What is the Immigration Consultant Act (ICA)?

Useful Resources for Immigration Consultant Act (ICA)

Rulings on Immigration Consultant Act (ICA)

1-25 of 118 results

SOO OK CHOI VS SAMUEL JINKYOO KANG ET AL

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the ICA on multiple grounds. The Immigration Consultant Act Under California Business and Professions Code, Section 22446.5 “[a] person claiming to be aggrieved by a violation [of] [the] [ICA] by an immigration consultant may bring a civil action for injunctive relief” on their behalf or on behalf of the general public.

  • Hearing

    Apr 10, 2019

SOO OK CHOI VS SAMUEL JINKYOO KANG ET AL

.; NIW Korea; and Rex Counselor, Inc. alleging a single cause of action for violation of the Immigration Consultant Act pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, Section 22440 et seq.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2019

OLIVIA VENCES RAYO VS LA IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS INC ET AL

On January 18, 2017, plaintiff filed a complaint, on May 5, 2017, a first amended complaint for (1) violation of the Immigration Consultant Act (ICA; Business and Professions Code section 22440, et seq.; against LAIA and Does), (2) intentional deceit (against all defendants), (3) negligent deceit (against all defendants), (4) negligence per se (against all defendants), (5) negligence (against LAIA and Does), (6) professional negligence (against LAIA and Price), (7) intentional conduct (against LAIA and Price

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2017

SOO OK CHOI VS SAMUEL JINKYOO KANG ET AL

BACKGROUND On May 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative First-Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging a single cause of action for violation of the Immigration Consultant Act (“ICA”) pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, Section 22440, et seq. Plaintiff’s complaint arises from Defendants’ alleged improper actions with respect to her National Interest Waiver (“NIW”) petition for immigration purposes.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

MARITZA MONTES ET AL VS LOS ANGELES IMMIGRATION ATTORNEYS ET

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATION OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT ACT The Immigration Consultant Act (“ICA”) provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any person, for compensation, other than persons authorized to practice law or authorized by federal law to represent persons before the Board of Immigration Appeals or the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, to engage in the business or act in the capacity of an immigration consultant within this state except as provided by this chapter.”

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2016

SOO OK CHOI VS SAMUEL JINKYOO KANG ET AL

BACKGROUND On May 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed the operative First-Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants alleging a single cause of action for violation of the Immigration Consultant Act (“ICA”) pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, Section 22440, et seq. Plaintiff’s complaint arises from Defendants’ alleged improper actions with respect to her National Interest Waiver (“NIW”) petition for immigration purposes.

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL, LLC VS HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

Code § 22446.5(b) states: “Any other party who, upon information and belief, claims a violation of this chapter has been committed by an immigration consultant may bring a civil action for injunctive relief on behalf of the general public and, upon prevailing, shall recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2018

  • Judge

    Georgina Torres Rizk or Jon R. Takasugi

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SIWEN YU, ET AL. VS KAI HUANG

Code § 22440 (2nd Cause of Action) Section 22440 et seq. of California Business and Professions Code governs nonlawyers who offer non-legal assistance in immigration matters in California.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS JAMES K KIM

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 12/29/17 against Defendants for: (1) Violation of the Immigration Consultant Act. This is a private attorney general action. Plaintiff alleges that defendant unlawfully holds himself out as an attorney offering immigration services and that defendant is not actually a licensed attorney. ANALYSIS: The instant motion was filed on 12/17/17. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 12/29/17. As a result, defendant’s demurrer is moot.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS LOURDES C MARTINEZ

Notwithstanding the close relationship shown between plaintiff Immigrant Rights Defense Council, LLC (“IRDC”) and its only attorney of record in these cases, Sebastian Medvei of Medvei Law Group, APC, the Court holds, based on the unique provisions of the only statute relevant here, Business & Professions Code § 22446.5, that it is appropriate to award fees even if Mr. Medvei may be considered to be representing himself for these purposes.

  • Hearing

    Dec 31, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS CLAUDIA RIOS

Each response sets forth the history of the ICA and argues that the defendants in the subject cases are unrelated to each other and have violated the ICA though different facts and transactions involving different subsets of the immigrant population – which have been more specifically pleaded in amended complaints in response to demurrers filed in some of the cases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS MARIA E TERRAZAS

Each response sets forth the history of the ICA and argues that the defendants in the subject cases are unrelated to each other and have violated the ICA though different facts and transactions involving different subsets of the immigrant population – which have been more specifically pleaded in amended complaints in response to demurrers filed in some of the cases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS RODERICO PALENCIA

regulated by the ICA.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS JOOWHAN KIM

Each response sets forth the history of the ICA and argues that the defendants in the subject cases are unrelated to each other and have violated the ICA though different facts and transactions involving different subsets of the immigrant population – which have been more specifically pleaded in amended complaints in response to demurrers filed in some of the cases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS TIN THUONG NGUYEN

Each response sets forth the history of the ICA and argues that the defendants in the subject cases are unrelated to each other and have violated the ICA though different facts and transactions involving different subsets of the immigrant population – which have been more specifically pleaded in amended complaints in response to demurrers filed in some of the cases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS JULIA E CHANGE

Each response sets forth the history of the ICA and argues that the defendants in the subject cases are unrelated to each other and have violated the ICA though different facts and transactions involving different subsets of the immigrant population – which have been more specifically pleaded in amended complaints in response to demurrers filed in some of the cases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS IVETTE BALTODANO

Each response sets forth the history of the ICA and argues that the defendants in the subject cases are unrelated to each other and have violated the ICA though different facts and transactions involving different subsets of the immigrant population – which have been more specifically pleaded in amended complaints in response to demurrers filed in some of the cases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS JOHN ALEXANDER ALBA

Each response sets forth the history of the ICA and argues that the defendants in the subject cases are unrelated to each other and have violated the ICA though different facts and transactions involving different subsets of the immigrant population – which have been more specifically pleaded in amended complaints in response to demurrers filed in some of the cases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS WALTER MARTINEZ

by the ICA.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS NAZANIN NODJOUMI

Each response sets forth the history of the ICA and argues that the defendants in the subject cases are unrelated to each other and have violated the ICA though different facts and transactions involving different subsets of the immigrant population – which have been more specifically pleaded in amended complaints in response to demurrers filed in some of the cases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS HELEN LIN

Each response sets forth the history of the ICA and argues that the defendants in the subject cases are unrelated to each other and have violated the ICA though different facts and transactions involving different subsets of the immigrant population – which have been more specifically pleaded in amended complaints in response to demurrers filed in some of the cases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS MARCO A PEREZ

the ICA.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

RICHARD TEED ET AL VS. SOTHEBY'S INTERNATIONAL REALTY, INC., ET AL

As to the allegations regarding Sotheby's failure to obtain the errors and omissions insurance policy, the ICA is reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' proffered interpretation of the ICA. As to the allegations regarding the administrative fee, plaintiffs adequately allege that the parties' contract does not allow for such a fee and thus the imposition of such a fee breached the parties' contract. As to the Sotheby's statute of limitations arguments, Mr.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2018

DONG VS. SHAPELL

HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR INTERVENE FILED BY TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMER ICA * TENTATIVE RULING: * The motion is off-calendar at the request of the moving party.

  • Hearing

    Aug 25, 2016

IMMIGRANT RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL LLC VS WEI-PO CHANG

Each response sets forth the history of the ICA and argues that the defendants in the subject cases are unrelated to each other and have violated the ICA though different facts and transactions involving different subsets of the immigrant population – which have been more specifically pleaded in amended complaints in response to demurrers filed in some of the cases.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2018

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.