Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law Closes: What It Means for Clients’ Status

Background

The Tukwila, Washington–based firm grew rapidly into one of the largest humanitarian immigration practices in the country, with five primary U.S. locations and back-office operations in Colombia, Mexico and Argentina. Lozano, licensed to practice since 2007, marketed herself as a “Lawyer of Miracles” and built a substantial social-media presence aimed at Latino immigrants.

In May 2026, Lozano resigned from the WSBA in lieu of discipline rather than face a disciplinary hearing. The bar described that step as permanent and as carrying consequences more severe than a standard disbarment: she cannot practice law in any state, nor be affiliated with the firm she founded. The firm rebranded as Luz Legal, then announced in June that it would close entirely. Lozano has denied wrongdoing; her specific responses are detailed below.

The Allegations Against Lozano

The accusations against Lozano come from two main sources: the WSBA’s 11-page statement of alleged misconduct, and a federal civil lawsuit filed May 11, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington by nine former clients. None of the allegations has been proven in court, and Lozano has denied wrongdoing. The descriptions below reflect claims made in those filings.

Claims in the federal lawsuit

The 50-page complaint describes the firm’s services as “illusory, negligent, and even fraudulent,” and brings a range of legal claims, including:

Violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act — a statute typically used against organized criminal enterprises, which can allow successful plaintiffs to recover up to three times their losses plus attorney fees.
Legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.
Violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.
Breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Among the most specific allegations, the suit claims the firm participated in a “scheme” to file false or fraudulent immigration documents — and that, in some cases, clients were asked to sign blank pieces of paper so their signatures could later be attached to documents they had never reviewed. Plaintiffs also allege the firm filed baseless or fraudulent VAWA and T-visa petitions, and in many cases placed clients’ signatures on filings without their knowledge or consent. (In simple terms: people say their names were put on paperwork they never saw or agreed to.)

One named plaintiff, Nora Patricia Murillo Moreno — whose husband and three children are U.S. citizens — alleges she was pressured to “embellish facts and make claims that she did not fully agree with,” and that a declaration filed and signed on her behalf contained exaggerated or false statements. She says she was never told about a denial or a court hearing she was supposed to attend, and has since been separated from her children and living in Mexico.

Claims in the bar association’s misconduct statement

The WSBA’s statement accuses Lozano of a range of wrongful practices in how the firm was operated:

Relying on non-lawyer staff to consult with clients and deliver “scripted sales pitches” that made false promises of “100% protection” from immigration authorities.
Allowing a computer program to determine case strategies without Lozano — or any other lawyer — reviewing them.
Submitting petitions containing exaggerated or false information, and applying for benefits regardless of whether clients were actually eligible.

The bar’s statement does not specify exactly what the allegedly false information was. But several independent immigration attorneys who reviewed Lozano cases said clients reported that sworn declarations filed on their behalf contained abuse allegations they never made. Des Moines attorney Susan Pai said she had seen declarations describing marital rape and firearm use that clients told her were fabricated. One plaintiff said that when she questioned exaggerated statements in a declaration prepared by the office, staffers told her to go along with the document anyway during her interview with an immigration officer.

Why VAWA is central

A large share of the firm’s caseload involved the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Congress passed VAWA to let domestic-violence victims married to U.S. citizens or green-card holders — and certain abused parents of adult U.S.-citizen children — seek immigration benefits without depending on an abuser to petition for them. The relief does not require the applicant to leave the country, which makes it attractive but also highly sensitive to the accuracy of the abuse claims at its core.

VAWA self-petitions rose sharply nationally during this period — USCIS reported the overall number increased roughly 360% from fiscal years 2020 to 2024 — a backdrop against which regulators have signaled heightened review.

Investigations and Lozano’s response

Beyond the lawsuit, the firm has drawn government scrutiny on several fronts. USCIS’s Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate has been examining Lozano, according to people in contact with the directorate; the agency does not confirm or deny investigations. The Washington State Attorney General’s office was, as of July 2025, conducting a “pre-litigation investigation” into whether the firm engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices. Attorneys involved say federal authorities are also weighing whether a broader scheme affected immigrants nationwide. As of publication, no criminal charges had been filed and no arrests announced.

Lozano has consistently denied wrongdoing. “I take these matters seriously, and any issues involving regulatory or legal processes will continue to be addressed through the appropriate channels,” she said in a statement. Her attorney, Angelo Calfo, said her practice was to fight for clients and pursue every lawful option available to them. In her written resignation, Lozano denied misconduct but said she was choosing not to defend herself against the bar’s allegations.

How the Closure Can Affect Client Immigration Status

For clients, the central risk is not the firm’s closure by itself but the integrity of the filings already submitted in their names. Immigration consequences fall into several categories:

Government review of filed petitions. Because the firm’s filings are tied to allegations of false statements, USCIS may scrutinize affected petitions more closely. A fraud division of USCIS has been investigating Lozano, and federal authorities are examining whether a broader scheme affected immigrants nationwide.
Exposure for material misrepresentation. Under U.S. immigration law, knowingly providing false information to obtain a benefit can carry severe consequences, including denial and a finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation that may bar future relief. This risk is heightened for clients whose declarations contained statements they say were untrue — even if a staffer, not the client, inserted them.
Cases left without representation. With the firm closed, pending petitions may lack an attorney of record. Missed USCIS or immigration-court deadlines can lead to denials or removal orders, so the gap in representation is itself a status risk.
Clients placed in the wrong category. Some clients reported being told they qualified for VAWA or a T visa despite having other cases pending. Filing in the wrong category can complicate or undermine a legitimate path to status.

Importantly, clients are not automatically culpable for misstatements made by a firm without their knowledge. Immigration adjudicators and courts can weigh whether a misrepresentation was the applicant’s own. But establishing that typically requires prompt, documented corrective action — which is why timing matters.

Can Clients Lose Status They Already Obtained?

For clients who already received a green card, visa or other benefit through a Lozano filing, a natural question follows: can that status be taken away if the underlying application is later found to be false? In general, the answer is that it can be — but revocation is not automatic, the government carries the burden of proof, and the outcome depends heavily on what each client actually knew. The mechanisms differ by the type of status held.

Rescission of a green card

If USCIS determines within five years of approval that lawful permanent resident status was granted in error or through misrepresentation, it can begin a rescission process, starting with a Notice of Intent to Rescind that explains the basis. Fraud or willful misrepresentation — providing false information or concealing key facts to obtain a benefit — is the most common ground. Because fraud can be acted on after it is discovered, even a green card approved years earlier is not necessarily beyond reach. (In simple terms: a green card is not always permanent if the government later concludes it was obtained through false statements.)

Revocation of a pending or approved petition

USCIS can also reopen and undo a prior approval if it was based on fraudulent information. For the many Lozano clients whose petitions remain pending — recall that roughly 54,000 are still before USCIS — the agency need not rescind anything at all; it can simply deny the petition on review.

Removal proceedings and a possible lifetime bar

If misrepresentation is discovered after a person has entered the country or obtained status, it can lead to removal (deportation) proceedings. A formal finding of fraud or willful misrepresentation can also trigger a lifetime bar to admissibility — the most severe consequence — which can make the person permanently ineligible for most future immigration benefits unless a waiver is available. For the smaller group of former clients who have already naturalized, the government can separately pursue denaturalization if citizenship was procured by fraud, a harder process that runs through federal court.

The decisive question: “willful” and “material”

This is where the nature of the Lozano allegations matters most. To sustain a misrepresentation finding, the government generally must show that the false statement was both willful (intentional) and material (that it actually affected the outcome). A client who can demonstrate they did not know what was filed — for example, the alleged practice of asking clients to sign blank pages, or staff inserting fabricated abuse claims a client never made — has a genuine argument that they did not willfully misrepresent anything.

Attorney-perpetrated fraud does not automatically clear the client: the false statement remains in the government’s record, and the client may have signed the document. But it substantially changes the defense, and whether a misrepresentation was the applicant’s own is exactly the kind of issue adjudicators and courts weigh. (In simple terms: if your lawyer lied on your paperwork without your knowledge, you are in a far stronger position than someone who knowingly lied — but you still have to prove it.)

What can soften the outcome

Waivers. The visa types common in these cases offer some relief. T- and U-visa applicants — who are crime victims — can apply for a waiver of inadmissibility for fraud or misrepresentation and have a reasonable chance of approval in the public interest. For VAWA self-petitioners, USCIS weighs extreme hardship as the first positive factor in deciding whether a waiver is warranted as a matter of discretion.
Timing. For green-card rescission specifically, the five-year window from approval is significant, so the date of approval can shape the government’s options.
Proactive correction. Practitioners broadly advise getting ahead of the problem — securing the file, identifying any false statements, and correcting the record with new counsel — rather than waiting for a government notice.

The practical reality, as immigration practitioners describe it, is that consequences for fraudulent filings may not be immediate but are difficult to avoid once a scheme is uncovered. The exposure is therefore real for clients across the spectrum — but the individual outcome turns heavily on what each person knew and on the corrective steps they take now.

What Affected Clients Can Do Now

Immigration practitioners and the WSBA have outlined concrete steps for affected clients:

Obtain a complete copy of your case file. Clients can request files by emailing the address the firm provided to the bar (abogada@luzlegal.com). The file is needed for any new attorney to assess what was actually filed.
Hire a properly licensed immigration attorney quickly. The WSBA advised clients to verify that any new lawyer is licensed and in good standing, and to ask for the name and bar number of the attorney now assigned to their case.
Review every filing made in your name. A new attorney can compare the submitted declarations against the client’s actual circumstances and determine whether corrections, withdrawals or supplemental statements are warranted.
Track all deadlines independently. Clients should not assume notices are being monitored; confirm upcoming USCIS or court dates directly.
Consider eligibility for the WSBA Client Protection Fund. Former clients who believe they suffered financial losses due to dishonest conduct by a lawyer may be able to apply for compensation.

Analysis

The Lozano matter illustrates a structural vulnerability in high-volume immigration practice: when one signature sits atop tens of thousands of petitions, problems do not stay contained. The same scale that made the firm prominent now magnifies the downstream effect on clients, many of whom paid between $15,000 and $19,000 and may have limited English proficiency or familiarity with the legal system.

It also underscores a recurring tension in immigration enforcement. Government review aimed at firm-level fraud can sweep in individual applicants who may have been unaware of what was filed for them. How USCIS and the courts distinguish between culpable applicants and misled clients will shape outcomes for thousands of cases — and will likely be litigated for years.

Conclusion

The shutdown of Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law converts a disciplinary and legal saga into an immediate, practical problem for more than 35,000 clients. The firm’s closure does not, on its own, void anyone’s pending case, but the allegations attached to its filings create real exposure for clients whose petitions may be re-examined. For those affected, the most protective steps are to secure their files, retain licensed counsel, and address any inaccuracies before the government does.

Key Takeaways

Luz Legal, formerly Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law, has permanently closed, weeks after founder Alexandra Lozano surrendered her law license in lieu of discipline.
The WSBA says the firm had more than 35,000 clients and that Lozano’s signature is on nearly 54,000 pending USCIS petitions.
Allegations center on exaggerated or false statements in petitions, many involving VAWA relief; Lozano denies wrongdoing, and federal authorities are investigating.
A federal lawsuit brings RICO, malpractice and consumer-protection claims, alleging a “scheme” to file fraudulent documents — including having clients sign blank pages; the bar cites scripted sales pitches, false “100% protection” promises, and case strategies set by software without lawyer review.
Closure itself does not void cases, but filings may face heightened government scrutiny, and clients risk missed deadlines and misrepresentation findings.
Affected clients should obtain their case files, hire licensed counsel immediately, review all filings, track deadlines, and explore the WSBA Client Protection Fund.
Status already granted can be revoked — green cards rescinded, petitions reopened, even removal pursued — if a filing is found fraudulent, but the government must prove the misrepresentation was willful and material, and clients who did not know what was filed have a stronger defense and may qualify for waivers.

Sources

The Seattle Times / Yakima Herald — reporting on the firm’s closure and client impact (June 2026).
KING 5 News — coverage of the closure, federal investigation, and WSBA statements.
KOMO News — reporting on the state consumer alert and client file-request guidance.
Washington State Bar Association — statement of alleged misconduct and resignation in lieu of discipline.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — VAWA self-petition data (FY2020–FY2024) and program descriptions.
USCIS Policy Manual — guidance on fraud and willful misrepresentation (INA 212(a)(6)(C)(i)) and the corresponding waiver (INA 212(i)); green-card rescission procedures and the Notice of Intent to Rescind.
The Spokesman-Review / Rogue Valley Times — reporting on the federal lawsuit and disciplinary resignation.
KIRO 7 News — plaintiff interviews and complaint details.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington — federal civil complaint filed May 11, 2026 (case summary at lozanocivilaction.com).

Note: This article is informational and not legal advice. Affected clients should consult a licensed immigration attorney about their specific case.