Apart from the federal law prohibitions, several states have taken actions to limit the unauthorized practice of immigration law. For example, a New Jersey statute makes it a crime for non-attorneys to hold themselves out as "immigration consultants", or engage in immigration practice.[1] Arizona and New Mexico also have statutes that prohibit the unauthorized practice of immigration and nationality law.[2] Other states' laws also limit or regulate what non-attorneys can do in the immigration context.[3] Additionally, courts in numerous jurisdictions have upheld criminal and civil sanctions against lay persons purporting to practice immigration law.[4]

The legislative histories of the laws designed to prevent the unauthorized practice of immigration law by non-attorneys are rife with stories of exploitation of innocent petitioners who, once they have understood the scam or the inadequacy of counsel, had no attorneys' bar association or other professional association to appeal to for sanctions. These firms often move their offices and can not be found at the time redress is sought. The internet is an ideal breeding ground for such charlatans (these firms often do not provide addresses or telephone numbers). They also can engage in advertising ploys such as guaranteeing results, disparaging competitors, and stating mistruths that are prohibited by the Attorney's Code of Professional Responsibility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] N.J. Rev. Stat. Sec. 2c:21-31 (1997).

[2] Immigration and Nationality Law Practice Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sec. 12-2701 (1997); Immigration and Nationality Law Practice Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. 36-6-5 (Mitchie 1997).

[3] See, e.g., 815 111. Comp. Stat. 505/2AA (West 1997) (Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act); Minn. Stat. Sec. 325e.031 (1996); Or. Rev. Stat. Sec. 194.166(8) (1996) (notary public law); Va. Sup. Ct. UPR 9-7, 9-103 (1997); Wash. Rev. Code Sec.19.154.010 (1996) (Immigration Assistant Practices Act).

[4] See Florida Bar v. Corpa Immigration Service, 642 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1994) (enjoining organization from advising customers as to legal rights and remedies preparing forms or representing to the public its ability to perform matters that require legal skills); Gomez v. Pnvate Immigration Agency, No. 91 Ch 3210 (111 1994) summarized in 13 AILA Monthly Mailing 656 (Oct. 1994) (consent decree settlement between PIA and three bar associations intervening as plaintiffs that enjoins PIA from engaging in unauthorized practice); Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Massengale, 58 Ohio St 3d 121 568 N.E.2d 1222 (Ohio 1991) (injunction against person practicing immigration law without authorization); In re Taton, 456 N.W.2d 717 (Minn.1990) (same)- Florida v Matus, 528 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 1988) ("the preparation of forms to effect a change in ' immigration status requires legal training and familiarity with immigration laws and failure to properly prepare the forms could result in great harm, including deportation") (citations omitted); Florida Bar v. Retureta-Carera, 322 So.2d 28 (Fla 1975)-Unauthorized Practice Committee v. Cortez, 692 S.W.2d 47 (Tex. 1985) digested in 62 Interpreter Releases 492 (May 24, 1985) (such activities did constitute practice of law) Memorandum from Doris M. Meissner INS Commissioner, to all INS offices, Practice of Law by Unlicensed "Immigration ' Brokers," File No. HQ 292-P (Jan. 18, 1995), reported on and reproduced in 72 Interpreter Releases 529, 538 (Apr. 17, 1995) ("Even advice limited to something as simple' as selecting and completing the proper [INS] form constitutes the practice of law, since this advice depends on a legal conclusion that the client is eligible for the particular benefit."); Memorandum from T. Alexander Aleinikoff, INS General Counsel, to all INS attorneys, practice of Law by Unlicensed "Immigration Brokers," File No. HQ 292-P (Jan. 3, 1995), reported on and reproduced in 72 Interpreter Releases 529 539 (Apr 17 1995).