Former Alexandra Lozano or La Luz Legal clients: Washington U-visa certification screening

Were you a client of Alexandra Lozano or La Luz Legal?

If your immigration case was affected after working with Alexandra Lozano or La Luz Legal, changing lawyers may not be enough. You may need a careful review of what was filed, who signed it, what you understood, and whether the filing may have caused legal harm to your case.

A June 25, 2026 joint Washington/Oregon lawyer program identified an important option for some affected people: the Washington Attorney General's Office may review certain Form I-918B law-enforcement certification requests connected to former Alexandra Lozano or La Luz Legal clients whose cases may have been affected by prior representation.

That does not mean everyone qualifies. It does not mean certification is automatic. And it does not mean that certification, by itself, guarantees a U visa.

It does mean that some people should have this option reviewed by an immigration attorney before assuming there is no possible path forward.

What Novo Legal can review

In a short screening call, we can help identify whether your situation needs deeper review. If it appears appropriate, the next step may be a paid 60-minute attorney-led file review covering:

• what forms or declarations were filed in your case
• whether you saw, understood, and authorized what was filed
• whether there were concrete negative legal effects, such as a denial, initiation of removal proceedings, or problems on reentry after travel on advance parole — and whether any of these effects actually applies depends on the specific case
• whether the facts justify evaluating a Form I-918B certification request in Washington
• whether other immigration options should be reviewed first.

The goal is not to sell a promise. The goal is to understand the file and tell you, carefully, what needs legal review.

The Washington certification option

Materials from a June 25, 2026 joint Washington/Oregon attorney program indicate that, as of June 2026, the Washington Attorney General's Office has agreed to review certain Form I-918B law-enforcement certification requests connected to former Alexandra Lozano / La Luz Legal clients. The arrangement is described as informal and could change. Whether a particular case is a candidate for such a request is a fact-specific question for an attorney.

U-visa law-enforcement certifications are tied to specific categories of qualifying criminal activity defined by federal statute. Whether the facts of a particular former client's experience fit any of those categories is a fact-specific legal question, not a self-assessment a former client can make from a page like this. An attorney would evaluate that during the paid 60-minute review.

A request like this generally requires more than filling out a form. The program materials recommend including a draft Form I-918B, any other factual documentation the requester wants to submit, a declaration from the affected person explaining the harm and willingness to cooperate, and an attorney cover letter explaining negative legal effects. A package like this is prepared by counsel, not assembled by the affected person alone — the attorney cover letter is part of why the Washington Attorney General's Office agreed to review.

Every case depends on its facts. A Form I-918B is a law-enforcement certification, not an immigration decision. Even when an Attorney General's Office signs a certification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services independently decides the underlying U-visa petition under its own standards. A signed certification does not by itself confer status. A person must also satisfy the other U-visa requirements.

This is Washington-specific

This Washington Attorney General review channel exists only in Washington state. The CLE materials specifically note that there is no equivalent Oregon mechanism, and no equivalent mechanism is identified for Colorado or other states. Whether a person's case has a Washington connection — for example, where the prior representation occurred, where the person resides, or where the alleged conduct took place — is itself a fact-specific question. Former clients outside Washington should not assume the Washington channel is closed to them, and should not assume it is open to them; the screening call is meant to identify which path actually fits.

What to gather for a review

If you have documents available, it may help to have:

• USCIS receipts or immigration-court documents
• copies of forms, declarations, or evidence filed in your case
• contracts, payment receipts, or communications with the prior firm
• any RFE, NOID, denial, hearing notice, or deadline
• access to your USCIS account, if one exists.

You do not need to have everything ready before asking for an initial review. The first call is meant to identify whether it makes sense to go deeper.

External resource

NWIRP published a community advisory about steps people can take after ending representation with an attorney or legal representative. The advisory discusses requesting the complete file, saving important documents, checking case status, and seeking a second opinion quickly.

Novo Legal is not presenting that resource as a partnership or exclusive recommendation. It is a useful public reference for people trying to protect their case.

Talk with a team that reviews before it promises

Novo Legal works in English and Spanish and is licensed in Washington and Colorado. Where the file review supports it, the firm represents clients in-house on Form I-918B law-enforcement certification requests and the downstream U-visa matter. If you were a client of Alexandra Lozano or La Luz Legal and believe your case may have been affected, you can start with a 15-minute call.

A call does not automatically create an attorney-client relationship. Representation begins only after both sides sign a written agreement.