The Brief

It’s been 24 years since a woman now residing in San Francisco last saw her eldest children in Guatemala.

“I’ve given everything trying to find a way to visit my children there,” said the woman, who works cleaning houses. She now has a young son here in California, and because she is undocumented, she risks being unable to reenter the U.S. if she ever travels back to Guatemala. (KQED is not using the woman’s name because she fears being detained or deported if publicly identified due to her immigration status.)

“All this time here, I’ve never found a way to figure out my situation,” she said. “When you’re trying to see the people you love once more, you’re willing to do anything.”

And unfortunately, her desperation made her a target for fraud, she said.

‘Fear and uncertainty’

While scrolling Facebook in 2023, she saw a post from a man claiming to be a successful immigration lawyer — with experience handling complicated cases like hers. After she messaged him, “He promised that he could make me a permanent resident within three months,” she said.

In exchange, she sent over her personal documents and $500 via money order. But when she tried contacting the California law firm where the man claimed to work, the office told her he wasn’t employed there.

When a family friend suggested they ask the man for his law license, “That’s when he got very defensive and just kept asking why I would want that,” she said. “After that call, he blocked me.”

That’s when she realized: “He pretended to be a lawyer, and he scammed me.”

This woman’s experience is not unique. Every year, immigrant families across California fall prey to individuals claiming to be immigration lawyers, and President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation policy has made many in the undocumented community desperate to find any type of legal help.

State officials now are asking people to be on high alert for potential fraud amid this tense environment.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta fields questions during a press conference on Monday, Aug. 28, 2023, in Los Angeles.

(

Marcio Jose Sanchez

/

AP

)

“Families across the country are experiencing fear and uncertainty as a result of President Trump’s inhumane immigration agenda — and scammers are paying attention,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement released July 27.

Keep reading for what to know about immigration fraud and how to spot a potential scam.

The types of immigration fraud to watch for

When seeking legal help for an immigration case, fraud can happen in different ways and can be perpetrated by different kinds of people:

Notario fraud

When a U.S.-based notary public insists to prospective clients they are qualified to give legal advice, despite this being untrue. 

In many Latin American countries — including Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina — notaries, or notario públicos, are trained as lawyers. This means that in these countries, they can prepare important legal documents like wills and contracts.

Victims incorrectly believe this is also true in the U.S. legal system, even though notaries and lawyers are two completely different professions in the U.S. Jump straight to more information about notario fraud.

Invalid legal license

When someone who previously worked as a lawyer in their country of origin claims they can offer legal services in the U.S.

In most legal proceedings, the lawyer who represents you must be licensed in the state where you are, but for immigration law, your lawyer can be licensed in any U.S. state or territory. However, they must be certified to practice law in the U.S., not another country.

Identity fraud

When an individual claims to be a licensed attorney but they have no professional legal background whatsoever or impersonate the identity of a real-life lawyer.

“Immigration services is not something that just anyone can do,” said Hugo Meza, Santa Clara County deputy district attorney. For years, Santa Clara County officials have worked to identify and stop individuals falsely claiming to be immigration attorneys.

“These bad actors will sometimes take all the money and never render any services,” he said. But what could be even worse, said Meza, is when a fraudster actually does provide a legal service, “and then they provide it in a wrong way.”

This, Meza said, “can really ruin someone’s chances in a complex legal process.”

Who can actually offer legal services for an immigration case?

In the U.S., only an attorney licensed by a state bar can represent someone in court, that is, someone accredited by the professional association that sets quality standards for legal services in your state.

However, immigration law is federal, and any person licensed in any U.S. state or territory can practice it. This means you can be represented by a lawyer licensed in a state different from where you live.

“Attorneys can handle all aspects of a case; they can represent someone before an immigration office and even give legal advice,” Meza said. “But in order to have that authority, you must overcome a lot of layers of scrutiny.”

For someone to work as an attorney in California, they must:

• Graduate from law school (a law degree is different from an undergraduate degree) or successfully complete an apprenticeship with the Law Office Study Program;
• Pass the state Bar Examination, the test all attorneys must pass if they want to practice law in California; and
• Maintain their certification and stay in good standing with the state Bar Association, which investigates cases of attorney misconduct.

When looking for an immigration attorney, you may also see ads for “immigration consultants.” These are professionals who can translate important documents, help you complete certain applications or provide general background information on the American immigration system.

“But not anyone can decide to be an immigration consultant,” Meza said, and these people have to conform to certain regulations, too. California requires that every person offering services as an immigration consultant must:

• Pass a background check with state officials;
• Be registered with the secretary of state’s office; and
• Secure a $100,000 bond from an insurer or surety company to establish trust with clients.

What should you know about choosing a trustworthy immigration lawyer?

(

Luis Alvarez

/

Getty Images

)

Why can’t a notary help me in my immigration case?

“Notaries here typically don’t have any special qualification to do any kind of immigration law,” said Ronald Lee, San Francisco deputy city attorney. But some notary publics incorrectly promote themselves to suggest they offer immigration services, he said.

“By saying that they are notarios, they are causing confusion for a lot of people in terms of their actual qualifications,” Lee said.

In the U.S., the role of notaries is to “notarize” important documents, like a contract or copies of personal documents, like a passport.

This means they confirm that the person presenting the document is who they say they are, and if the document involved is a contract, that the parties signing it are willingly entering into this agreement.

“In no way, shape, or form do they have the same responsibilities as a lawyer,” Meza said.

What are some red flags to spot a potential immigration scam?

When someone has worked for years and had to pass through multiple levels of accreditation, they should be willing to talk about this, Meza said.

“If you ask people about their background in this field and they don’t want to talk about it?” he said. ”That’s a red flag.”

The most important question you can ask to confirm that this person actually is licensed to practice law is: “What is your attorney bar number?”

Why: Licensed attorneys must have received a number specific to them from the state bar. You can then look this number up online in the state Bar of California’s attorney search tool to make sure who you’re speaking to is telling the truth about who they are.

If this attorney shares that they are licensed in another state, they can still represent you — but it’s a good idea to nonetheless look them up in their home state’s bar. Most states have an attorney search tool available online. Experts recommend you confirm an attorney’s bar number before making any payments — or sharing your personal documents with them.

Some questions you can also ask to make sure that this person can provide you with the legal services you are looking for:

• “Have you worked on cases similar to mine?”
• “Are you a member of any professional groups or organizations related to immigration law?”
• “Where can I find more information about you online?”

Other red flags to watch for when it comes to verifying your immigration lawyer:

Blank documents: If you are asked to sign a blank form and told that everything else will be taken care of, be wary. A blank document can later be altered, and you may find yourself in a contract you did not actually agree to.

“Always ask for copies of everything. Get everything explained to you,” Meza said.

Cash only: Stay alert if you are told that only cash payments are accepted.

“Fraudsters want to do stuff under the table. They don’t want a lot of paper trail,” Meza said.

Costs keep increasing: “They’re always saying that a hiccup came up and they’re asking for more and more money,” Meza said. “That’s a big red flag.”

Before you sign anything, make sure you and your attorney have clearly established how much you will pay for their services.

Overly optimistic promises: Immigration law is extremely complicated, and many immigration benefits can take many months, if not years. Be wary of people promising you very quick, positive results.

“In the legal field, you never know what might come out in a trial or how a judge might decide a case,” Meza said. “If anyone’s promising you a specific permit or immigration status, that’s also someone who I would probably turn away [from] and look for someone else.”

What should you know about choosing a trustworthy immigration lawyer?

(

iStock

/

iStockphoto

)

Can someone who is only licensed to practice law in another country help me?

San José immigrant organizers recently told KQED they’re aware of individuals offering immigration legal services when they are only certified to practice law in their home country, but not in the U.S.

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, any attorney who offers legal representation must be eligible to practice law in a U.S. state or territory or the District of Columbia. They must also be in compliance with the professional standards set by their state’s bar.

If someone claims to be an attorney in another country but they are not licensed anywhere within the U.S., they cannot offer you legal services as a lawyer in the U.S.

If they are a lawyer but licensed in another state — Texas, for example — they can offer immigration legal services to someone living in California. This is because immigration law is federal, and a person licensed in any U.S. state or territory can practice it.

If you connect with an immigration attorney in another state, experts still recommend that you verify that they have a valid license.

A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that the new congressional maps created by California voters in the fall are legal and should remain in place, handing a win to state Democrats who hope the new districts will swing five congressional seats for their party next year.

The ruling denies a request by California Republicans and the Trump administration for the federal court in Los Angeles to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the maps created by Proposition 50.

In the 117-page ruling, the federal judges rejected GOP arguments that the new maps amounted to racial gerrymandering, which has been prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court. The panel ruled 2-1, with the two Democratic appointees ruling for California and Judge Kenneth K. Lee, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, dissenting.

In the opinion, Judge Josephine Staton wrote that the panel’s conclusion “probably seems obvious to anyone who followed the news” about Proposition 50 last year. She noted that during the campaign, no one ever described the new maps as racially motivated — including the Republican plaintiffs.

“No one on either side of that debate characterized the map as a racial gerrymander,” the opinion states, noting that the California Republican Party called it a “political power grab to help Democrats retake Congress and impeach Trump,” and Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi deemed it a “redistricting power grab” for political gain.”

The judges also rejected Republican arguments that the voters’ intent did not matter. The majority wrote that voters clearly were endorsing the argument that both sides were making: that this was a partisan power grab, aimed at giving Democrats a leg up in the midterm elections and counteracting what GOP-led states were doing with their own districts.

Democrats celebrated the ruling.

“Republicans’ weak attempt to silence voters failed. California voters overwhelmingly supported Prop 50 — to respond to Trump’s rigging in Texas — and that is exactly what this court concluded,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement.

Newsom pushed lawmakers to put Proposition 50 on a special statewide ballot after Trump set off a mid-decade redistricting scramble by demanding Texas redraw its maps to benefit Republicans.

In his dissenting opinion, Lee wrote that race “likely played a predominant role in drawing at least one district because the smoking gun is in the hands of Paul Mitchell,” referring to a Democratic consultant who helped draw the new lines.

Lee argued that Mitchell publicly “boasted” about boosting Latino voting power in the 13th Congressional District in theCentral Valley, and that voter intent should not be the only basis for the court’s decision.

“To be sure, California’s main goal was to add more Democratic congressional seats. But that larger political gerrymandering plan does not allow California to smuggle in racially gerrymandered seats,” said Lee, who wrote that Democrats likely wanted to create a Latino majority district “as part of a racial spoils system to award a key constituency that may be drifting away from the Democratic party.”

The ruling could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Congressional candidates have until March 6 to file papers to run for office in the June primary.

Huntington Beach’s controversial former city attorney is running for state attorney general.

Michael Gates officially launched his campaign today and he will be going up against the current Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Gates has been an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump and his policies — and a continuous thorn in the side of Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is one of the most prominent critics of the president.

Gates was first elected city attorney in 2014 and easily won re-election twice since then. Over the years, Gates earned plenty of fans and enemies as he filed a barrage of lawsuits against California over state housing mandates and the city’s plans to require voters to show ID to cast a ballot, among other issues.

Gates left the city last year to work in the Trump administration and left his D.C. post in November to return to the beach city. He told LAist he missed Huntington Beach and his family and was hired back at the city as a chief assistant city attorney. The circumstances of his return made headlines.

In a video announcing his campaign, Gates said too many lawmakers in Sacramento spend their time "scheming" for ways to raise tax rates while leaving streets unsafe.

“California has lost its way," he said. "When I am your attorney general, we are going to be toughest on crime. ... We are going to restore public safety, law and order, up and down the state of California."

He said he would also prioritize election integrity and giving local cities (and not Sacramento) final say over construction. You can watch his full statement here:

Rene Lynch also contributed to this story.

Progressive forces in Los Angeles are taking aim at companies with bloated executive pay through a ballot initiative.

On Wednesday, a coalition led by hotel workers union Unite Here Local 11 launched a signature-gathering effort for a ballot proposition they called the "Overpaid CEO Tax." If the proposition makes the November ballot, it will ask voters to impose an additional city business tax on large companies with CEO pay that is exponentially higher than worker pay.

Representatives of some of Los Angeles' most powerful unions, including the Los Angeles teachers union UTLA, gathered in Hollywood to announce the launch. They spoke on the sidewalk outside of the Tesla Diner — a recently opened charging station and restaurant owned by world's richest man Elon Musk.

"A growing and dangerous divide is tearing Los Angeles apart. On the one side, corporate CEOs live in their own world," said Unite Here Local 11 co-president Kurt Petersen. "On the other side, workers … juggle two and three jobs, they make impossible choices between medicine and rent."

The initiative takes aim at big corporations. If passed by voters, the executive pay ordinance would impose an additional business tax on companies with at least 1,000 employees whose top executive makes more than 50 times the median worker pay in Los Angeles. Those funds would go toward low-income housing projects, sidewalk repairs and other projects.

The additional tax would be one to 10 times the typical city business tax. According to the city clerk's office, the current city business tax is between 0.1% and 0.425% of gross receipts.

The campaign is part of a bigger political fight over the coming Olympic Games and who will benefit from them.

The executive pay initiative is one of a series of competing ballot propositions launched by union and business interests after the Los Angeles City Council voted last year to raise the minimum wage for hotel and airport workers to $30 an hour by 2028.

That vote set off a cascade of responses from the companies it affected. A business group backed by Delta and United Airlines launched a referendum to repeal the wage increase. That effort eventually failed.

The fight around the so-called "Olympic wage" is still playing out. A coalition of business interests has introduced its own ballot initiative to eliminate the city business tax entirely. In December, City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson introduced a motion to delay the $30 minimum wage by two years.

Campaigners for the executive pay tax will be on the ground as hype around the Olympics ramps up. Ticket registration opened for fans on Wednesday morning, the same day union leaders gathered in Hollywood.

To land the ballot initiative on the November ballot, campaigners have 120 days to gather around 140,000 signatures from registered voters in the city of Los Angeles.

Facing a loss of state and federal funding and increased costs, Los Angeles County officials are considering cutting homeless services and programs by more than 25% in the next budget year.

If approved next month, the spending plan presented to the Board of Supervisors Tuesday would trim $219 million from homeless services and programs, slashing county street outreach efforts in half and closing most of the sites for the Pathway Home encampment clearing program.

Several supervisors pushed back on aspects of the spending plan and urged county staff to find ways to avoid some of the proposed cuts.

“ I'm not particularly happy with everything that I'm seeing,” Supervisor Hilda Solis said. “I've heard from my providers that their people are disappointed.”

L.A. County’s new Department of Homeless Services and Housing drafted the spending plan. In a presentation to supervisors, officials said the deep cuts were necessary because of the rising costs of operating existing shelter beds and the loss of tens of millions in temporary state and federal funding.

The proposal comes after county voters approved Measure A in 2024 to increase the sales tax rate and double county dollars dedicated to addressing the homelessness crisis.

“This is really challenging, and we’re making recommendations that nobody wants to be making,” department Director Sarah Mahin told supervisors.

After the department published a draft of the plan in November, authorities changed the proposal to avoid more than $80 million in additional program cuts. They did that by securing $39 million one-time state grants and implementing about $45 million in other cost-saving measures, officials said.

Dozens of homeless service providers on Tuesday thanked county officials for shrinking the initial $303 million shortfall and urged them to avoid further cuts to services.

“We truly appreciate the progress you've made, but now the remaining shortfall is devastating for Los Angeles and for organizations like ours that are already stretched to the limit,” said Georgia Hawley of Midnight Mission, a homeless shelter in Skid Row.

Garrett Lee, of Department of Mental Health's HOME Team, collaborates with LAHSA’s Homeless Engagement Team during outreach in the targeted COVID-19 testing efforts in the homeless community in 2020.

(

Courtesy of Los Angeles County

)

What’s driving the deficit?

Several factors are driving the budget deficit projected for the fiscal year that begins in July, according to L.A. County’s homelessness department.

• Shelter bed cost increases: The rates L.A. County pays shelter bed operators went up last year. It will now pay 46% more — an increase of $86 million — to maintain the same 6,000 shelter beds, officials said.
  
• Funds expiring: Several temporary funding sources — totaling about $185 million — have ended or will end in the next fiscal year, officials said. That includes $38 million in federal COVID relief and more than $80 million in state funding.
  
• Consumer spending: Sales tax revenue from Measure A is projected to decrease by $14.5 million in the next fiscal year because consumer spending is down.
  
• Carry-over funds: There are fewer one-time funds available from previous budget years that can be rolled into the coming budget year, officials say.  That number is down by $18 million.
  

Measure A looms large

Last year, L.A. County started collecting revenue through Measure A. The additional 0.5% sales tax approved by voters to address homelessness is expected to generate about $1 billion for L.A. County next budget year. That’s double the revenue generated under the county’s previous homelessness sales tax ordinance.

On Tuesday, service providers said the county cuts don’t make sense to voters who approved Measure A.

“This is not what voters intended when they doubled the tax on themselves to address the homelessness crisis,” said Katie Hill, CEO of Union Station Homeless Services, a Pasadena homelessness nonprofit.

Dozens of homeless services employees lined up to echo that message and demanding officials restore the full budget.

" My request is that you please not approve this plan without filling the gap first,” said Erin Thompson of Inner City Law Center, a nonprofit law firm. “Please find the funds.

Deandra Davis, from the homeless service provider HOPICS, said cutting programs doesn't end up saving the county money in the long run. The costs get pushed elsewhere.

“We shift these costs to jails and hospitals," she said.

Under Measure A, about 60% of revenue has to go toward homeless services. That’s about $625 million for next budget year.

Nearly 36%, or $372 million, must go to the L.A. County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency to support housing development. County homelessness officials said that agency is expected to take on some of the homelessness prevention functions cut from the county’s homeless services budget.

“Measure A has given the overall system more tools to address the homelessness crisis, but fewer of them are held directly by the county,” Supervisor Janice Hahn said Tuesday.

Proposed reductions

L.A. County’s latest homelessness budget proposal includes a $92 million reduction for the county’s Pathway Home program, which moves unhoused Angelenos out of tent encampments by offering them hotel room beds. Pathway Home would be reduced from more than 1,200 beds at 20 project sites to 460 beds at seven sites, officials said.

Fewer beds for the program will mean more tent encampments in areas it serves, officials said.

Solis and fellow Supervisor Holly Mitchell said the program has been crucial for their constituents.

“This continuing attack on Pathway Home is problematic,” Mitchell said at Tuesday’s meeting. “We are clearly heading in a direction where our ability to ultimately resolve homelessness and address encampments and continue to make the progress we've seen in the last couple of years will be severely constrained."

Holly J. Mitchell, an LA County Supervisor who represents the second district.

(

Samanta Helou Hernandez

/

LAist

)

The budget plan also includes $127 million in reductions to other programs, including at least 100 frontline worker jobs. Outreach and prevention-related programs would be hit hardest, officials said.

Street outreach-related programs would be reduced by 60% and staffing in those programs would be cut by about half.

Mahin said parts of the county outside the city of Los Angeles will be disproportionately affected by reductions to outreach programs. Her department recommended reductions to certain outreach teams working outside city limits, but not in L.A.

That’s because of legal obligations under a settlement of a major homelessness lawsuit brought against the city and county by The L.A. Alliance for Human Rights.

“There is a requirement due to the L.A. Alliance for the county to maintain a certain level of outreach services in the city of L.A. through next fiscal year,” Mahin told LAist.

Critics of the spending plan urged supervisors to look at other parts of the budget to help save programs still on the chopping block.

Lily Clark of HOPICS told county officials the cuts would hurt her unhoused clients.

"What we can't do is eliminate the programs that prevent homelessness and expect the crisis to improve,” Clark said. “ Every subsidy cut, every outreach program lost, every navigation team dismantled, each one represents a person who will fall through the cracks.”

Next steps

Solis said on Tuesday that she hopes to see changes to outreach spending and other recommendations before approving the plan next month.

“ I know we're gonna have opportunity to try to make some adjustments,” she said.

Mahin told LAist her department has been “turning over couch cushions” looking for other sources of funding to help address the planned cuts and reductions.

“Unless people are bringing other funding solutions to the table,” Mahin said, “My question is: we can make changes, but what would you like to cut instead?”

Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said local programs are getting cut because state and federal dollars dried up and costs rose, not because L.A. County cut spending.

“ We cannot invent dollars we no longer receive,” Horvath said. “We're the only level of government that has actually increased our investment. Every other level of government has decreased, and we cannot backfill these gaps.”

The board is expected to vote on the proposed budget Feb. 3.