BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 60
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 25, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
60 (Gonzalez) - As Amended March 19, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Judiciary |Vote:|10 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill extends existing protections against fraud related to
providing immigration reform-related services, as a result of
Congressional action, to also apply to reform arising from
AB 60
Page 2
executive actions. Specifically, this bill:
1)Revises the definition of an "immigration reform act" to
include the President's November 2014 executive actions on
immigration, or any future executive action or order,
authorizing an undocumented immigrant who either entered the
United States without inspection or who did not depart after
the expiration of a nonimmigrant visa to attain a lawful
status under federal law. Further requires the State Bar to
announce and post on its website when such an executive action
or order has been issued.
2)Clarifies that "immigration reform act services" do not
include legal services that have an independent value apart
from the preparation of an immigration reform act and other
related initial processes, such as assisting a client in
preventing removal from the United States.
3)Prohibits attorneys and immigration consultants from demanding
or accepting advance payment of any funds from a person for
specified immigration reform act services.
4)Clarifies that any advance payment of funds for immigration
reform act services received after October 5, 2013(the date
that AB 1159 [see below] became effective), but before the
enactment or implementation of the immigration reform act for
which the services were sought, shall be refunded to the
client promptly, but no later than 30 days after the receipt
of the funds.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Violations by attorneys and immigration consultants of the
underlying statutes amended by this bill are misdemeanors, and
immigration consultants are also subject to civil penalties.
AB 60
Page 3
This bill could therefore result in addition non-reimbursable
costs to local governments for prosecution, offset to some
extent by fine revenue. In addition, there could be minor
state and local revenue increases from civil actions brought
against immigration consultants by the Attorney General or
local prosecutors for violations of the bill's provisions.
2)This bill will not result in any additional state costs beyond
the minor one-time costs previously identified to implement AB
1159.
COMMENTS:
1)Background. On June 27, 2013, the United States Senate passed
S. 744, known as the Border Security, Economic Opportunity,
and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. On July 10, 2013,
AB 1159 (Gonzalez) was amended to guard against immigration
services fraud upon those seeking potential relief under
S.744, should it have ultimately become federal law. AB 1159
was signed by Governor Brown as an urgency measure and its
protections took effect on October 5, 2013. However, S. 744
was never passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and died
later in the 113th Congress. On November 20, 2014, President
Obama announced a series of executive actions on immigration.
2)Purpose. On December 10, 2014, this bill was introduced to
further the objectives of AB 1159 and protect consumers
seeking immigration services in connection with the
President's executive actions. (These executive actions are
currently on hold pursuant to a preliminary injunction issued
AB 60
Page 4
by a federal court in Texas.)
According to the author, various services in anticipation of
prospective but uncertain immigration reform are being
targeted to Spanish-speaking immigrants. The author and
supporters indicate that a large number of people are at risk
of exploitation, given the potential size of the immigrant
pool that may be affected. Undocumented immigrants may be
particularly vulnerable to abuse by unscrupulous businesses
and individuals because of the risks they face in asserting
their rights as consumers and victims of fraud or other
wrongdoing. The bill is strongly supported by immigrant
advocates, City of Los Angeles officials, civil rights
organizations, and labor, among others.
3)Opposition. The Southern California Chapter of the American
Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) argues the bill is
overly broad and "will further deter future immigration
attorneys from entering into this field to begin with,
directly reducing the amount of competent immigration
attorneys willing and available to help serve this
population."
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 60
Page 5