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