaker 03:
This is true.

[00:15:17] Speaker 03:
State and federal.

[00:15:19] Speaker 01:
This is true.

[00:15:20] Speaker 01:
And again, there is nothing impermissible about applying this maxim.

[00:15:25] Speaker 01:
However, in this case, it was not used.

[00:15:28] Speaker 01:
As we see, there are very discrete cogent reasons that support.

[00:15:34] Speaker 02:
If it was used, would there be a problem?

[00:15:37] Speaker 01:
No.

[00:15:40] Speaker 01:
Again, it is permissible.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
However, it was not used in this case.

[00:15:46] Speaker 02:
I understand that that's the government's position, but if we disagree and think that the agency actually did rely on this maxim, then what?

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
I think we still need to go through the rest of the immigration judges or the agency's decision to see whether the totality of the circumstances supports an adverse credibility determination.

[00:16:06] Speaker 01:
I don't think the analysis would end with just the application of such a maxim in which it did not happen here.

[00:16:14] Speaker 02:
Can you talk a little bit about, I'm very confused why the agency didn't seem to pick up on the fact that this

[00:16:20] Speaker 02:
concern about a duplicate statement and two different declarations seems to be easily explained by the fact that the second one was quoting the first one.

[00:16:28] Speaker 02:
And the agency doesn't deal with that explanation that was provided in the administrative proceedings.

[00:16:34] Speaker 02:
And so it really does seem that the agency is not very carefully looking at this evidence.

[00:16:38] Speaker 02:
Tell me why I'm wrong.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
The details around that declaration remain that when

[00:16:49] Speaker 01:
petitioner was asked about this duplicate verbatim statement.

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
He provided the unconvincing explanation that the head of village council wrote it by mistake.

[00:16:59] Speaker 01:
We see that on AR-123.

[00:17:01] Speaker 01:
However, in the immigration judge's decision itself, he references that he has some concern about these statements, including medical records, because all of these declarations or documents

[00:17:12] Speaker 01:
were in large part based on hearsay information provided to them from the respondent.

[00:17:17] Speaker 01:
This is on page 25 of the record.

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
So I think that kind of addresses why there was concern about this duplicitous or identical language, even though it is explained away by saying that he might have been referencing the statement.

[00:17:33] Speaker 04:
No, he was referencing.

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
Yes, not that he might have been.

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:17:39] Speaker 01:
Nonetheless, it was then provided to him by hearsay information from either respondent or respondent's father.

[00:17:45] Speaker 01:
And so then it does.

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
Well, of course it was going to be hearsay because he's quoting someone else.

[00:17:49] Speaker 02:
So I'm not quite sure that that really explains how the agency addressed the explanation that was given for why there was this issue that the agency was concerned about.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
Well, again, I think it goes to the totality of these documents, these declarations that were all notarized and signed on the same day and translated in India, including Petitioner's Own, who he... There was an explanation for why that all, that they all happened.

[00:18:19] Speaker 02:
that they were all notarized together, and I don't see that the agency dealt with that explanation either.

[00:18:22] Speaker 01:
Well, correct.

[00:18:23] Speaker 01:
Petitioner provided an explanation, but nonetheless, the agency does not necessarily need to accept his explanation.

[00:18:28] Speaker 01:
Well, that's true.

[00:18:29] Speaker 02:
They don't have to accept the explanation.

[00:18:30] Speaker 02:
But when a cogent explanation is given, don't they have to address why they don't believe it?

[00:18:35] Speaker 02:
And I don't see that that was done in this record.

[00:18:39] Speaker 01:
Well, the agency just did not seem to, the agency had concerns about these declarations because of the impossibility of how it was done, including petitioner's own declaration which he wrote in Hindi in America and then had it sent to India to be translated into English by the same interpreter and notary.

[00:18:58] Speaker 01:
It just had issues that the immigration judge kind of found concerning.

[00:19:06] Speaker 04:
What were those issues that he found concerning?

[00:19:12] Speaker 01:
Well, like we've said, this detail goes to why Petitioner left India.

[00:19:16] Speaker 01:
And it seems to be only based on his own statements.

[00:19:21] Speaker 01:
And then so that would be based on hearsay to the other declarants.

[00:19:26] Speaker 01:
And in this case, it just seemed

[00:19:32] Speaker 01:
implausible or?

[00:19:33] Speaker 04:
Were there any explanations as to why it was implausible?

[00:19:41] Speaker 04:
Other than the same statements without recognition that one was a quote of the other.

[00:19:47] Speaker 04:
I mean, it didn't seem like he really read these documents very carefully, does it?

[00:19:55] Speaker 01:
I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

[00:19:58] Speaker 04:
Then how could he explain the fact that he's making a mistake?

[00:20:01] Speaker 04:
These two people aren't saying the same thing.

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
One is quoting the other.

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
Well, when petitioner was asked about this specific statement, the reason that he provided though was that it was a mistake.

[00:20:16] Speaker 01:
So taking that explanation,

[00:20:19] Speaker 01:
In contrast to what the statement was in the declaration, it seemed like he himself did not know what was in the declaration either.

[00:20:31] Speaker 01:
Again, all of these reasons have to be considered in the totality of the circumstances, in which case... Let me ask you this one other question.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
What's so serious about the discrepancy between worker and member?

[00:20:47] Speaker 01:
That's a good question, Your Honor.

[00:20:49] Speaker 03:
I mean, I guess to some extent I'm a member of this court, but I also work for it.

[00:20:56] Speaker 03:
I could say I'm a... Sure.

[00:20:58] Speaker 01:
It all depends on your own interpretation.

[00:21:00] Speaker 01:
And here, Petitioner's own testimony, he states that there is a clear distinction.

[00:21:05] Speaker 01:
The members provide orders to the workers to execute.

[00:21:08] Speaker 01:
So if it were not for his own definition of why they are different and they are two different categories, there might not be any distinction.

[00:21:16] Speaker 01:
But he himself has laid it out as being so in testimony page AR92.

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
So because he has laid it out as two separate categories, we recognize that he treats it differently.

[00:21:27] Speaker 03:
He also described himself as a volunteer member.

[00:21:32] Speaker 01:
That is correct.

[00:21:33] Speaker 03:
What does that mean?

[00:21:35] Speaker 01:
To the extent that he does say volunteer, we have only honed in on the aspect of whether he was a worker or a member in that context as well.

[00:21:43] Speaker 01:
He does not differentiate.

[00:21:45] Speaker 01:
What volunteer versus non-volunteer would mean?

[00:21:49] Speaker 01:
Okay Did the government become aware that there were errors in the in your opponent's briefing yes, we did and the preparation in the preparation of this oral argument more specifically You must have been curious about why we set it for argument very much so your honor You hadn't noticed it before you does the government check the briefs?

[00:22:13] Speaker ?:
I

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
We do check the briefs, Your Honor.

[00:22:15] Speaker 01:
To the extent that these cases did not exist in this section regarding corroboration, we argued that petitioner failed to exhaust the issue of corroboration and moreover

[00:22:27] Speaker 01:
the agency did not make a specific corroboration finding.

[00:22:29] Speaker 01:
So that was not something that we needed to address very specifically.

[00:22:34] Speaker 01:
But also to the point of these cases that he corrected, they still don't actually stand for the propositions that he says.

[00:22:41] Speaker 01:
And also in looking at the other cases you've already picked up on several, they don't actually support the statements anteceded to them.

[00:22:51] Speaker 02:
So I guess from your statement, the government didn't realize that until after they filed the statements.

[00:22:56] Speaker 02:
wanting to correct some of the citations in their brief?

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
No, we saw it when we were preparing for arguments.

[00:23:04] Speaker 01:
It was prior to that Friday when the motion was filed.

[00:23:07] Speaker 02:
Does the government have a practice of alerting the court when there are concerns like that or no?

[00:23:11] Speaker 01:
We were concerned, however, there is no mechanism for us to alert the court to a miscitation.

[00:23:20] Speaker 01:
It would not necessarily be a 20HA.

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
And further, we're not sure how to categorize it to the court without having just accusations lodged.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
Okay, so if you're honest don't have any other questions for the reason cited in our brief and today we Should deny the petition for review.

[00:23:47] Speaker 00:
Thank you Mr.. Rounds you have a couple minutes The petitioners did attempt to correct the errors that they saw and

[00:24:04] Speaker 00:
There was no indication to us that there was any kind of AI tool used.

[00:24:09] Speaker 00:
We had asked about it and advised or instructed on it many times not to be used.

[00:24:14] Speaker 04:
Well, if you had read the cases that you cited, you would have known that the phrases that were attributed to those cases didn't exist.

[00:24:22] Speaker 04:
Doesn't that sort of indicate that somebody snuck something in?

[00:24:27] Speaker 00:
It appeared to me to be that the holding was from a different one of the cases that we cited in some of those instances.

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:24:36] Speaker 04:
So it wasn't in the case you cited.

[00:24:38] Speaker 04:
And it was a very good argumentative case.

[00:24:42] Speaker 04:
The citation was, this is a death knell.

[00:24:45] Speaker 04:
I mean, that's a pretty strong argument, isn't it?

[00:24:48] Speaker 04:
And it just didn't occur in the case, and you didn't catch that, did you?

[00:24:52] Speaker 00:
No, I did not catch that.

[00:24:53] Speaker 00:
It did occur in at least one of the cases.

[00:24:56] Speaker 00:
I believe it was Shrestha and I think another case also used that exact same language.

[00:25:01] Speaker 00:
Both of those cases we did cite, but I did not catch that the case that was cited for that language was not the case that was included at the citation.

[00:25:10] Speaker 04:
So as I understand it, you have a non-lawyer drafting an agreement or drafting a brief that you don't site check the cases yourself to see that the language is in there.

[00:25:22] Speaker 04:
and your boss doesn't either, right?

[00:25:25] Speaker 00:
It's not on every occasion.

[00:25:29] Speaker 03:
I'm sorry, what did you just say?

[00:25:31] Speaker 00:
It sounds like not on every occasion.

[00:25:33] Speaker 00:
It sounds like.

[00:25:34] Speaker 00:
Yes, because some of those things got through, although it is regularly checked for things that appear or appear controversial, but in some cases it didn't seem like it was controversial.

[00:25:49] Speaker 00:
In this particular case, I'm not sure.

[00:25:52] Speaker 00:
But that is the pattern, or the habit, and the practice.

[00:25:56] Speaker 03:
But notwithstanding some of the- Is this fellow a member of the bar now?

[00:26:00] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:26:01] Speaker 03:
The individual- The fellow who wrote the brief?

[00:26:04] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:26:06] Speaker 00:
So notwithstanding some of those errors, which we attempted to correct as much as we could, I think that the law is still on the petitioner's side in this case.

[00:26:16] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:26:18] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:26:19] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:26:20] Speaker 02:
The matter of LNU versus Bundy is submitted.