BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 35
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 35 (Roger Hernández)
As Amended April 15, 2013
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 9-0 TRANSPORTATION 13-2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner, |Ayes:|Lowenthal, Linder, |
| |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson, | |Achadjian, Ammiano, |
| |Garcia, Gorell, | |Blumenfield, Bonta, |
| |Muratsuchi, Stone | |Buchanan, Daly, Frazier, |
| | | |Gatto, Holden, Nazarian, |
| | | |Quirk-Silva |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Logue, Patterson |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 14-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |
| |Bradford, | | |
| |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, | | |
| |Rendon, Linder, Pan, | | |
| |Quirk, Wagner, Weber | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, Donnelly | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Seeks to improve the treatment of immigrants,
particularly those who have received a notice of decision from
the federal government granting deferred action under the
deferred action for childhood arrivals program. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Clarifies that immigration consultants, attorneys, and
notaries public shall be the only individuals authorized to
charge clients or prospective clients fees for providing
consultations, legal advice, or notary public services,
respectively, associated with filing an application under the
AB 35
Page 2
deferred action for childhood arrivals program announced by
the United States Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security on June 15, 2012.
2)Specifies that immigration consultants, attorneys, and
notaries public shall be prohibited from participating in
practices that amount to price gouging when a client or
prospective client solicits services associated with filing an
application for deferred action for childhood arrivals, and
defines "price gouging" as any practice that has the effect of
pressuring the client or prospective client to purchase
services immediately because purchasing them at a later time
will result in the client or prospective client paying a
higher price for the same services.
3)Provides that in addition to existing civil and criminal
penalties, a violation of this section by an attorney shall be
cause for discipline by the State Bar, and that a violation of
this section by a notary public shall be cause for the
revocation or suspension of his or her commission as a notary
public by the Secretary of State and the application of any
other applicable penalties.
4)Clarifies that a person who has received a notice of decision
from the federal government granting deferred action under the
deferred action for childhood arrivals program announced by
the United States Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security on June 15, 2012, shall be eligible for unemployment
compensation contingent on receipt of employment authorization
from the federal government.
5)Clarifies that persons who demonstrate favorable action by the
federal government for acceptance of a person into the
deferred action for childhood arrivals program may be issued
an original California identification card.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Potential minor absorbable cost to the Attorney General and
potential minor non-reimbursable costs to local prosecutors
for bringing actions pursuant to violations of the bill's
requirements-pursuant to general enforcement provisions
regarding immigration consultants-offset to some extent by
AB 35
Page 3
revenues from civil penalties.
2)Potential minor absorbable costs to the Secretary of State for
enforcement of provisions regarding notaries public.
3)Department of Motor Vehicles indicates no costs, as the bill
is only a clarification with regard to issuance of
identification cards.
COMMENTS : The author explains the reason for the bill as
follows: "On July 15, 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security issued a directive calling for prosecutorial discretion
in the enforcement of the country's immigration laws toward
immigrants meeting several criteria. That criteria was set to
largely coincide with the nation's DREAMer population - that is
young undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for
several years, have graduated from a U.S. high school, have
served at least two years in college or the military and have no
felonies or serious criminal offenses. The program was called
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and became more
commonly known as Deferred Action or DACA. The program was
officially implemented on August 15, 2012. According to USCIS
[U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service] statistics as issued
in the February 21, 2013 White House Immigration Action
Newsletter, 438,372 applications had been received through
February 14, 2013, and 119,466 of those had come from
California. This means that 27.3% of the applications submitted
came from young immigrants currently residing in California."
The author adds, "In the first several months of the program,
our office heard anecdotally CRLAF [California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation] and the Mexican Consulate that many young
immigrants wishing to apply were scared of filling out their own
paperwork, for fear of filling something out incorrectly and
possibly facing deportation as a consequence. While these two
organizations were providing assistance for free, many
prospective applicants felt more secure contracting
professionals for pay, such as private attorneys and notary
publics. Accordingly, professionals were providing services
that were not within their scope of practice and even worse,
others without any license, certification, or waiver were
providing legal services for pay upward of $1,000. Since August
15, 2012, of the 438,372 applications received, a total of
14,738 of applications have been rejected. If 27.3% of these
AB 35
Page 4
rejected applications came from California, an estimated 4,023
applications were rejected from our state in a matter of 6
months. That is an estimated 670 CA applications rejected per
month. If any of these rejected applications were filled out
with the paid assistance of an individual without a license or
performing work outside of their scope of practice, this should
be considered consumer fraud."
The author concludes, "Thus, the bill creates consumer
protections by ensuring that professional assistance acquired
for purposes of filling out a DACA application should be
consistent with scope of practice laws so that the consumer is
protected and has recourse to pursue action from the regulatory
body of the licensed or certified individual if any wrong doing
was committed by the professional. The bill also clarifies that
people becoming eligible for the DACA program be eligible for a
California identification card and unemployment insurance
benefits consistent with the law. In addition, the bill calls
for people who have been approved to the DACA program be
eligible for state administered health care programs."
Existing law establishes minimum consumer protections regarding
who may engage in the business of preparing and advising on
immigration applications and the like. Supporters contend that
these protections would be strengthened by adding a provision
that is specific to DACA applicants particularly because the
volume of applicants under the DACA may lead to greater fraud
and abuse in a program that is not always well understood.
According to supporters, applicants approved under the deferred
action for childhood arrivals program fall within the categories
eligible for the immigration classification known as PRUCOL
(permanently residing under color of law). Accordingly, they
typically are eligible under various state and federal programs,
and generally receive work authorization. As such, these
persons are arguably entitled to unemployment compensation under
existing law. This bill would simply clarify that if an
applicant for deferred action is approved, and if that person
also receives authorization to work, he or she may receive
unemployment compensation if they are otherwise eligible.
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
AB 35
Page 5
FN: 0000590