PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Oct 1, 2020
Fight Notario Fraud Act of 2020
This bill prohibits certain types of fraud or misrepresentations related to immigration matters, provides for criminal penalties for such actions, and contains related provisions.
Specifically, a person shall be subject to fines, imprisonment, or both, if that person knowingly executes a scheme related to immigration laws to (1) defraud another, or (2) receive anything of value from another based on false pretenses or representations. Such a person shall be subject to additional criminal penalties if that person (1) threatens to report another to federal or state authorities, (2) takes actions or makes attempts to adversely impact another's immigration status, or (3) demands or retains anything of value for services fraudulently performed or not performed.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Similarly, a person shall be subject to fines, imprisonment, or both, if the person knowingly and falsely claims to be an attorney or an accredited representative in any matter arising under the immigration laws. (An accredited representative is an individual authorized by the Executive Office of Immigration Review to represent clients in certain immigration matters.)
The bill provides for longer terms of imprisonment for a person who causes a cumulative loss of more than $10,000 through actions prohibited under this bill.
The Department of Justice shall establish at least 15 Special U.S. Attorney positions to enforce these provisions and take other actions related to enforcement and protecting consumers from fraudulent immigration schemes.
People & committees
Rep. Mucarsel-Powell, Debbie [D-FL-26] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5149-5150)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 8225.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5149-5151)
Ms. Bass moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 433.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 116-533.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 116-533.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.8225 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.8225 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.8225 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.8225 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.