Lozano Inc Lawsuit: Allegations, Closure, and Client Options

The Alexandra Lozano lawsuit is a federal civil action filed on May 11, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington by nine former clients who accuse the Tukwila-based immigration attorney and her affiliated companies of fabricating abuse allegations, filing petitions for ineligible clients, and running what the complaint calls an “illusory, negligent, and even fraudulent” legal operation. Days after the suit landed, Lozano permanently surrendered her Washington law license, and in June 2026 her firm shut down, leaving more than 35,000 clients without counsel.

What the Lawsuit Alleges

The 50-page complaint describes a high-volume operation that, according to the plaintiffs, pushed immigrants into abuse-based pathways regardless of eligibility. The firm frequently filed under the Violence Against Women Act, which allows domestic violence victims married to U.S. citizens or green card holders to seek legal status independently. The complaint and the Washington State Bar Association’s investigation both allege that VAWA declarations submitted on clients’ behalf contained “exaggerated or made up” abuse allegations, including claims of marital rape or firearm use that clients said they never made.¹

The mechanics went further. The lawsuit says clients were asked to sign blank pieces of paper, and those signatures were later digitally attached to documents the clients had never seen.² Legal strategies, the complaint alleges, were generated by a computer program without review by Lozano or any attorney, and non-lawyer staff conducted intake using scripted pitches that promised “100% protection” from immigration authorities.³

Fees ran between $10,000 and $15,000, which the bar association characterized as “unreasonable.” As part of the engagement, clients were referred to two affiliated companies, En Solidaridad, LLC and Salud Total, LLC, for required psychological evaluations. The complaint alleges those assessments were performed by people without professional qualifications and “falsely represented” clients’ psychological conditions in filings submitted to immigration officials. En Solidaridad was a dissolved Washington LLC governed by Lozano’s estranged husband, Manuel Lozano Rodriguez; Salud Total was registered in Wyoming with a Florida address.⁴

Lozano marketed herself as the “abogada de los milagros” — the “lawyer of miracles” — and used the trademarked slogan “arreglar sin salir” (“fix without leaving”) along with religious imagery, including the Virgen de Guadalupe, to reach Spanish-speaking immigrants. Through affiliates Amiga Lawyers, LLC and Ally Lozano, LLC, she also trained other immigration attorneys in her methods, earning more than $1.7 million from those programs between 2019 and 2021 according to records cited in the complaint. The complaint alleges she trained hundreds of attorneys in the same practices now under scrutiny.⁴

The Claims Being Brought

The case is structured as a mass action rather than a class action, so each plaintiff is individually named. The complaint names Lozano, her firm La Luz del Camino Legal, PLLC (formerly Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law, PLLC, later rebranded as “Luz Legal”), and the affiliated entities En Solidaridad, Salud Total, Amiga Lawyers, and Ally Lozano, LLC.⁵

The plaintiffs bring claims under the federal RICO Act, alleging a coordinated pattern of racketeering across Lozano’s network. They also assert legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, accusing the firm of filing applications it knew were doomed and failing to tell clients when applications were denied. Additional claims include violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act for deceptive marketing aimed at vulnerable immigrants, breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and negligent infliction of emotional distress tied to deportation proceedings and the discovery of fabricated filings. Lead counsel Aric Bomsztyk has said more plaintiffs and allegations may be added as the case progresses.⁶

Client Harms Described in the Complaint

Nora Patricia Murillo Moreno, who paid roughly $15,000, alleges the firm submitted a VAWA declaration she did not remember signing that contained exaggerated claims about her husband. Her green card application was denied, and while she was abroad visiting family she was refused reentry and placed in deportation proceedings.² Another plaintiff says that when she questioned exaggerated statements in her own declaration, firm staff told her to “go along with the document anyway” during her immigration interview. Her application was denied.⁷ Plaintiff Gerardo Prado Rivera alleges he was asked to sign blank pages later attached to documents he had never reviewed.

The bar association’s statement of misconduct noted that many former clients ended up in deportation proceedings as a direct result of the firm’s filings. Seattle immigration attorney Chelan Crutcher-Herrejon reported encountering a former Lozano client who had received a government notice of intent to revoke a green card, citing ineligibility due to multiple illegal entries that the firm had failed to properly address.¹

Lozano’s License Surrender and the Firm’s Closure

On May 26, 2026, fifteen days after the lawsuit was filed, Lozano permanently resigned her Washington law license in lieu of discipline. The resignation meant she chose not to contest the bar association’s 11-page statement of alleged misconduct, which cited seven Rules of Professional Conduct violations including dishonesty, fraud, and deceit; unauthorized practice of law; failure to supervise nonlawyer staff; unreasonable fees; and filing meritless claims.⁸ Lozano denied the misconduct in her written resignation but agreed to pay court-ordered restitution.¹ The resignation is permanent. She is barred from practicing law in any jurisdiction and from maintaining any affiliation with her former firm.⁹

On June 10, 2026, Luz Legal announced it was closing permanently and would stop providing legal representation. The closure left more than 35,000 active clients without counsel. The firm said a team of attorneys who previously worked on its cases were “taking on clients from Luz Legal” but did not disclose their names. It also said it would monitor USCIS mail for only 30 days, after which clients would need to have filed their own change-of-address forms. Other immigration attorneys have urged former clients to be “very cautious” about the firm’s suggested successor counsel.¹⁰

Parallel Government Investigations

A fraud division of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has been investigating the firm, according to a division email reviewed by The Seattle Times and accounts from five people in contact with a USCIS officer. Lozano’s signature appears on nearly 54,000 petitions pending before USCIS, and the government has begun reviewing cases the firm handled, issuing at least one notice of intent to revoke a previously granted green card.¹

Separately, the Washington state attorney general’s office has been conducting a “pre-litigation investigation” into whether the firm engaged in deceptive and unfair business practices since at least July 2025. As of June 2026, the attorney general had not filed a consumer protection lawsuit or formal charges, and a spokesperson declined to discuss “potential investigatory matters.”¹⁰

What Former Clients Should Do Now

If you were represented by Lozano’s firm, your immigration case still needs an attorney regardless of what happens with the civil lawsuit. The plaintiffs’ team has been explicit that its case does not provide immigration legal services, and former clients should independently secure new counsel to protect their status.⁵

The Washington State Bar Association has directed affected clients to take several steps. Request your complete file from the firm in writing. File a Freedom of Information Act request with USCIS to verify exactly what was submitted in your name, including any declarations, psychological evaluations, or supporting documents you may not have seen. Retain independent immigration counsel to review those filings and determine your current status. The bar also notes that its Client Protection Fund may be available to reimburse clients who suffered financial losses due to dishonest attorney conduct, though that process is separate from the civil lawsuit.⁹

Former clients who want to be considered as plaintiffs in the federal case can register interest at lozanocivilaction.com. Registration alone does not make you a plaintiff or guarantee representation; the legal team has described itself as selective in choosing plaintiffs, and joining formally requires a signed agreement with the representing attorneys.⁵ The 30-day USCIS mail-monitoring window the firm announced at closure is short, so submitting your own change-of-address form to USCIS quickly matters if you have not already done so.

1
Seattle Times. WA Immigration Lawyer Alexandra Lozano Facing Discipline Gives Up License
2
RV Times. WA Immigration Lawyer Alexandra Lozano Sued for Alleged Malpractice
3
El País. Lawyer of Miracles Alexandra Lozano Brought Down Over Allegations of Fabricating Abuse Claims and Scamming Migrants
4
Lozano Civil Action. Complaint, Sanchez v. Alexandra Lozano Immigration Law PLLC
5
Lozano Civil Action. Federal Civil Lawsuit Against Alexandra Lozano
6
Seattle Times. WA Immigration Lawyer Alexandra Lozano Sued for Alleged Malpractice
7
Spokesman-Review. WA Immigration Lawyer Alexandra Lozano Facing Possible Discipline Gives Up License
8
Washington State Bar Association. Discipline Notice – Alexandra Lozano
9
Washington State Bar Association. Help for Clients of Alexandra Lozano
10
Seattle Times. WA Immigration Law Firm Founded by Alexandra Lozano Shuts Down