The class action lawsuit alleges that the Ohio law firm adopted a business model developed by former Washington state attorney Alexandra Lozano and used similar abuse-based immigration applications.
SEATTLE — A new federal class action lawsuit filed in Ohio alleges that an immigration law firm there adopted a business model developed by a former Washington immigration attorney. Alessandra Lozano and used similar practices that are now at the center of lawsuits, complaints and disciplinary proceedings in Washington state.
The 52-page lawsuit was filed against Ohio attorney Angel Lisinski and his law firm. The complaint alleges Lisinski steered immigrants toward immigration pathways based on abuse, including applications under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and T visas, which are reserved for certain victims of human trafficking.
The lawsuit alleges that clients were not fully informed that their immigration cases were being filed under these programs and that non-attorneys played a significant role in crafting narratives of abuse used in applications.
Rachel Zupan, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the Ohio lawsuit, said many of Lisinski’s former clients discovered the nature of the cases only after problems arose.
“They have no idea what VAWA means. They don’t know what T visa means,” Zupan told KING 5. “I don’t mean that in a legal sense. They don’t even understand the layman’s terms. It’s shocking to see that.”
Suit alleges Lozano’s system was copied
The most striking allegation in the Ohio lawsuit is that Lisinski did not develop the model independently.
According to the complaint, Lisinski paid to purchase or license a high-capacity immigration processing system that the plaintiffs said was developed by Lozano. Lozano, a former Tukwila attorney, resigned from the Washington State Bar earlier this week in lieu of disciplinary action.
The lawsuit alleges that the model relies on streamlined case processing and focuses primarily on VAWA and T visa applications.
Robert Anthony Alvarez, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the Ohio case, told KING 5 he believes Lozano actively promoted the model to other immigration attorneys across the country.
“She has an education department within her practice that is marketing the system nationwide to immigration attorneys, especially female immigration attorneys,” Alvarez said. “We believe Ms. Lisinski is one of them.”
KING 5 has not independently verified the allegations regarding any licensing or mentoring agreements between Lozano and Lisinski.
Similar accusations emerged in Washington
The Ohio charges are very similar to complaints KING 5 uncovered during its months-long investigation into Lozano.
Previous reporting by KING 5 found that former clients claim they were encouraged to file immigration claims based on abuse, even though they said abuse was not part of their circumstances.
KING 5 also obtained records of complaints filed years ago with the Washington Attorney General’s Office. Some complainants claimed they were encouraged to pursue VAWA claims even though they did not report the abuse, while others raised concerns about signatures, filings and legal fees.
A federal lawsuit filed in Washington earlier this month accuses Lozano and her law firm of steering immigrants to file immigration claims based on abuse, allegedly ineligible and submitting applications that clients did not fully understand.
Lozano has denied wrongdoing.
In the wake of the lawsuit and KING 5’s reporting, attorneys involved in the Washington case said they have received hundreds of additional inquiries from former clients concerned about their immigration applications.
Lawyers expect more clients to come forward
Attorneys behind the Ohio lawsuit said they believe the number of customers affected could be far greater than reflected in the current complaint.
“I’ve even had clients come back and end up hiring me to assist with their cases because their cases were denied and they went into deportation proceedings,” Zupan said.
Alvarez said the charges outlined in Ohio are similar to concerns that have emerged in Washington.
“If you look at the allegations that were made and compare them to the allegations in our complaint, they are strikingly similar,” he said.
The Ohio lawsuit is not against Lozano. Instead, it targets the Ohio law firm the plaintiff claims used her methods.
On May 26, Lozano was no longer admitted to practice law in Washington after submitting his resignation to the Washington State Bar Association in lieu of disciplinary action. The resignation will permanently bar her from practicing law in Washington and prevent her from being relicensed in the future.
