Filed 5/13/19 (unmodified opinion attached) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E067578 v. (Super.Ct.No. INF1501474) SARA ARCELIA SALCIDO, ORDER MODIFYING OPINION Defendant and Appellant. [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: The opinion filed in this matter on May 2, 2019 is modified as follows: Footnote * at the bottom of page one is modified to state, Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part III. Except for this modification, the opinion remains unchanged. This modification does not effect a change in the judgment. CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION RAMIREZ P. J. 1 Filed 5/2/19 (unmodified opinion) See Concurring and Dissenting Opinion CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E067578 SARA ARCELIA SALCIDO, (Super.Ct.No. INF1501474) Defendant and Appellant. OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John G. Evans, Judge. Affirmed. Susan L. Ferguson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts III and IV. 1 Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Michael Pulos, Britton B. Lacy, and Michael D. Butera, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant Sara Salcido was in the business of providing immigration services — typically, obtaining visas for her clients that would allow them to stay in the United States legally. Under the Immigration Consultant Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 22440- 22449) (Act), with certain exceptions, it is illegal for a person to act as an “immigration consultant” (as defined in the Act) unless he or she has complied with a host of consumer protection requirements, such as passing a background check and filing a bond. Defendant failed to comply with these. As a result, in a bench trial, defendant was convicted on one count of unlawfully engaging in the business of an immigration consultant, a misdemeanor. (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 22440, 22441.) The People argued, however, that each time defendant took money from a client in exchange for providing immigration services, she was committing theft by false pretenses, because she was not a legally qualified immigration consultant under state law. The trial court agreed; thus, it also convicted her on six counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487, subd. (a)) and two counts of petty theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 488). It dismissed two additional counts of grand theft as time-barred. Defendant was placed on probation for five years. 2 In the published portion of this opinion, we will hold that federal law does not preempt the application of the Act to defendant. In the unpublished portion, we will reject defendant’s other contentions. Accordingly, we will affirm. I FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals