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