ALJDEC - Licensing
26-005-NOT · Secretary of State · 2026-06-29
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Francisco Acosta
vs
Arizona Secretary of State
No. 26-005-NOT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: June 9, 2026
APPEARANCES:
Petitioner: No Appearance
AZ Secretary of State: Kyle Cummings, Assistant Attorney General
Diana Ogaz
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Respondent Exhibits 1-13.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Background and Procedure
On March 31, 2026, the Secretary of State (SOS) referred the above-captioned matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s appeal of SOS’s determination to revoke his Notary Commission.
On April 8, 2026, SOS issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the hearing on June 9, 2026, to convene at OAH. The Notice of Hearing advised that “[i]f the Petitioner fails to appear, the Administrative Law Judge may proceed in the Petitioner’s absence.”
SOS mailed a copy of the Notice of Hearing to Petitioner at his address of record. The Notice of Hearing was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Postal Services.
Although the start of the hearing was delayed fifteen minutes, Petitioner did not request to appear telephonically, did not appear personally or through an attorney, and did not contact OAH to request a continuance or that the start of the hearing be further delayed. Consequently, Petitioner did not present any evidence to prosecute his appeal of SOS’s intent to revoke his Notary Commission.
SOS presented the testimony of Diana Ogaz, Notary Compliance Director, and submitted thirteen exhibits into the record.
Hearing Evidence
Ms. Ogaz testified that her office commissions notaries for the State of Arizona. Ms. Ogaz clarified that a notary public is an official of integrity appointed to serve the public as an impartial witness and executioner for performing certain legal formalities, to prevent fraudulent acts related to the signing of important documents.
Ms. Ogaz explained that one of her job duties was to review complaints received by her office. Specifically, she coordinated with the Office of Attorney General to investigate any complaints and reviewed the Office of Attorney General’s findings to make a final determination.
Regarding the case at bar, Ms. Ogaz testified that on or about December 3, 2024, her office received a complaint that alleged Petitioner “pass[ed] off as a notary as he [was] in Mexico ‘Notario’, charge[d] excessively for anything, with misleading and fraudulent advertising . . . . He [worked] at San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, Mexico, not at San Luis, Arizona.”
On February 10, 2025, the Office of Attorney General issued a letter to Petitioner to advise him of the complaint. Petitioner was advised that he had until February 26, 2025, to submit a reply to the allegations and also provide copies of his advertising and posting of fees for notarial services that he had charged for services since July 1, 2024.
Petitioner submitted his response to the Office of Attorney General and was received on March 4, 2025. In his response, Petitioner stated that his primary business was income tax preparation, and he did not market himself as a “Notario” and did not provide legal services. He further stated that in Mexico he collaborated with a law firm that handled legal matters within Mexico and within the United States he referred clients to a licensed legal document preparation service in Yuma, Arizona. Specifically, “[Petitioner’s] marketing strategy [was] designed to attract potential clients, and when they require[d] legal services, [Petitioner] direct[ed] them to the appropriate licensed professionals.” Regarding his notary services, Petitioner stated that he charged $10.00 per signature, however, many times he did not charge at all.
On February 27, 2025, the Office of Attorney General replied to Petitioner’s correspondence and requested additional information to be returned no later than March 7, 2025. Specifically, Petitioner was requested to provide “clearer, more viewable photographs of IMG_3683.jpg, _3685.jpg, and _3690.jpg that [were] referenced above which [would] enable [the Office of Attorney General] to read the wording that [was] not readable in [Petitioner’s earlier submitted] photographs.” Additionally, “It appear[ed] that [Petitioner would] need to provide . . . a straight-facing view of _3690.jpg rather than a duplicate, for the angle as presented seem[ed] to prevent a readable viewpoint.” Petitioner was also requested to provide Exhibits A, B, and D that he purported to include with his response but were not received. Finally, Petitioner was requested to provide a copy of his notary journal depicting notarizations or other notarial services provided from July 1, 2024, to the date he received the “present” letter.
Petitioner timely replied, via email.
On March 7, 2025, the Office of Attorney General issued another letter, via email response, to advise Petitioner that despite Petitioner stating he attached copies of his 2024 and 2025 business licenses, clear interior and exterior photographs of his office, and a photo of a sign at his office listing $10.00 per notarial act, the Office of Attorney General did not receive a copy of the business licenses nor photographs of the interior and exterior of Petitioner’s office and an office sign referencing said fee. However, two photographs of a Form 1098 Annual Tax and Interest Statement for 2024 were received and printed. Petitioner was requested to provide photographs of his business licenses and office that he meant to provide as stated in his March 7, 2025, response, and if he did not send the photographs to please clarify in writing.
On March 7, 2025, Petitioner replied, via email, stating only “Please disregard 1098, they were attached by error.”
On March 23, 2026, SOS issued a letter of determination to revoke Petitioner’s Notary commission. In the letter SOS held that while Petitioner responded to all requests for documentation and information, Petitioner also failed to comply. Specifically, Petitioner failed to update his contact information, failed to record requisite journal information, failed to include required disclaimer and used misleading advertising language, showed inconsistency in fee charges, and failed to prove he was not performing notarizations outside the state boundaries. Petitioner was also advised that the revocation of his Notary Commission was effective ten (10) business days from the date of the notice and he had a right to request an evidentiary hearing within thirty days from the date of the notice. The notice further provided that if Petitioner failed to request an evidentiary hearing within thirty days of the notice, the revocation would become final.
On March 24, 2025, Petitioner submitted a request for an evidentiary hearing to SOS.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Notice of Hearing mailed to Petitioner at his address of record was reasonable, as it was not returned as undeliverable by the United States Post Office. Thus, Petitioner is deemed to have received notice of the hearing.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2), SOS has the burden of proof in this matter. The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner bears the burden to establish factors in mitigation of the allegations and raise any affirmative defenses by the same evidentiary standard.
However, because Petitioner failed to appear and present any evidence, there was insufficient evidence to overcome or rebut the credible evidence in the record as presented by SOS. Thus, the facts in this case were not in dispute.
The evidence of record established that Petitioner violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-323(A) because he failed to update his contact information within thirty days of changing his address.
The evidence of record also established that Petitioner violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-319 because he failed to provide a legible journal demonstrating that he recorded all required information.
Pursuant to A.A.C. R2-12-1102, the evidence of record further established that Petitioner violated the provisions of A.R.S. §§ 41-271(A)(10) and 41-316(C) because he failed to maintain consistency in fees charged and to post a fee schedule listing both actual fees and the maximum fees authorized by law.
The evidence of record established that Petitioner violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-273(D) because he failed to include the disclaimer, “I am not an attorney licensed to practice law in this state. I am not allowed to draft legal records, give advice on legal matters, including immigration, or charge a fee for those activities” in his advertisements.
Lastly, the evidence of record established that Petitioner violated the provisions of A.R.S. § 41-258(A)(1) because he performed notarizations outside the State of Arizona.
Therefore, based on a review of the relevant and credible evidence of record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes that SOS’s revocation of Petitioner’s Notary Commission was proper.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
It is recommended that Petitioner’s Notary Commission be revoked on the effective date of the Final Order.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, June 29, 2026.
/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Adrian Fontes, Notary Public Complaint Coordinator
Secretary of State - Notary Public
Francisco Joel Acosta
Bam Bam Financial Services
[email redacted]
Kyle Cummings
Office of the Attorney General
[email redacted]
Diana Ogaz
Secretary of State
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff