Fictitious Law Firm, Courtroom & Government Offices

Five Defendants Charged with Impersonating Immigration Judges, Law Enforcement Officers, and Lawyershttps://t.co/w0mV4yVljL

— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) February 20, 2026

… conspiracy, wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy, and two counts of false impersonation of an officer or employee of the United States.

As set forth in the indictment and other court filings, the defendants and their co-conspirators portrayed themselves as immigration lawyers and operated a fictitious immigration law firm that they called “CM Bufete De Abogados Consultoria Migratoria.” After soliciting prospective “clients,” primarily on Facebook, the defendants and their co-conspirators charged their victims fees ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars for nonexistent legal advice and services. None of the defendants or their identified co-conspirators were attorneys admitted or licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United States.

After receiving victim funds, the defendants and their co-conspirators pretended as if they were actually representing their “clients.” They transmitted documents that appeared to be official because they included symbols of agencies of the United States government. Some of these documents referenced the victims’ actual cases pending in immigration court and/or reflected that the victims’ pending cases had been successfully resolved. In reality, none of these were legitimate documents issued by any United States government agency.

The defendants and their co-conspirators also facilitated sham immigration proceedings, including asylum interviews and court appearances, in which the victims participated via videoconference. In certain of these fictitious proceedings, the defendants and their co-conspirators impersonated immigration judges, agents from CBP and USCIS, and immigration lawyers. They wore judicial robes and law enforcement uniforms and appeared in front of backgrounds that resembled courtrooms and government offices, with agency seals and flags. During these videoconferences, the impersonators asked the victims sensitive personal questions and requested the victims’ personal identifying information.

At times, the defendants and their co-conspirators falsely represented that these sham proceedings had resolved the victims’ pending immigration cases. As a result, victims missed their actual appearances in immigration court, which resulted in at least one victim being ordered deported who mistakenly believed her immigration issues were resolved. The order was later reversed.