HR-9803-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Bill Foster (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would create a new federal crime for knowingly or recklessly running a scheme to defraud people in connection with immigration matters, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, with up to 15 years for falsely claiming to be an attorney or accredited representative. It would require immigration applicants to disclose who helped prepare their paperwork and allow victims of immigration fraud to withdraw flawed applications and refile them without being penalized by normal deadlines or numerical limits. It would also establish a federal outreach program to educate immigrant communities about authorized legal services and create a competitive grant program for nonprofit organizations to provide direct legal assistance to immigrants in removal proceedings.
Who benefits
Immigrants and non-citizens who have been or could be victimized by fraudulent immigration consultants (commonly called "notarios"), including those who paid for services from unlicensed practitioners and received defective or harmful filings. Immigrants in removal proceedings who gain access to legal aid through the nonprofit grant program. Licensed immigration attorneys and accredited representatives who compete against unlicensed practitioners. Nonprofit legal aid organizations that would receive grant funding. Immigrant communities broadly, through multilingual outreach and education. Immigrants who departed the U.S. based on bad legal advice and would otherwise face re-entry bars.
Who is hurt
Unlicensed immigration consultants, visa consultants, and "notarios" who currently charge fees for services they are not legally authorized to provide — they would face criminal prosecution and mandatory restitution. Taxpayers who would fund the outreach and grant programs (amounts unspecified, authorized as "such sums as may be necessary"). Federal agencies (DHS, DOJ, State Department) that would bear administrative costs of implementing new regulations, disclosure requirements, and corrected-filing procedures. Immigration courts, which may face increased caseloads from corrected or resubmitted applications.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that "notario fraud" — where unlicensed individuals pose as legal experts and charge immigrants for worthless or harmful filings — is a well-documented, widespread problem that leaves victims worse off than if they had filed nothing at all, sometimes triggering deportation orders. They contend that existing federal law lacks a dedicated criminal statute targeting this conduct, and that the bill's combination of criminal penalties, mandatory restitution, civil injunctions, and victim relief creates a comprehensive deterrence and remediation framework. The disclosure and preparer-identification requirements would also create an accountability trail that currently does not exist.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's "recklessly" standard for criminal liability is vague and could sweep in good-faith errors by community organizations, paralegals, or volunteers who assist immigrants informally, chilling low-cost assistance in communities that already face severe legal representation shortages. They also contend that the grant and outreach programs are authorized at unspecified funding levels — "such sums as may be necessary" — providing no fiscal discipline and no guarantee that funds will actually reach underserved communities, making the victim-relief provisions largely aspirational without a concrete funding commitment.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to regulate immigration under the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 18). The criminal fraud provisions fall squarely within established federal legislative power. The bill's directive that DHS and the Attorney General promulgate implementing regulations is subject to heightened judicial scrutiny following Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), which eliminated automatic deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand executive branch authority by creating new criminal statutes and civil injunction powers for the Attorney General; checks include judicial review of prosecutions and injunctions, the rulemaking process under the APA, and congressional oversight of appropriated funds.
Historical precedent
Earlier versions of this bill (the "Protecting Immigrants From Legal Exploitation Act") were introduced in multiple prior Congresses, including the 114th and 116th, but were not enacted; the core provisions targeting notario fraud have been debated for over a decade without becoming law.