BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 60|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 60
Author: Gonzalez (D), et al.
Amended: 3/26/15 in Assembly
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/5/15
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/13/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Immigration services
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill clarifies the existing prohibition on the
advance payment of fees for immigration reform act services
before the enactment of an immigration reform act, as specified,
by expanding the definition of "immigration reform act" to
include the President's executive actions on immigration, as
specified, and makes related conforming changes.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
AB 60
Page 2
1)Requires all attorneys who practice law in California to be
members of the State Bar of California (State Bar) and
establishes the State Bar for the purpose of regulating the
legal profession.
2)Provides that it is unlawful for an attorney to demand or
accept advance payment of any funds from a person for
immigration reform act services before the enactment of an
immigration reform act. Any funds received after the
effective date of the section, but, before the enactment of an
immigration reform act, must be promptly refunded to the
client, as specified.
3)Provides that:
if an attorney providing immigration reform act services
accepted funds prior to the effective date of the section,
and the services provided in connection with payment of
those funds were rendered, the attorney shall promptly
provide the client with a statement of accounting
describing services rendered; and
any funds received before the effective date of the
section for which immigration reform act services were not
rendered prior to the effective date, shall be either
refunded to the client or shall be deposited in a client
trust account. If the attorney elects to deposit funds in
a client trust account, he or she shall provide a specified
written notice to the client, in English and the client's
native language.
1)Provides that when a contract for legal services is required
to be in writing, as specified, an attorney providing
immigration reform act services shall provide a written notice
informing the client where he or she may report complaints, as
specified.
2)Defines "immigration reform act" as any pending or future act
AB 60
Page 3
of Congress that is enacted after the effective date, as
specified, but before January 1, 2017, including but not
limited to the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act" (Sen. No. 744, 2013), as
specified, and requires the State Bar to announce and post on
its Internet Web site when an immigration reform act has been
enacted.
3)Defines "immigration reform act services" as services offered
in connection with an immigration reform act that are
necessary in the preparation of an application and other
related initial processes in order for an undocumented
immigrant, as specified, to attain lawful status under the
immigration reform act.
4)Contains similar prohibitions with respect to immigration
consultants.
This bill:
1)Revises the definition of "immigration reform act" by: (a)
clarifying that it applies to any pending or future act of
Congress that is enacted after October 5, 2013; and (b)
expanding the definition to include the President's executive
actions on immigration announced on November 20, 2014, or any
future executive action or order that authorizes an
undocumented immigrant who either entered into the United
States without inspection or who did not depart after the
expiration of a nonimmigrant visa to attain lawful status
under federal law. The State Bar would be required to
announce and post on its Internet Web site when an executive
action or order has been issued.
2)Clarifies that immigration reform act services do not include
services that have an independent value apart from the
preparation of an application pursuant to an immigration
reform act and other related initial processes, as specified.
AB 60
Page 4
3)Provides that it is unlawful for an attorney to demand or
accept the advance payment of any funds from a person for
immigration reform act services in connection with any of the
following:
requests for expanded Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals (DACA) under an immigration reform act before the
date the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS) begins accepting those requests;
requests for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans
and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) under an immigration
reform act, before the date the USCIS begins accepting
those requests;
requests for Expanded Provisional Waivers of Unlawful
Presence under an immigration reform act, before the
issuance and effective date of the new guidelines and
regulations for those provisional waivers; and
any relief offered under any executive action announced
or executive order issued, on or after the effective date
of this bill, that authorizes 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 lawful status under federal law, before the
executive action or order has been implemented and the
relief is available.
1)Clarifies that advance payment of funds for immigration reform
act services that was received after October 5, 2013, 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 funds.
2)Makes similar clarifying conforming changes with respect to
immigration consultants.
AB 60
Page 5
Background
Under existing law, attorneys and immigration consultants are
prohibited from demanding or accepting advance payment for
immigration reform act services before the enactment of an
"immigration reform act." That restriction was enacted by AB
1159 (Gonzalez, Chapter 574, Statutes of 2013) to proactively
address the fraud that was expected to occur as a result of the
passage of the then-pending proposal for reform, the Border
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act of 2013. To tailor the bill to the issue raised by the
pending reform, AB 1159 generally defined "immigration reform
act" as any pending or future act of Congress, including, but
not limited to, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act (Sen. No. 744, 113th Cong., 1st
Sess. (2013).). While Sen. No. 744 passed the Senate on June
27, 2013, the House of Representatives never acted on the bill.
Subsequently, on November 20, 2014, President Obama announced a
series of executive actions relating to immigration, including
the following initiatives:
Expanding the population eligible for the DACA program to
people of any current age who entered the U.S. before the age
of 16 and lived in the U.S. continuously since January 1,
2010, and extending the period of DACA and work authorization
from two years to three years.
Allowing parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent
residents to request deferred action and employment
authorization for three years, in a new DAPA program, provided
they have lived in the U.S. continuously since January 1,
2010, and pass required background checks.
Expanding the use of provisional waivers of unlawful presence
to include the spouses and sons and daughters of lawful
permanent residents and the sons and daughters of U.S.
AB 60
Page 6
citizens.
Modernizing, improving, and clarifying immigrant and
nonimmigrant visa programs to grow our economy and create
jobs.
Promoting citizenship education and public awareness for
lawful permanent residents and providing an option for
naturalization applicants to use credit cards to pay the
application fee. (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
Executive Actions on Immigration (Apr. 15, 2015)
[as of May 1,
2015].)
As the result of the issuance of a temporary injunction by a
federal judge in Texas, the USCIS currently informs the public
that: "Due to [the] order, USCIS will not begin accepting
requests for the expansion of DACA on February 18[, 2015,] as
originally planned and has suspended implementation of Deferred
Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.
The court's temporary injunction, issued February 16, does not
affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come
forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA
under the original guidelines."
To update the provisions of AB 1159 and reflect recent events,
this bill seeks to apply the protections enacted by that bill to
executive orders or actions, as specified, by expanding the
definition of what constitutes an "immigration reform act."
This bill makes other clarifying changes consistent with the
President's executive actions and provides that immigration
reform act services do not include services that have a value
apart from the preparation of an application pursuant to an
immigration reform act.
Comments
As stated by the author:
AB 60
Page 7
AB 60 will create consumer protection measures for people
that are seeking legal assistance from immigration attorneys
and consultants relating to the President's executive
actions announced on November 20, 2014. As of now, there is
no formal application process for either the extended DACA
or DAPA program.
However, unscrupulous attorneys are currently taking
advantage of the uncertainty and future of the deferred
action programs by continuing to provide legal assistance at
the expense of vulnerable Californians.
AB 60 will prohibit immigration attorneys and consultants
from performing immigration services directly related to
executive actions announced by the President.
Prior Legislation
AB 1159 (Gonzalez, Chapter 574, Statutes of 2013) prohibits
attorneys and immigration consultants from demanding or
accepting advance payment for immigration reform act services
before the enactment of an immigration reform act.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified5/20/2015)
Kamala Harris, Attorney General of the State of California
AFSCME
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-LA
California Catholic Conference
California Communities United Institute
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles
Community Coalition
Consumer Attorneys of California
Eric Garcetti, Mayor of the City of Los Angeles
AB 60
Page 8
Mike Feuer, Los Angeles City Attorney
Mujeres Unidas y Activas
San Francisco Immigrant Rights Commission
SEIU
United Farm Workers
Vision y Compromiso
OPPOSITION: (Verified5/20/2015)
American Immigration Lawyers Association - Northern California
Chapter, Southern California Chapter, San Diego Chapter, and
Santa Clara Valley Chapter
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Labor Federation, in
support, notes that "[t]he California Legislature, by passing .
. . AB 1159 (Gonzalez) last year, has worked to ensure that
Californians are protected from immigration services fraud in
the event that California passed an Immigration Reform Bill.
However, current law does not protect Californians from fraud as
it relates to Presidential executive action. Further, the
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has
yet to finalize a formal process for implementation of the
Executive Order. Despite that, there are ongoing practices by
immigration attorneys, consultants, and con artists that prey on
families' hopes and uncertainties with the promise of providing
relief under a federal process that does not even exist yet."
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), in support,
asserts that this bill will address the serious concerns that
have been raised by law enforcement and the community as it
pertains to potential immigration fraud, and, notes that
"[t]here are approximately 1.6 million people in California that
could potentially benefit from President Obama's executive
action. As a result of the President's announcement, there has
been an increase of eligible immigrants seeking immigration
related services from attorneys and consultants. These services
are being wrongly advertised as promises that they can get via
an expedited process despite the fact that the [USCIS] has not
even started to process applications."
AB 60
Page 9
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Northern California Chapter,
Southern California Chapter, San Diego Chapter, and Santa Clara
Valley Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association
(AILA), in opposition, argue that AB 60 "inappropriately
undermines the ability of well-trained attorneys to provide
critical assistance to thousands of Californians." AILA raises
various concerns related to the ability to do preparatory work,
repayment terms for fees already accepted, and that this bill
will cause undue delay and misuses several immigration terms.
AILA notes that this bill is premised on the notion that
preparatory work is unnecessary until an application process has
been officially launched, and, asserts that, similar to AB 1159,
a letter should be submitted to the Assembly Journal to "clearly
allow [] attorneys to protect our clients by doing background
checks and other work to assess eligibility for immigration
relief, in order to clearly permit us to effectively represent
the interests of our clients and their families."
AILA further objects to applying the repayment provisions of
existing law to any fees already accepted for work under the
President's November 20, 2014, executive orders. AILA also
contends that the proposed starting dates to begin substantive
work unduly delays accrual of benefits and puts clients at risk,
that attorneys should be permitted to prepare for expanded
provisional waivers prior to implementing regulations, and that
this bill is overly broad because it misuses several immigration
terms.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 77-0, 4/13/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chang,
Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina
Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez,
Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin,
Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin,
Nazarian, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon,
Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond,
AB 60
Page 10
Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harper, Obernolte, Ridley-Thomas
Prepared by:Benjamin Palmer / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
5/20/15 16:27:51
**** END ****