Hispanic Woman Accused of Lying About Citizenship to Work in California

A Mexican woman was accused of lying about her U.S. citizenship to work for over 30 years at an aerospace contractor company for the U.S. Army. The Department of Justice (DOJ) for the Central District of California confirmed the arrest this Friday, September 18.

Who is the woman accused of identity fraud in California

The accused was identified as Alma Patricia Contreras Villafana, 54 years old and a resident of Los Angeles. According to the DOJ, she lied on an employment authorization form at a South Bay factory by declaring herself a U.S. citizen.

The Federal Prosecutor’s Office of Los Angeles confirmed the arrest on its official X account. «Illegal alien from Mexico and employee of a South Bay aerospace manufacturer was arrested on federal charges alleging fraud, false statements of U.S. citizenship, and identity theft,» the office published.

The federal charges she faces for identity fraud

Contreras Villafana faces five counts of wire fraud and one for using a false naturalization certificate. She was also charged with aggravated identity theft and false declaration of U.S. citizenship.

According to the formal indictment presented to a federal grand jury, the woman obtained employment at a Torrance company in December 1996. At that time, she declared on Form I-9—the document that verifies employment authorization in the United States—that she was a U.S. citizen.

The DOJ clarified that Contreras Villafana is an undocumented person from Mexico. An immigration judge had ordered her deportation in 2003, an order that, according to the indictment, was never executed.

Current legal framework: Form I-9 is the document that every company in the United States must use to verify the identity and employment authorization of its workers, in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Submitting a false declaration of citizenship on that form constitutes a federal crime, regardless of how long the person has been working under that identity.

How the alleged fraud continued for over three decades

In January 2026, the woman again submitted a Form I-9 with the same false citizenship declaration. This time, according to the DOJ, she used a naturalization certificate number belonging to another person to maintain her employment.

Between December 1996 and September 2026, Contreras Villafana received $1,402,459 in payments for her work at both companies. The payments included direct deposits to her bank account during that three-decade period.

The case highlights gaps that can exist between the employment verification system and the tracking of pending deportation orders. Companies that work with the Army typically apply additional security controls, which makes the duration of the alleged fraud notable.

The penalties she could face if found guilty

If found guilty, Contreras Villafana could face up to 20 years in federal prison for each wire fraud charge. The charge for using a false naturalization certificate carries a maximum penalty of 10 additional years.

The false declaration of U.S. citizenship could add up to three more years of federal prison. The aggravated identity theft charge includes a mandatory consecutive sentence of two years, which is added to any other sentence.

Contreras Villafana was scheduled to appear for the first time this Monday before the U.S. District Court in downtown Los Angeles. The DOJ reminded that a formal indictment is only an allegation and that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court.

What this case means for other undocumented workers

These types of cases often generate concern among families with irregular immigration status who work using someone else’s documents or altered documents. An accredited immigration lawyer can advise on the legal options available before a similar situation escalates to federal charges.

The legal proceedings against Contreras Villafana will continue in the coming weeks before the federal court in Los Angeles. Staying informed about the case’s developments through official sources like the DOJ will be key to understanding its legal implications.