BILL ANALYSIS AB 2114 Date of Hearing: April 27, 1993 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HIGHER EDUCATION Marguerite Archie-Hudson, Chair AB 2114 (Solis) - As Amended: April 21, 1993 SUBJECT Student residency. DIGEST Existing law: 1) Permits an alien to establish residence for purposes of tuition at public colleges and universities unless precluded by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act from establishing domicile in the United States. 2) Declares the residency status of an unmarried minor alien to be derived from his or her parents. This bill: 1) Precludes explicitly from establishing residence for purposes of tuition any person who is either (a) on a nonimmigrant visa or (b) in an undocumented status without reasonable likelihood of remaining in the United States. "Reasonable likelihood of remaining" would be demonstrated by any of the following: (a) Graduation from a California high school or attendance at a š California school for at least three years. (b) Filing of an application with the Immigration and Naturalization š Service for a classification which permits an indefinite stay in this country. (c) Current enrollment as a resident student at a California š postsecondary institution. 2) Permits an unmarried minor alien to establish his or her own residency status. FISCAL EFFECT Minor administrative cost to CSU for verifying documented citizenship and šimmigration status of each student. Unknown nonresident tuition revenue šloss at UC and community colleges. - continued - AB 2114 Page 1 AB 2114 COMMENTS 1) Author's Amendments. The author intends to offer technical clarifying amendments. 2) Legislative and Legal History. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that persons permitted to establish domicile in this country under federal law may not be precluded from establishing state residency (Toll v. Moreno). The Legislature enacted AB 2015 (Agnos) to conform to the court's decision -- AB 2015 is still the statutory framework for residency determination. In 1984, the Attorney General issued an opinion asserting that, under AB 2015, undocumented students continued to be precluded from establishing state residency for tuition purposes. In response to the Attorney General opinion, a lawsuit (commonly referred to as Leticia A.) was filed against UC and CSU, seeking a declaration that state law violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. In 1985, the Alameda Superior Court ruled against UC and CSU, and enjoined the institutions from applying AB 2015 to undocumented students. The two universities elected not to appeal. In 1989, a residency determination staffer at UCLA filed suit against UC, asking that AB 2015 be declared constitutional (Bradford v. Regents). The Los Angeles court ruled against UC, which appealed unsuccessfully to the appellate court. CSU was not a party to Bradford. As a result, the two public universities operated under conflicting court orders, while the community colleges and the Student Aid Commission were left with no judicial direction. In 1991, AB 592 (Polanco) sought to resolve the conflicting statutory and case law by listing explicitly the immigration categories under which a person would not be eligible for California residency. AB 592, which would have permitted undocumented students who meet all other requirements to establish residency, was vetoed by Governor Wilson. The following year, CSU returned to the Alameda Superior Court for clarification of the Leticia A. order in light of the Bradford decision. The Alameda court reaffirmed its original injunction. In 1992, the Governor vetoed AB 3525 (Polanco), which would have devolved residency determination for the Cal Grant program to the campuses so that an individual student would have a consistent residency status from all agencies. The Student Aid Commission had earlier elected to "comply" with the Bradford decision and reverse its policy of deeming eligible undocumented students as residents, even though the commission was not a party to the case. - continued - AB 2114 Page 2 AB 2114 In Fall 1992, the Los Angeles Superior Court, in American Association of Women v. CSU, ordered CSU to stop classifying undocumented students as California residents. In order to resolve the Alameda and Los Angeles court conflict, CSU has filed an appeal. 2) Conflicting Practices. Each of the four public higher education agencies which determine residency use different standards and criteria for immigrant and nonresident students. An undocumented CSU student, for example, is classified as a resident by CSU for tuition purposes but as a nonresident by the Student Aid Commission for determining grant eligibility. 3) Residency Requirement. A student normally may be classified as a resident for tuition purposes if he or she has resided in California for more than one year and meets other criteria indicating an intent to remain in the state, as established by the institutional governing boards. SUPPORT California State Student Association California State University Chancellor's Office, California Community Colleges Christopher Cabaldon AB 2114 324-4655 Page 3 4/23/93:AHED