Background
Heriberto Perez-Castillo, a Mexican citizen who entered the United States as an infant and lived illegally for most of his life, was convicted in 2012 of battery after assaulting his intoxicated mother and siblings at her home, striking his mother’s eye and head with a beer bottle and punching his siblings in the face. He received eighteen months of supervision, including prison time for violation. When the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, Perez-Castillo conceded he was removable but applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), a discretionary remedy available only in limited circumstances.
The immigration judge denied the application on two independent grounds: (1) because the victims were family members, the battery conviction constituted a “crime of domestic violence,” categorically barring cancellation of removal; and (2) even without the conviction bar, his U.S. citizen spouse would not face “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” from his removal, particularly given available family support. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed both conclusions, and Perez-Castillo petitioned the Seventh Circuit.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of Perez-Castillo’s petition for review on the merits. The court held that his battery conviction under Illinois law categorically qualifies as a “crime of violence,” and because his mother and siblings are family members protected under Illinois domestic violence law, the conviction constitutes a “crime of domestic violence.” Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), this categorical bar rendered him ineligible for cancellation of removal, making independent review of the hardship prong unnecessary.
The court applied highly deferential review (substantial evidence standard) to the immigration judge’s discretionary determination and found the record supported the conclusion that his spouse would not experience “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” from removal. The court also noted that Perez-Castillo waived his hardship challenge by failing to raise it before the Board of Immigration Appeals, providing an additional independent basis for denial. A petitioner must affirmatively establish all four statutory criteria for cancellation of removal, including the hardship requirement.
Key Takeaways
- Battery convictions against family members constitute “crimes of domestic violence” that categorically bar cancellation of removal under federal immigration law, without regard to other equitable factors.
- Attorneys must personally review all citations, quotations, and factual assertions in briefs before filing, regardless of whether they outsourced the work to another attorney.
- Federal courts will impose monetary sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 46 against attorneys who submit briefs containing AI hallucinations and factual misrepresentations without adequate review.
- An attorney’s duty to review is not discharged by relying on representations from another attorney; filing an unreviewed brief—even after court notice of errors—constitutes sanctionable professional misconduct.
Why It Matters
Though the immigration holding applies straightforward law, the case’s significance lies in its treatment of artificial intelligence in federal appellate practice. The Seventh Circuit sanctioned attorney Abdullah Salah with a $5,000 fine under Rule 46(c) for submitting two briefs riddled with approximately 24 fabricated quotations, seven falsely labeled cases, and factual assertions directly contradicted by the record. Salah admitted he did not review either brief before filing, relying instead on contracted attorney Farah Chalisa, who used ChatGPT for “stylistic and grammatical review”—but made no meaningful verification of the results.
The court emphasized that signing and filing a brief without personal review violates professional conduct standards regardless of outsourcing arrangements. Although the court declined to sanction Chalisa (who is not admitted to the Seventh Circuit), it referred the matter to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, citing concerns about her explanations for the hallucinations and a potential undisclosed fee-splitting arrangement. The decision signals that federal courts will not tolerate unverified AI-generated content in briefs and that outsourcing work does not absolve filing counsel of responsibility. This ruling will likely influence how courts nationwide address attorney discipline for AI errors and may prompt state bars to develop clearer guidance on generative AI usage in legal practice.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.