Brook V Sistema Universitario Ana G Mendez Flmdce-17-00171 0001-0

Case 8:17-cv-00171-JSM-AAS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 53 PageID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
YELANIS BROOK
Plaintiff
v.
SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G. MENDEZ, INC., a Puerto Rico non-profit corporation

registered to do business in the state of Florida;
Defendant
Filed January 23, 2017 - English Complaint - Page 1 of 53

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
II. PARTIES
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
IV. BACKGROUND
A. Agmus Ventures, Inc. - Joint Venture
B. Federal Title IV Funds
C. Marketing Strategy
V. EXPLOITATION OF LATINOS & LOW-INCOME BY SHAM CAMPUSES
A. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO

ANA G MENDEZ
B. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS ACCREDITED, LICENSED
COLLEGE
C. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS NON-PROFIT COLLEGE
D. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION OF DISCIPLINE-BASED DUAL
LANGUAGE IMMERSION MODEL®
E. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS STATE-APPROVED
EDUCATOR PREPARATION PROGRAM
F. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS CAPABLE TO PROVIDE
VALID INTERNSHIP REQUIRED TO WORK IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
G. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS CAPABLE TO VALIDATE
COLLEGE CREDITS/DEGREES FROM FOREIGN COLLEGE
H. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION THAT AN EDUCATION DEGREE
IN GUIDANCE & COUNSELING WOULD PROVIDE ELIGIBILITY
TO WORK AS LICENSED PSYCHOLOGIST
VI. DEFENDANT ENGAGES IN “REVERSE REDLINING” BY TARGETING

LATINOS AND RESIDENTS OF LOW-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS
VII. EXPERIENCE OF PLAINTIFF
VIII. INJURY TO PLAINTIFF
IX. CAUSES OF ACTION
X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
XI. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Yelanis Brook, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and files this,
her Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief on behalf of herself and for the
protection of the Latino community against Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez, Inc., "Defendant",
for violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq; violation of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq; violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act; Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract; and Fraudulent Inducement to Contract. And in
support thereof, would demonstrate unto the Court the following, to-wit:
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. I am a fraud victim of unlicensed, unaccredited for-profit college by the name of Agmus
Ventures, Inc (AVI). I was deceived to believe I was attending licensed, accredited, non-profit college
Sistema Universitario Ana G Mendez (SUAGM). The education and experiences I received at Agmus
Ventures, Inc. U.S. campuses were both different and inferior to educational experiences at Sistema
Universitario Ana G Mendez Puerto Rico campuses. Agmus Ventures U.S. campuses are sham
campuses.
2. Agmus Ventures' U.S. campuses are both different and inferior to Puerto Rico SUAGM
campuses in the following fourteen areas: Management, Faculty, Course Materials, Preparation of
Academic Content, Delivery of Academic Programs, CACREP Accreditation, Internship, Entry/Exit
Requirements, Facilities, Libraries, Technology, Mission, History, and Intellectual Development.
These differences are evident by comparing the separate school catalogs from Puerto Rico & U.S, as
well as looking at statistics from internal document “Strategic Guides 2011-2015”.
3. Defendant’s predatory marketing exploits Latinos, poor, and desperate immigrants to
enroll for a worthless degree and a predatory loan by promising two things: (1) "a new career" (2)
"proficiency" in English. The false promises are emphasized in Campus Inauguration Ceremonies,
School Catalogs, School Website, Advertisements, Annual Reports, interviews with the media, and are
even disseminated through internet, television, and newspaper.
4. Defendant is especially egregious in that the victims of worthless degrees in exchange
for predatory loans are nearly all Latino and poor, the majority being immigrants. SUAGM utilizes
Latinos that do not understand English, do not understand the laws of U.S, and do not understand how
the education system works in U.S. Internal document, “Strategic Guides 2011-2015” show profile of
U.S. student has average family income of $30,000, with average family size of 2-3, and average age of
33. Vast majority of students are female, many of them being single mothers. SUAGM admit that
“MOST STUDENTS ARE FIRST GENERATION IMMIGRANT ADULTS”. Most recent study
published in 2016 with revised data shows student profile at U.S. campuses is comprised of 73%
women, average age is 38 years old.
5. Defendant is engaged in a pattern or practice of specifically and intentionally targeting
this unlawful scheme at Latinos by focusing SUAGM marketing and outreach at channels that
disproportionately reach a Latino audience. This includes, but is not limited to, advertising on
television channels Univision and Telemundo, advertising on Spanish-language radio stations,
advertising in Spanish-language newspapers; advertising online at Univision and Telemundo websites;
and even advertisements at outdoor bus shelters. SUAGM marketing machine also utilizes social
media, telemarketing and direct mail campaigns to reach its target demographics.
6. Fraud of this for-profit college scheme is systematic and widespread. Fraud and
misrepresentation are common business practices of SUAGM & Agmus Ventures, whom blatantly
deceive and manipulate students and the public. As only one example, the institution falsely portrays
itself as State-Approved Educator Preparation Program, promising students that they can work in
public schools. The institution has a 117 page Education Internship Handbook for Florida Campuses
that very falsely details, quite specifically, the guidelines and processes that SUAGM Florida
Campuses follow as a state-approved program – however, it is a complete hoax. School has never even
been on the list of State-Approved Educator Preparation Programs, found at:

http://www.fldoe.org/teaching/preparation/initial-teacher-preparation-programs/approved-teacher-edu-
programs.stml
Besides not being on list in name – school does not meet state-mandated requirements of State-
Approved Educator Preparation Programs found in FL Statute 1004.04, FL Statute 1012.56, and FL
DOE Rule 6A-5.066. There are many other specific misrepresentations made on a regular basis by the
institution.
7. Marketing materials falsely promise that you will become "completely proficient" in
English with "rapid results”, and develop "advanced linguistics skills in English" through the
Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model®, which alternates classes in all-English and all-
Spanish. Defendant knows their dual-language program is ineffective, but deliberately make false
claims that you are enrolling in a program that is "proven", "fully backed by research", and "the most
effective way" to learn English – while students are truly used as guinea pigs for a new, unproven idea.
The dual-language model is totally inappropriate to higher education. Research shows that dual-
language education is for elementary schools, not graduate schools. Research referenced by Agmus
Ventures warns of the “paucity of scientifically based research available”, “most of which involve
Spanish speakers at the elementary school level”. Most importantly, “Promoting student understanding
of more abstract and complex concepts becomes increasingly difficult in the upper elementary grades
and beyond. Some upper-elementary immersion teachers, in particular those who teach in partial or
fifty-fifty programs, report difficulties in teaching advanced-level subject matter because students’
cognitive development is at a higher level than their proficiency in the second language”. Dual
language programs have never been replicated at the higher education level.
8. Defendant’s actions are especially egregious since actions were premeditated,
deliberate, and calculated since Defendant was fully aware that students would not obtain promised
career as Guidance Counselor in public schools through an ineligible program and that students would
not obtain proficiency in English through an inappropriate dual-language model that is, at best,
appropriate for elementary schools. Defendant deliberately does not comply with their academic
responsibilities.
9. Education at Agmus Ventures U.S. campuses does not enhance students' intellectual
growth and is not purposeful, coherent, engaging, or rigorous in any way, shape, or form. Due to the
emphasis on the elementary-level dual-language program, complete lack of academic content/books,
nearly non-existent entry requirements, exclusive focus on profit, lack of college-level learning
resources, lack of library services, and poor information technology support services – academic
programs cannot be characterized as collegiate or graduate level. We had absolutely no textbooks and
no course materials to study.
10. 34 CFR 668.5(c) prohibits an arrangement in which an ineligible entity provides more
than 50% of an educational program for an eligible entity. 100% of academic programs at U.S.
campuses have been outsourced to Agmus Ventures, Inc, a non-accredited entity. Agmus Ventures, Inc.
is responsible for all areas of academics including faculty, course materials, program administration,
and program provision. Management of for-profit corporation Agmus Ventures, Inc. effectively
operates all U.S. campuses. SUAGM and AVI are failing to disclose outsourcing of academic program
to students, per 34 CFR 668.5(e) & 668.43(a)(12).
11. SUAGM and AVI are receiving U.S. Title IV funds by fraud. 34 CFR 602.22 (a)(2)(i, ii,
vii) require that a “substantial change request” should have been made to outsource academic program;
to share ownership control/interest with New Ventures in Higher Education, Inc.; and to change
mission from non-profit to for-profit. 34 CFR 602.22 requires that a “new entity” resulting from
“change of control, structure, or organization” must meet all requirements and standards.
12. U.S. DOE has been deceived that U.S. campuses are simply “branch campuses” due to
“expansion”. This is the second time that SUAGM has misused Title IV funds due to ineligible
expansion sites. SUAGM v. Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education, in year 2000: SUAGM ordered
to return $1.7 million (reduced from potential $27 million). Judge Ernest C. Canellos stated:
“Accreditation agency was never apprised of the full extent of the PROSEE program (expansion
sites)...this was an apparent attempt to keep the operations at all those sites screened from scrutiny by
the various oversight agencies. From the record, it appears Ana G. Mendez had good cause to suspect
that any such scrutiny would lead to a disapproval of the satellite sites.” (see Docket No. 94-30-SA)
13. For-profit corporation, Agmus Ventures, Inc. was opened in 2003 as a “joint venture” (a
subsidiary formed by parents SUAGM and New Ventures in Higher Education, Inc.). In a very similar
case, Tiffin University, using the exact same corporate structure of “joint venture”, illicitly extended
accreditation to Ivy Bridge College under the guise of “expansion” to simply open a “branch campus”.
(Ivy Bridge closed once accreditation agency realized that accreditation was improperly extended and
demanded that Ivy Bridge seek independent accreditation. This was then investigated by U.S. DOJ.)
Note that in 2013, SUAGM became 100% owner as Agmus Ventures, Inc became full subsidiary.
14. Documents submitted to accreditation agency, prepared by SUAGM, specifically hide
and distort the relationship with Agmus Ventures, Inc. Self-Study Reviews completely omit the
relationship. The relationship should be disclosed under sections for Standards 4 & 5 (“Leadership,
Governance, & Administration”) and Standard 13 (“Related Educational Activities”). A draft self-
study falsely states that Agmus Ventures, Inc. is a “contractor that performs administrative services for
the school.”
15. Form 990 Exempt Tax Returns show direct income from Agmus Ventures, Inc. as $54
million dollars, paid to SUAGM and New Ventures in Higher Education, Inc. through July, 2014. An
additional $31 million of income is shown for fiscal year ending July, 2015. SUAGM falsely claim on
their exempt 990 IRS returns that AVI primary activity is “administrative services”. CEO of Agmus
Ventures stated in trade journal that “Agmus Ventures was created for-profit to allow for investors”.
16. Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez, of Puerto Rico, has deceived U.S. DOE and
MSCHE accreditation agency in order to receive millions of dollars of Title IV Funds at ineligible
locations in U.S. Based on SUAGM data, it is estimated that $186,028,800 of Title IV Funds have
been misused by SUAGM at ineligible expansion sites through unlicensed, unaccredited Agmus
Ventures U.S. campuses from 2004-2015.
17. SUAGM has breached an implied-in-fact contract and is at fault for preventing me from
working in public schools as a guidance counselor. I have completed requirements of degree program,
graduated with 4.0 GPA, and completed two internships through SUAGM. Due to SUAGM non-
performance of contract, I cannot work in public schools as guidance counselor. I have the right to
damages for future wage loss.
18. I was fraudulently induced to enroll, and I most definitely would not have enrolled if I
were not misled by SUAGM. I was told that my enrollment would lead to eligibility to work as a
licensed Psychologist in U.S., which would have enabled me to continue my previous career in Cuba
(note that later, after enrollment, I was promised eligibility to work as guidance counselor in public
schools). Many false statements were made regarding the Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion
Model®. I also was promised that SUAGM would validate my Psychology degree & credits from
University of Havana, Cuba. I also was assured that I would be attending SUAGM, an accredited,
licensed college with over 60 years of history – rather than unlicensed, unaccredited for-profit college
Agmus Ventures, Inc.
II. PARTIES
19. I, YELANIS BROOK, am proud to have dedicated much of my life helping people. My
dream was to continue my career in United States as a licensed Psychologist, as I served the
community in Cuba as licensed Psychologist before my arrival to U.S. on September 10, 2009. I
learned about Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez through television commercials on Spanish-
language channels. I contacted Defendant after only 11 months in United States, as a newly arrived
immigrant, when I agreed to attend classes after later acquire my residency. I then began class 6
months later (only 17 months after arrival to United States). I was a student in the Guidance &
Counseling, Master in Education Program – I began on February 16, 2011 and graduated on June 25,
2013. I was a stellar student. The school put me in a television commercial as a star student. My GPA
was perfect at 4.0. I never had any issues with any professor or fellow student – to the contrary, I
helped others, got along very well with everyone, and was well-liked by both teachers and colleagues.
I am a resident of Tampa, Florida, and have been at all times relevant to the allegations set forth herein.
I am Latino and 38 years old.
20. SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G. MENDEZ (hereinafter “SUAGM”) is a Puerto
Rico non-profit and consists of three universities that operate in Puerto Rico. They are Turabo
University, Metropolitan University, and Eastern University. SUAGM is well-known and respected in
the Hispanic community, with a history of over 60 years, and accredited since 1980. Ana G. Méndez
University System is Puerto Rico's second largest private university system. Enrollment is more than
43,000 students. SUAGM created subsidiary Agmus Ventures, Inc. in 2003 as a joint venture with
Regis University.
21. AGMUS VENTURES, INC. (hereinafter “AVI”) is a Delaware for-profit corporation
licensed to do business in the States of Delaware, Florida, Maryland, and Texas and doing business in
the States of Florida, Maryland, and Texas. They independently operate their own for-profit colleges
deceptively using the well-established name of parent corporation, Sistema Universitario Ana G
Mendez. First incorporated in 2003 as a joint venture – SUAGM and Regis University were each 50%
owners of their for-profit subsidiary, Agmus Ventures, Inc., through 2013, when SUAGM then became
100% owner. Agmus Ventures, Inc. operates five post-secondary education institutions and began
operations in 2003. Three Florida institutions are located in Tampa, Orlando, and Miramar. One
Maryland institution is located in Wheaton. In 2015, a new campus was opened in Dallas, Texas.
Defendant uses Agmus Ventures, Inc. as an instrument for fraud.
22. Defendant is deemed to reside in Tampa, FL under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Defendant is
doing business currently in this jurisdiction or was doing business in this jurisdiction during time of
causes of action.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(f) for Equal
Credit Opportunity civil action; 28 U.S.C. § 1343 for civil rights matter; 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as federal
question; and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
24. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2).
IV. BACKGROUND
A. Agmus Ventures, Inc. - Joint Venture
25. The corporate structure of the “joint venture” was two parent corporations forming a
subsidiary college. SUAGM and Regis University (through New Ventures in Higher Education)
together formed subsidiary college Agmus Ventures, Inc in 2003. The identical model of Agmus
Ventures, Inc. was tried by Ivy Bridge College, which received $27 million in venture capital funding
before being closed down due to accreditation being improperly extended from parent (Ivy Bridge
College was then investigated by U.S. Department of Justice).
26. SUAGM brought their name, recognition, & reputation, as well as their accreditation
and licensing, to the joint venture. Regis University (through New Ventures in Higher Education, Inc.)
brought their expertise to serve as architect in the formation of Agmus Ventures, Inc. Major players in
the for-profit college market were contracted to create Agmus Ventures, Inc.
B. Federal Title IV Funds
27. Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez is exceptionally dependent on federal financial
aid programs. Nearly all of its revenue is from U.S. Department of Education under Title IV of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title IV Programs). Title IV Funding totaled $303,738,076 for fiscal
year 2015, and $257,268,114 for fiscal year 2014. SUAGM receives over $250 million annually in
Title IV Funding.
28. Nearly all students of Agmus Ventures, Inc. participate in student financial assistance
programs through Title IV Programs (under guise of parent, SUAGM).

29. Agmus Ventures, Inc. exists solely for the purpose of fraudulently expanding access to
Title IV Funds. Agmus Ventures, Inc. has the identical business purpose as its parent, SUAGM –
“education”, both provide academic programs. Agmus Ventures, Inc. does not provide a separate
business purpose. Agmus Ventures, Inc. is in reality an arm of parent SUAGM. Agmus Ventures, Inc.
is merely an instrument for SUAGM to gain access to additional U.S. Government Title IV Funds.
Agmus Ventures, Inc. was setup as for-profit corporation to allow access to investors while operating
hidden from accreditation and governmental regulation.
30. SUAGM was previously found guilty of a similar scheme in Puerto Rico of using
expansion sites to obtain ineligible Title IV Funds, and was ordered to return misspent Title IV Funds
by U.S. Secretary of Education. SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G. MENDEZ Plaintiff, Appellant,
v. Richard W. RILEY, Secretary of Education, Defendant, Appellee. United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit. Decided December 19, 2000. Ana G. Mendez ordered to return $1.7 million (reduced
from potential $27 million) – Title IV funds misspent due to ineligible expansion sites (PROSEE sites).
Judge Canellos stated: “Accreditation agency was never apprised of the full extent of the PROSEE
program (expansion sites)...this was an apparent attempt to keep the operations at all those sites
screened from scrutiny by the various oversight agencies. From the record, it appears Ana G. Mendez
had good cause to suspect that any such scrutiny would lead to a disapproval of the satellite sites.”
31. SUAGM has outsourced 100% of academic program to Agmus Ventures, Inc, a non-
accredited entity. 34 CFR 668.5 and 34 CFR 602.22 prohibit outsourcing of more than 50% of an
academic program to a non-accredited entity. These federal regulations are designed to control
outsourcing that could divert Title IV federal financial aid to entities that have not been accredited by a
U.S. Department of Education-recognized body.
32. 34 CFR 600.10 requires repayment of Title IV Funds from an ineligible program: “An
institution must repay to the Secretary all Higher Education Act (HEA) program funds received by the
institution for an educational program, and all the title IV, HEA program funds received by or on behalf
of students who enrolled in that program if the institution incorrectly determines that an educational
program that is not subject to approval under paragraph (c)(1) of this section is an eligible program for
title IV, HEA program purposes.”
33. 34 CFR 668.71-82 prohibits institutions that receive Title IV Funds from
misrepresentation and specifies penalties, including revocation and termination of access to Title IV
Funds. An institution that receives Title IV Funds must “act in the nature of a fiduciary in the
administration of Title IV Programs. To participate in any Title IV Program, the institution must at all
times act with the competency and integrity necessary to qualify as a fiduciary.” Secretary of
Education of U.S. DOE is legally authorized to invoke an emergency action to immediately withdraw
access to Title IV funds due to “substantial misrepresentation as described in 34 CFR §§ 668.72 or
668.74” or “falsification, including false certifications, of any document used for or pertaining to the
accreditation of an institution or any of the institution's educational programs or locations”. This is
stated in 34 CFR 668.83(c)(2)(ii)(A) and 34 CFR 668.83(c)(2)(iii)(C)(2).
34. 34 CFR §668.72 – Prohibited Misrepresentations by institutions that receive Title IV
Funds:
Nature of Educational Program – “false, erroneous or misleading statements concerning:” “Whether the
academic, professional, or occupational degree that the institution will confer upon completion of the
course of study has been authorized by the appropriate State educational agency. This type of
misrepresentation includes, in the case of a degree that has not been authorized by the appropriate State
educational agency or that requires specialized accreditation, any failure by an eligible institution to
disclose these facts in any advertising or promotional materials that reference such degree”; Failure to
Disclose to prospective students the outsourcing to Agmus Ventures, Inc under 34 CFR 668.5 and
668.43. The “nature of its training devices or equipment and their appropriateness to the employment
objectives” (Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model®). “appropriateness of its courses
and programs to the employment objectives that it states its programs are designed to meet”.
35. 34 CFR §668.74 Prohibited Misrepresentations by institutions that receive Title IV
Funds:
Employability of Graduates – “false, erroneous, or misleading statements concerning: “requirements
that are generally needed to be employed in the fields for which the training is provided”; “the
institution's relationship with any organization, employment agency, or other agency providing
authorized training leading directly to employment”.
36. Agmus Ventures, Inc. directly possesses Title IV Funds. Agmus Ventures, Inc. is not
accredited or eligible for federal student grants and loans. The only way for a non-accredited
institution to be qualified for federal student grants and loans is to be approved as a “third-party-
servicer”. SUAGM (parent) would have had to request approval on their E-APP for U.S. Department
of Education to approve Agmus Ventures, Inc. as third-party servicer. Agmus Ventures, Inc. is not a
properly designated third-party servicer – they do not have their own OP-EID. They also do not show
permission to use the OP-EID of their parent.
37. SUAGM violates FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) by sharing
students' private information with Agmus Ventures, Inc. Agmus Ventures, Inc. employees have access
to confidential student information. There is no legal basis to share confidential student information
with Agmus Ventures, Inc. employees. The U.S. Department of Education should conduct a financial
audit of Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez and Agmus Ventures, Inc., per 34 CFR 668.23. It is
expected that an audit would find substantial irregularities in the administration of Title IV financial
aid. SUAGM uses FERPA to insist that any private meetings with students are not accompanied by any
family member, while violating FERPA themselves.
38. The use of Agmus Ventures, Inc. as an instrument for fraud by SUAGM not only creates
problems with U.S. Department of Education regarding the repayment of Title IV funds, but also is a
considerable problem with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. For-profit subsidiaries of tax-exempt
organizations must avoid commercial activities that could be considered to be activities of the parent,
or risk the parent's tax-exempt status being revoked. The IRS applies a two-part test – first, the
subsidiary must possess a separate business purpose; second, it must not act merely as an agent or
instrumentality of the parent.
39. Enrollments at U.S. campuses shows 222, 468, 625, 921, 1191, 1484, 1704, 2078, 2213,
2629, 2861, 2982 from years 2004 to 2015, respectively – which yields a sum of 19,378 total
enrollment years from 2004 to 2015. Cost per credit hour currently $381/hour Undergraduate, $450
Graduate, $500 Online, PLUS $170 annual "Technology Fee" provides fair baseline estimate of $400
per credit hour. A conservative 24 credit hours per year yields an estimate of $400 X 24 = $9600 per
year in Tuition only. $9600 X 19,378 = $186,028,800 estimate of Title IV misused funds (share of total
SUAGM funds that were inappropriately used at U.S. Agmus Ventures campuses). This is only
through 2015 enrollment count, and does not include misused Title IV funds in 2016. 34 CFR 600.10
requires repayment of Title IV Funds from an ineligible program.
C. Marketing Strategy
40. Defendant’s predatory marketing exploits both Latinos, poor, and desperate immigrants
to enroll for a worthless degree and a predatory loan by promising two things: (1) "a new career" (2)
"proficiency" in English. The false promises are emphasized in Campus Inauguration Ceremonies,
School Catalogs, School Website, Advertisements, Annual Reports, interviews with the media, and are
even disseminated through internet, television, and newspaper.
41. Promises for a better future through a new career and proficiency in English are used as
a “carrot on a stick” not only to lure students into the school, but also to manipulate current students
since the defendant exploits the perception that they hold the ticket to the students’ future.
42. Jose F. Mendez, President/CEO of SUAGM states on SUAGM website: “Our
accelerated bilingual model has proven, not only to be the most effective way for Hispanic students to
learn and master English, but also to improve their Spanish skills, which will help them become
bilingual professionals, ready to compete for better job opportunities and advance within their careers".
In 2009-10 annual report he states “our edge is providing an opportunity to enroll in a bilingual
program that allows Spanish speakers to learn English while also learning their future profession." At
Tampa Campus Inauguration, he stated “Bilingual Program - "we are certain it will help them
(students) in their employment."
43. Luis Zayas, President/CEO of Agmus Ventures, Inc., states at Tampa Campus
Inauguration that the “Bilingual Program of SUAGM permits the student to develop their skills in the
language and at the same time acquire a degree and a profession.”
44. Luis Zayas states that "dual-language education is the most effective way", and is "the
most researched methodology in the education system", stressing that "all of this is amply researched
and proven, over and over again...We know how it works. We know it works. If you look at the
literature, if you look at the research, you'll see different studies, different languages, all reaching the
same conclusion...studies and research have demonstrated this...it's fully backed by research...it
shouldn't be a surprise to us that dual-language programs work.” "We knew from the research that we
had studied that dual language immersion was what worked in bilingual education...we decided, since
we couldn't find any existing dual-language program at the university level, to create our own. and we
call that our Discipline-Based Dual-Language Immersion Model." "Dual-language immersion is
possible at the university setting." “The fact that research supports bilingual education is based on the
fact that we know what we're doing."
45. 2010-11 School Catalog states that part of the university's mission is to support students
in “securing meaningful employment”, and that “the University achieves the following goals: meet the
requirements for higher and professional educational needs”.
46. SUAGM website states “We are confident that the educational experience we offer
students will help them confidently progress, in both English and in Spanish, in their professional field
of choice”.
47. Director of Tampa Bay Campus, Yvonne Cadiz, states that “We have a genuine
commitment to attend to the necessities of Hispanics and prepare students highly prepared according to
what private companies and government agencies require with bilingualism as a competitive
advantage.”
48. Marketing materials for Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model®
specifically stress an outcome of "proficient in a second language" and "rapid results". Graduates are
expected to be "completely proficient". "Become proficient in a second language". "Become
proficient in English and Spanish". Students develop “advanced linguistics skills in English and
Spanish." Defendants position paper states "the end results are bilingual and biliterate graduates who
have obtained high levels of expertise in two professional languages – Spanish and English."
49. "A bilingual model where Hispanics would be able to learn not only the tools for a new
career, but to be proficient in a second language" (Ten Years of Excellence in Dual Language
Education, by SUAGM)
50. Advertisements stress a better future: Become a Professional. Transform Your Reality.
Transform Your Future. 65 Years Transforming Dreams & Lives. Reinvent Yourself. Progress. Ana
G. Mendez Prepares New Professionals for the Work Force in Florida. Expand Your Opportunities!
Become a bilingual professional! Enroll today!
V. EXPLOITATION OF LATINOS & LOW-INCOME BY SHAM CAMPUSES
A. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G
MENDEZ
51. Defendant fraudulently represented their Agmus Ventures, Inc. campuses as SUAGM
campuses. Agmus Ventures, Inc. management effectively operates all Florida campuses. Agmus
Ventures, Inc. is responsible for all areas of academics including program administration, program
provision, faculty, and course materials. Nevertheless, Defendant deceptively portrayed their Agmus
Ventures, Inc. campuses with the name and likeness of Sistema Universitario Ana G Mendez.
Defendant falsely misrepresented that I was attending Sistema Universitario Ana G Mendez.
52. Puerto Rico has its own, separate School Catalog, and United States has its own separate
School Catalog. Numerous differences between Agmus Ventures U.S. campuses & SUAGM Puerto
Rico campuses are evident by comparing school catalogs from Puerto Rico and U.S. Although the
Guidance & Counseling (M.Ed.) programs are both identified as SUAGM programs, with identical
program name and course names – they are not consistent in experience. Guidance & Counseling
(M.Ed.) at U.S. campuses is only nominally a SUAGM program, and effectively is a Agmus Ventures,
Inc. program.
53. Differences are further corroborated by looking at statistics from internal document
“Strategic Guides 2011-2015”. Analysis and data of “Campuses outside of Puerto Rico” are itself in a
separate chapter, while Universidad del Este, Universidad Metropolitana, and Universidad del Turabo
each have their own separate chapter. I supposedly attended Universidad del Turabo and my degree
states Universidad del Turabo. Data must be compared between Universidad of Turabo data (which
only includes Puerto Rico), and data of U.S. campuses.
54. Agmus Ventures' U.S. campuses are both different and inferior to Puerto Rico SUAGM
campuses in the following fourteen areas: Management, Faculty, Course Materials, Preparation of
Academic Content, Delivery of Academic Programs, CACREP Accreditation, Internship, Entry/Exit
Requirements, Facilities, Libraries, Technology, Mission, History, and Intellectual Development.
MANAGEMENT
55. For-profit corporation Agmus Ventures, Inc. is effectively operating Florida
campuses. The #1 and #2 management positions of Agmus Ventures, Inc. held the #1 and #2
positions at SUAGM Florida Campuses (as well as USA Campuses) when I was a student. The
CEO/President of Agmus Ventures, Inc., Luis J Zayas was the “Dean of SUAGM Florida Campuses”,
serving as #1 position within SUAGM Florida Campuses (as well as USA Campuses). The
Agmus Ventures, Inc. Operations Officer, Luis A Burgos, was publicly the “Chancellor of SUAGM
Florida Campuses” and “Associate Vice President, Florida Operations” for SUAGM Florida
Campuses, the #2 position within SUAGM Florida Campuses (as well as USA Campuses).
Agmus Ventures management team also includes its own Chief Learning Officer, Tomasita Ortiz,
who also is “Chief Learning Officer” for “Florida Campuses” of SUAGM. The “Main
Development Officer” at Agmus Ventures, Syndia Nazario, is the Campus Director at the
SUAGM Maryland Campus and previously was Campus Director at SUAGM South Florida
Campus. All faculty at U.S. campuses, including Campus Directors, are paid by and subservient
to Agmus Ventures, Inc., not Sistema Universitario Ana G Mendez. (Note that Luis J. Zayas of Agmus
Ventures currently is #1 position of MD & TX campuses, and Luis A. Burgos of Agmus Ventures has
become #1 position in Florida effectively operating all three Florida campuses). Organizational charts
show Campus Directors at all FL, MD, and TX campuses reporting directly to Agmus Ventures – either
Burgos or Zayas as their only oversight authority.
FACULTY
56. 13% of U.S. Faculty has doctorate degree, while 52% of Puerto Rico faculty has
doctorate degree. 100% of U.S. Faculty is part-time, while about half of Puerto Rico faculty is
part-time. To fit the for-profit model, United States campuses fully rely on an “adjunct
instructional workforce” (part-time professors hired on a contractual basis). ALL Faculty in the
entire Puerto Rico Graduate School for Education have Doctorate degrees, including all Guidance
Counseling Faculty – in U.S., only one of my faculty had a doctorate degree, which was in
Educational Leadership – not Guidance Counseling. Puerto Rico has three faculty members
specifically for Education Counseling – in U.S., none of my faculty were specifically for
Education Counseling. Furthermore, none of my teachers had any experience in Education
Counseling and none had the Florida Educator Certificate with specialization in Guidance &
Counseling. Agmus Ventures, Inc. is directly responsible for instruction at U.S. campuses.
COURSE MATERIALS
57. I had absolutely no textbooks, no course materials, and no academic content to study.
U.S. campuses use ONLY “Modules”, which have ZERO academic content to study or learn.
“Modules” consist of simply a group of assignments & activities. Courses in Puerto Rico use actual
textbooks and Puerto Rico has an on-campus bookstore that sells textbooks.
PREPARATION OF ACADEMIC CONTENT
58. Agmus Ventures is responsible for academic content and designs curriculum, prepares
curriculum, and approves curriculum. Agmus Ventures has their own “Instructional Designer”, “Chief
Learning Officer”, and “Curriculum Development Services Director” responsible for content at U.S.
campuses. Agmus Ventures is responsible for the “modules”, which are simply a group of
assignments & activities.
DELIVERY OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
59. Agmus Ventures provides educational services at Florida campuses and hides this fact
under the false pretense of administrative services. Agmus Ventures is responsible for curriculum
delivery and Agmus Ventures faculty deliver academic programs at U.S. campuses. Agmus Ventures,
Inc. is responsible for “hiring, preparing, and training faculty”. Agmus Ventures’ “Faculty Director” is
“responsible for faculty selection, hiring, supervision, and development” Agmus Ventures hires all
faculty, for example Guidance & Counseling, Math, English, Spanish, History, Computers, Pharmacy,
& Nursing. Professors work for Agmus Ventures, Inc.
CACREP ACCREDITATION
60. My program in Puerto Rico meets the high academic standards set by CACREP and is
officially a CACREP Program. More specifically, the professionally approved standards of CACREP
are met in the Puerto Rico Guidance Counseling program. However, Guidance Counseling programs at
U.S. campuses are not CACREP programs, neither in name, practice, or quality. CACREP is the
Council of Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs.
INTERNSHIP
61. School of Education at Puerto Rico “collaborates with the professional community in
school districts”, has “community partners in private and public schools” - this is required for
internship positions – Florida campuses were unable to provide me a state-recognized internship
due to lack of relationships with school districts and lack of program approval by Florida
Department of Education.
ENTRY/EXIT REQUIREMENTS
62. Puerto Rico requires GRE or GMAT exam for entrance in graduate programs, United
States campuses do not have any entrance exam requirement. Puerto Rico requires a comprehensive
exit exam and completion of internship/practicum prior to graduation, United States campuses do not.
Agmus Ventures is responsible for admissions requirements and graduation standards in U.S.
FACILITIES
63. Puerto Rico campus has campus of 140 acres and 15 buildings – solely for Universidad
del Turabo. Compared to U.S. campus of a small commercial space of strip mall to share all three
SUAGM universities – Universidad del Turabo, Universidad Metropolitana, and Universidad Este.
LIBRARIES
64. Agmus Ventures, Inc. campuses lack acceptable libraries – they barely have any books
or resources at all. Many of the books at Agmus Ventures, Inc. libraries lack actual academic nature.
TECHNOLOGY
65. The technology of Agmus Ventures, Inc. campuses is gravely lacking. Lack of
computers, lack of computer lab. Technology platform “Blackboard” often down and students
told the excuse “there's a problem in Puerto Rico!”.
MISSION
66. The effective mission has shifted substantially due to Agmus Ventures for-profit model
as a for-profit corporation. Missions of Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez and Agmus
Ventures, Inc. are significantly different.
HISTORY
67. Marketing materials for United States campuses specifically state that the university
system was “founded in 1972 in Puerto Rico” and stress “over 60 years” of history. This history is
used to convince prospective students to enroll and to lead current students to believe that the school is
legitimate. Agmus Ventures, Inc. was formed in 2003 by major players in the for-profit college market
with completely different mission and principles.
INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT
68. All of my courses at Agmus Ventures, Inc. lacked content and lacked the rigor expected
in a collegiate course. Application of intellectual inquiry and intellectual development that took place
at my courses at Agmus Ventures, Inc. were very poor and far below collegiate level. Education at
Agmus Ventures U.S. campuses does not enhance students' intellectual growth and is not purposeful,
coherent, engaging, or rigorous in any way, shape, or form. Due to the emphasis on the elementary-
level dual-language program, complete lack of academic content/books, nearly non-existent entry
requirements, exclusive focus on profit, lack of college-level learning resources, lack of library
services, and poor information technology support services – academic programs cannot be
characterized as collegiate or graduate level.
B. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS ACCREDITED, LICENSED COLLEGE
69. Agmus Ventures, Inc. has not been reviewed for accreditation or accredited by any
accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. Defendant falsely misrepresented
that I was attending an accredited, licensed college.
70. Agmus Ventures, Inc. and their United States campuses are fraudulently using the
accreditation of its parent, SUAGM. Agmus Ventures, Inc. operate U.S. campuses under the guise of
“expansion sites” of parent SUAGM. Accreditation of parent SUAGM fraudulently extended/shared
with Agmus Ventures, Inc. U.S. campuses.
71. Unlicensed, unaccredited Agmus Ventures, Inc. illegally provides 100% of educational
programs at United States campuses. 34 CFR 668.5 Prohibits an arrangement in which an ineligible
entity provides more than 50% of an educational program for an eligible entity.
72. 34 CFR 602.22 requires that a “Substantive Change Request” should have been made to
approve outsourcing of more than 25% of an educational program; change of control/ownership, and
change of mission/objectives. Prior approval is required for anything that transforms the institution so
that it is significantly different from the institution that was initially granted accreditation. The rules of
the accreditation agencies mirror the rules of 34 CFR 602.22. Defendant deceptively made a
“Substantial Change Request” ONLY for “include Branch Campus”, which resulted in current status of
“Branch Campuses” being “included within the scope of the institution's accreditation”.
73. MSCHE Separately Accredited Institutions Policy Statement requires that off-campus
sites that are “operationally independent” must seek separate accreditation. Agmus Ventures, Inc. is
“operationally independent”, with their own personnel that handle administrative and financial matters
independently – as well as academic autonomy to initiate and sustain its own academic programs.
Furthermore, 34 CFR 602.22 requires that a “new entity” resulting from “change of control, structure,
or organization” must also meet all requirements and standards of accreditation. Agmus Ventures, Inc.
must meet seek separate accreditation.
74. Agmus Ventures’ U.S. Campuses appear to be severely non-compliant with MSCHE
Accreditation Agency Standards #1 Mission & Goals, #6 Integrity, #11 Educational Offerings, #12
General Education, #13 Related Educational Activities, #14 Assessment of Student Learning, as well as
MSCHE Policies and Procedures for “Substantive Change Policy” and “Separately Accreditable
Institutions”. Furthermore, non-compliance with their own SUAGM Education Internship Handbook
for Florida Campuses.
75. Documents submitted to MSCHE accreditation agency, prepared by SUAGM,
specifically hide and distort the relationship with Agmus Ventures, Inc. Self-Study Reviews
completely omit the relationship. The relationship should be disclosed under sections for Standards 4
& 5 (“Leadership, Governance, & Administration”) and Standard 13 (“Related Educational

Activities”). A draft self-study falsely states that Agmus Ventures, Inc. is a “contractor that performs
administrative services for the school.”
76. Agmus Ventures provides educational services at Florida campuses and hides this fact
under the false pretense of administrative services. It is not true that Agmus Ventures, Inc. is a
“contractor that performs administrative services for the school.” This same misrepresentation was
presented to MSCHE in Self-Study (Metropolitana): “SUAGM contracted AGMUS Venture Inc. (AVI),
a for profit organization. AVI provides all Branches services”. A third-party contractor is implied,
rather than “joint venture”/“for-profit subsidiary”. This weak defense of “administrative services” was
tried by Ivy Bridge College (of Tiffin University) once the accreditation agency realized accreditation
was improperly extended. “It was not clear what his motivation had been in going to the extent of
forming a corporate entity, rather than, for example, providing services or technical assistance under a
contract.” Luis Zayas stated the actual motivation on 4/9/10 that “Agmus Ventures was created for-
profit to allow for investors”.
77. Agmus Ventures, Inc. admit to USPTO that their primary business purpose is
“Educational Services, namely, providing courses of instruction at the post-secondary, college, and
post-college levels, and distribution of course materials in connection therewith.” This is stated by
Agmus Ventures, Inc. to United States Patent & Trademark Office for use of the “Agmus Ventures”
name, the use the “Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model” name, and the logo of “Agmus
Ventures” under U.S. Serial numbers 78619184, 78619203, 78619175 with USPTO.
78. 34 CFR 668.5 also requires that disclosure is made to current and prospective students if
an ineligible institution is providing a percentage of the academic program. No disclosure of
outsourcing to Agmus Ventures, Inc. was ever made.
79. Fraudulent misrepresentation by Defendant to the accreditation board, MSCHE, has
directly permitted them to obtain millions of dollars of Title IV Funds for programs that are not eligible
for Title IV Funds. Agmus Ventures, Inc. must meet seek separate accreditation.
C. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS NON-PROFIT COLLEGE
80. For-profit corporation Agmus Ventures, Inc. effectively operates U.S. campuses and is
directly responsible for all areas of Student Services and Academic Services. Agmus Ventures CEO
Luis J. Zayas operated all Florida campuses when I was a student – currently Luis A. Burgos, Agmus
Ventures Chief Operating Officer, is operating all Florida campuses. The Campus Directors at Florida
campuses currently work directly underneath Luis A. Burgo/Agmus Ventures. The Campus Directors
are employed by Agmus Ventures, Inc. Faculty are employed by Agmus Ventures, Inc. Agmus
Ventures faculty provide academic services.
81. Defendant falsely misrepresented that I was attending a non-profit institution. Rather
than receive an educational experience expected from a non-profit institution, I experienced all
characteristics found commonly at for-profit colleges, per 2012 Senate Report. I experienced: higher
tuition for lower quality; high priority on recruiting – low priority on instruction as seen by maximum
spending on marketing and minimum spending on instruction; low academic value and lack of
academic rigor; lack of student services; poor job placement services; part-time faculty; lack of books
(none); misleading recruiters that present themselves as counselors; institutional accreditation stressed
while lack of programmatic accreditation is hidden.
82. Peer-reviewed research by economists found that after controlling for student
demographic factors, those in nonprofit, when compared with similar students at for-profit institutions:
had lower debt burdens; had higher earnings and lower unemployment six years later; had lower
student-loan default rates; and were more satisfied with their programs. Referenced from David J.
Deming, Claudia Goldin, and Lawrence F. Katz, “The For-Profit Postsecondary School Sector: Nimble
Critters or Agile Predators?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives.
83. Courses historically offered by SUAGM have been transferred to Agmus Ventures and
various modifications to the courses have been made. Courses given at a non-profit institution have
been converted into courses given at a for-profit college.

84. Google searches were performed for the Tampa Campus physical address and phone
number well after graduation. The search for “3655 West Waters Ave., Tampa, FL 33614” resulted in
page 1 of Google results showing zero results for Ana G Mendez, but many results for Agmus Ventures
as the business at 3655 West Waters Ave., Tampa, FL 33614. 1-888-ESTUDIA is Ana G Mendez
primary phone number used in nearly all marketing materials and in the School Catalog for Tampa
Campus – Google Search for 1-888-378-8342 showed that owner is Agmus Ventures and Agmus
Ventures is the #1 search result.
85. Agmus Ventures, Inc. is registered in the State of Florida as a for-profit corporation.
86. Luis Zayas, President/CEO of Agmus Ventures, states in trade journal, Inside Higher Ed:
“It is important to clarify that AGMUS Ventures, the for profit subsidiary, was created to develop and
support the development of the dual language model and the institutions that offer it. The AHORA
program is licensed, accredited and offered by the not for profit institutions of our university system,
not AGMUS Ventures. AGMUS Ventures provides services that support the offering of the dual
language model by the institutions. As to why AGMUS Ventures was created for profit, you are right,
to allow for investors that would support the development of the model. To this point, Ana G. Mendez
and Regis are the sole investors”. The article states that “the two universities each made an initial
investment of $500,000 and share profits equally. The operation's annual budget has grown to $13
million.”
87. Contrary to Luis Zayas' claim – Ana G. Mendez and Regis were not the sole investors.
Internal Document “Strategic Guides 2011-2015” shows that Agmus Ventures, Inc. received investment
dollars in the amount of $16.9 million in fiscal year 2010-11. 990 Tax Forms of both Ana G Mendez
and Regis for this time period show no investment from Ana G Mendez and only a $769k investment
from Regis. Thus, the $16.9 million investment came from outside investors. The 990 Tax Forms
specifically asks in question 16a of Part VI – “Did the organization invest in, contribute assets to, or
participate in a joint venture or similar arrangement with a taxable entity during the year?” - SUAGM
responded “NO”. New Ventures responded “Yes” and show “Investment in Subsidiary” as $769,433.
88. Form 990 Tax Returns show $54 million dollars of income from Agmus Ventures, Inc.,
paid as direct income to SUAGM and Regis University. This does not include increase in equity value
of shares.
89. Regis University (through New Ventures in Higher Education, Inc.) received income of
$27 million from Agmus Venture, Inc., per Form 990 Tax Returns of years 2004-12. Ownership
interest of 50% ownership interest in Agmus Ventures, Inc.. “Nature of activities” specified as
“Education”.
90. SUAGM received income of $27 million from Agmus Ventures, Inc., per Consolidated
Financial Statments year ending July, 2014. 990 Tax Forms show a“50% ownership interest” in Agmus
Ventures, Inc. “Nature of activities” specified as “Bilingual Academic Prog”.
91. AgmusVentures.com website shows a Mission that includes “produce a fair return to our
Shareholders.”
D. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION OF DISCIPLINE-BASED DUAL LANGUAGE
IMMERSION MODEL®
92. Marketing materials falsely promise that you will become "completely proficient" in
English with "rapid results”, and develop "advanced linguistics skills in English" through the
Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model®, which alternates classes in all-English and all-
Spanish. Defendant knows their dual-language program is ineffective, but deliberately make false
claims that you are enrolling in a program that is "proven", "fully backed by research", and "the most
effective way" to learn English – while students are truly used as guinea pigs for a new, unproven idea.
The dual-language model is totally inappropriate to higher education. Research shows that dual-
language education is for elementary schools, not graduate schools. Research referenced by Agmus
Ventures warns of the “paucity of scientifically based research available”, “most of which involve
Spanish speakers at the elementary school level”. Dual language programs have never been replicated
at the higher education level.
93. Further research logically states: “Promoting student understanding of more abstract
and complex concepts becomes increasingly difficult in the upper elementary grades and beyond.
Some upper-elementary immersion teachers, in particular those who teach in partial or fifty-fifty
programs, report difficulties in teaching advanced-level subject matter because students’ cognitive
development is at a higher level than their proficiency in the second language”.
94. Defendant falsely misrepresents their Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion
Model® with many false, unsubstantiated claims. Research shows dual-language education is for
elementary schools, not graduate school. It was not until well after graduation that I learned the
Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model® is the "first of its kind", not backed by any
evidence, and, at best, appropriate for elementary schools.
95. The basic premise of the Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model® is that
classes are alternated between all-English and all-Spanish. For example, this week class will be in
English, next week class will be in Spanish. Similarly, course materials, referred to as “modules”, are
structured so that 50% is in English and 50% in Spanish. The content is not translated – “we don't
repeat the same thing in both languages. we just separated some of the content in English, some of the
content in Spanish”, as explained by CEO/President of Agmus Ventures, Inc., Luis Zayas.
96. Defendant has no supporting evidence to support their claim that their programs will
result in bilingual graduates. Agmus Ventures has a position paper on their Discipline-Based Dual
Language Immersion Model® in Higher Education©. This position paper does not support dual-
language at the university level and does not actually conduct any independent research at all.
References are made to the actual research that has been done, all of which was done at elementary
schools. The research does not support dual-language at the university level, and actually goes against
the idea of dual-language at the university level

97. The original Position Paper for Discipline-Based Dual Language, by Agmus Ventures, is
dated 2003. This original Position Paper stresses that “market feasibility studies have confirmed that
central Florida has the most promise for a market-efficient entry”, although no independent research
was done on the efficacy of a dual-language program at the college level. Past studies on “Children”
are referenced to justify opening a bilingual program at the college level. More specifically, the idea of
presenting two languages in two ways “allocating by day, instruction is given in a certain language on
alternate days” is taken from the Gonzales study in 1996 at ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL.
98. Agmus Ventures stresses, in the original Position Paper in 2003, that the Dual Language
Program at the College Level “intends to be the first of its kind”, yet warns that “due to the fact that
programs do not exist at the higher education-level, and research findings, even at the K-12 level, show
a wide variation, we can only speculate on the consequences or outcomes of AGMUS decision for this
model.” Defendant does not have any basis to make the false claims and promises regarding their dual-
language program.
99. From Agmus Ventures' position paper - “No evidence has been found that indicates that
dual language programs have been replicated at the higher education level.”...“The Discipline-Based
Dual Language Immersion Model® developed by AGMUS Ventures, Inc., is the first of its kind
because it offers fully bilingual undergraduate and graduate degrees through a balanced language
distribution of Spanish and English as a medium of instruction. In other words, students’ entire degree
programs and all their coursework are provided 50 percent in Spanish and 50 percent in English. The
end results are bilingual and biliterate graduates who have obtained high levels of expertise in two
professional languages- Spanish and English.”
100. What Research Says About Preparing English Language learners for academic success.
Center for Public Education (2007), states that the lack of supporting research is a common disclaimer
– “What the recent deluge of ELL-focused reports, research summaries, books, and policy papers have
in common is a disclaimer about the paucity of scientifically based research available”. None of
the research appears applicable at the university level, since “most of which involve Spanish speakers
at the elementary school level.” Regarding the mastery of academic content, as in learning English at
the same time as academic content: “A national panel concluded 10 years ago that most of the English
Language Learner (ELL) research available to them focused on English acquisition, not mastery of
academic content (August & Hakuta, 1997). This is still true. The recent review of the literature by The
National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth indicates that research focused on
mastery of academic content is still limited (August & Shanahan, 2006).”
101. Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Genesse, F.,
Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. and Christian, D. (2006). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press – states the limit of applying the research to age groups outside of elementary school - “most of
the published research on ELLs focuses on low-income native Spanish speakers, and the largest
number of studies involve elementary school-aged students. This will undoubtedly limit the
generalizability of the results to other language and age groups.” More specifically, most of the
research focused only on reading at the elementary school level - “The majority of studies examined
reading as opposed to writing and students in elementary school as opposed to middle or high school.
In other words, most of this research focused on various aspects of the reading development of ELLs in
elementary school.” Furthermore, “with the exception of Echevarria (Echevarria, 1996), all other
studies that examined reading-related behaviors provide narrative descriptions of their results and, thus,
must be interpreted with caution.”
102. A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’ long-term
academic achievement. Thomas, W. & Collier, V. (2002). Center for Research on Education, Diversity
and Excellence – states “the shortest time frame we have found for groups to reach grade-level
achievement in second language is 4-7 years, but that applies only to students who have received
quality, grade-level schooling through their two languages.” Note that SUAGM/Agmus Ventures, Inc.
claim of only a 2-year program, at university level rather than grade-school level.
103. Marketing materials for Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model®
specifically stress an outcome of "proficient in a second language" and "rapid results". Graduates are
expected to be "completely proficient". "Become proficient in a second language". "Become
proficient in English and Spanish". Students develop “advanced linguistics skills in English and
Spanish." Defendants position paper states "the end results are bilingual and biliterate graduates who
have obtained high levels of expertise in two professional languages – Spanish and English."
104. Jose F. Mendez states "our accelerated bilingual model has proven to be the most
effective way for Hispanic students to learn and master English".
105. Luis Zayas states that "dual-language education is the most effective way", and is "the
most researched methodology in the education system", stressing that "all of this is amply researched
and proven, over and over again...We know how it works. We know it works. If you look at the
literature, if you look at the research, you'll see different studies, different languages, all reaching the
same conclusion...studies and research have demonstrated this...it's fully backed by research...it
shouldn't be a surprise to us that dual-language programs work.” "We knew from the research that we
had studied that dual language immersion was what worked in bilingual education...we decided, since
we couldn't find any existing dual-language program at the university level, to create our own. and we
call that our Discipline-Based Dual-Language Immersion Model." "Dual-language immersion is
possible at the university setting." “The fact that research supports bilingual education is based on the
fact that we know what we're doing."
106. Logically, it was found that English-only programs (Sheltered English Immersion)
produced higher English achievement than dual-language programs, as explained by University of
Michigan, with reference to Baker, K. (1998). Structured English Immersion Breakthrough in Teaching
Limited-English Proficient students. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(3): 199-204.
107. In BBC Mundo 10/7/11 article about SUAGM new campus in Washington, D.C. area,
Andy Gomez (M.Ed., Harvard University), states "The bilingual system works well from kindergarten
until 8th grade for those that arrive to this country with a different language". Doctor Gomez insists
that at the university level a bilingual program is very difficult, if not impossible. "A professor of Math
or Biology is interested to teach Math or Biology, not a language...What do I need? To take a Spanish
class for professionals, not a Master degree half in English and half in Spanish."
108. “Promoting student understanding of more abstract and complex concepts becomes
increasingly difficult in the upper elementary grades and beyond. Some upper-elementary immersion
teachers, in particular those who teach in partial or fifty-fifty programs, report difficulties in teaching
advanced-level subject matter because students’ cognitive development is at a higher level than their
proficiency in the second language”, from Chinese Language Learning in the Early Grades, Asia
Society. 2012 – this passage specifically references the study done by Met, M. and E. Lorenz in
“Lessons from U.S. immersion programs: Two decades of experience,” pages 243–264.
E. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS A STATE APPROVED PROGRAM
109. Defendant creates a “theater” through lies, distortion, and misrepresentation, that they
are a State-Approved Educator Preparation Program. It was falsely misrepresented very explicitly both
in writing and in group meetings with all of my classmates as witnesses that the program I was
attending, Guidance & Counseling (M.Ed.), provides eligibility to work in PUBLIC schools. It was
never disclosed that I was attending a program that would not allow me to work in public schools.
110. It was stressed unequivocally both in writing and verbally that I was attending a State-
Approved Educator Preparation Program (i.e., an eligible program to obtain Florida Educator
Certificate) to obtain employment in public schools. School is not a State-Approved Educator
Preparation Program – the school lacks the required approval to allow me to work in public schools.
111. Defendant fraudulently misrepresented itself as a State-Approved Educator Program. In
Florida, professional school counselors are required by law to obtain a state-issued Educator Certificate
in order to be employed in public schools. One must graduate from a "State-Approved Educator
Preparation Program" to be eligible for "Florida Educator Certificate". More specifically, Defendant
falsely promised that they were able to fulfill requirement of State of Florida DOE Form CG-10 and FL
Statute 1012.56, which require "Mastery of Professional Preparation & Education Competence" in
order to obtain Florida educator certificate. It is especially noteworthy that the “Professional
Certificate” cannot be obtained without first completing the “Mastery of Professional Preparation &
Education Competence.” A non-renewable “Temporary Certificate” is insufficient because you still
lack requirement of “Mastery of Professional Preparation & Education Competence.” (i.e., you are
missing the requirement that was promised to you by SUAGM). The norm at actual state-approved
programs is that the student graduates with their Professional Certificate.
See differences of “Professional Certificate” and “Temporary Certificate” here:
http://www.fldoe.org/teaching/certification/general-cert-requirements/
112. No disclaimer was ever provided to me that I should have Florida Educator Certificate
before entering program. Defendant did not disclose to me prior to enrollment that a Florida Educator
Certificate is required to work as Guidance Counselor in Florida public schools. Compare Guidance &
Counseling (M.Ed.) Programs from Catalogs of SUAGM, and those of University of South Florida and
University of Tampa. University of South Florida graduates have ALL REQUIREMENTS for
Professional Certificate to teach in public schools prior to graduation. University of Tampa requires for
admission that you ALREADY HAVE Educator Certificate and Bachelor in Education.
113. During enrollment, Defendant used MSCHE accreditation (general accreditation of
school) to explicitly tell students that the Guidance & Counseling Program (M.Ed.) was accredited.
Defendant fraudulently misrepresented general accreditation as programmatic accreditation.
114. Defendant’s egregious misrepresentation as State-Approved Educator Program includes
actually pretending that they are following state requirements and even fabricating sudden changes in
state requirements. Students in their last semester are provided bogus internships which Defendant
claims are approved by state. Students are then falsely told that after graduation they only need to pass
the state pre-licensing exams in order to work in public schools. Students are told that the school is
doing them a favor by permitting them to graduate without the state requirement of passing state pre-
licensing exams first.
115. Entire class of Guidance & Counseling students (including myself) were told by
Director Yvonne Cadiz in 1/15/13 meeting that we would be qualified by state and able to work as
guidance counselor in public schools once requirements of internship and state pre-licensing exams are
met. During this meeting, students were given a handout addressed "to the attention of G & C Intern",
which features Ana G Mendez name and logo at the top, followed by "Information about Certification
for Students in Guidance and Counseling" from "Florida Department of Education". At the same
meeting, the entire group and myself were presented a letter and told "sign this, or don't graduate" - this
letter supposedly gave the school permission to not follow state requirement of requiring General
Knowledge Exam prior to Internship. Only 9 months earlier, on 4/10/12, students had to sign form
stating that they must pass General Knowledge Exam before internship, due to "sudden change in
requirements by Florida Department of Education.
116. After graduation, I was told by Hillsborough Department of Education on 10/10/13 that
my internship was not valid. I immediately contacted school. Rather than simply admit to me that I
am not eligible to work in public schools because program is not approved by state, Defendant strung
me along by continuing to promise me eligibility to work in public schools, providing me with a second
invalid internship, and assuring me that the official letter given to me on 4/2/14 will enable me to work
in public schools.
117. Charlie Colon, 2nd in command at Tampa Campus, stated to me by email on 2/5/14 –
"We assure you that you will receive the proper documentation and certification of your internship
hours according to the standards of the Florida Department of Education once you complete your hours
in the K-12 setting at Dr. Castro’s school. The State Certification will be sent to Tallahassee and a copy
will be provided for your use". Charlie Colon also stated to me in email 12/4/13 – "I would like to
inform you that Dr. Jesus M. Castro will assist you in obtaining the necessary hours for you to obtain
your elementary education certificate". Director Yvonne Cadiz was copied on both emails.
118. Education degrees at SUAGM Florida campuses are not State-Approved Educator
Preparation Programs. Besides not actually being on the list of State-Approved Educator Preparation
Programs, state-mandated requirements are not met – FL Statute 1004.04, FL Statute 1012.56, FL DOE
Rule 6A-5.066. For example, entrance exam required (GRE score of 1000+), exit requirements (pass
FTCE exams before graduation), internship required before graduation, faculty required to have
relevant experience, supervisor of internship must have FL Educator Certificate. SUAGM/Agmus
Ventures Guidance & Counseling (M.Ed.) Program fails to meet State-Approved Educator Preparation
Program requirements, not only in name, but also in practice.
119. A Guidance & Counseling (M.Ed.) degree from SUAGM Florida campuses does
NOT provide eligibility for the required state certification to work in Florida public school system.
Students of all SUAGM Education degrees at Florida campuses have same problem (Elementary
Education, Special Education, Teaching English as a Second Language). Students at SUAGM
Maryland and SUAGM Texas campuses have same problem (SUAGM MD & TX Education programs
are not Maryland Approved Educator Preparation Program or Approved Texas Educator Preparation
Program).
120. Meeting on 2/6/14 was attended by Yvonne Cadiz (Director of Tampa Campus), Charlie
Colon (2nd in command at Tampa Campus), Yelanis Brook (graduate), and Maria Arizala (graduate).
Director Yvonne Cadiz claimed that school policy is to not discuss anything with family members of
students due to FERPA law – for this reason, Michael A. Melnyk was refused entry to meeting against
my wishes that he accompany me. In the meeting, Both Yvonne Cadiz and Charlie Colon specifically
stated to Maria Arizala and me that we will receive state certification and will be able to work in the
public school system. We were specifically told that we will be provided a valid internship that will be
recognized by Department of Education. We were promised that once the internship is completed, we
would receive an “official certificate that will be stamped with the stamp of the university”, which
SUAGM would send to Department of Education in Florida at the “Office in Tallahassee of
Professional Development”, Hillsborough County School Board, Pasco County School Board, and
Pinellas County School Board so that Maria Arizala and I would be eligible to work in public schools.
121. Resulting certificate of the internship, signed 4/2/14, which both Yvonne Cadiz and
Charlie Colon referred to in the 2/6/14 meeting and promised to send to Tallahassee Department of
Education, and all three local county school districts so that I could work in public school system is
worthless.
122. NOONE has obtained “Florida Educator Certificate” through graduation at any of the
SUAGM Florida campuses. Students that also attended a third-party State-Approved Educator
Preparation Program (i.e., a different school) either prior to attending SUAGM or subsequent to
attending SUAGM would not have obtained the certificate as a result of SUAGM. It is especially
noteworthy that it impossible to obtain Florida Educator Certificate directly through SUAGM/Agmus
Ventures Guidance & Counseling (M.Ed.) Program.
123. SUAGM Education Internship Handbook for Florida Campuses states in bold print:
“The undergraduate and graduate education programs at SUAGM are designed to be in compliance
with Florida Statutes and State Board of Education Rule 6A-5.06.”
124. SUAGM claims that my belief that the program was fraudulently misrepresented as a
state-approved program was caused by a “typo”. More specifically, that SUAGM Internship Handbook
for Florida campuses has a “typo” that should have read “6A-5.065” rather than “6A-5.06”. However,
all 117 pages of the SUAGM Internship Handbook detail and elaborate on the procedures and
responsibilities of obtaining an internship in the public school system THROUGH SUAGM. Page 3
states that “we (SUAGM) strive to provide our students with the best educational internship experience
possible as required by the Florida Department of Education.” Page 5 even states that this internship
handbook “will ensure our compliance with the Florida Department of Education.” Furthermore,
emails sent to me specifically state that the 2nd internship would enable me to obtain state education
certificate. Also, group meetings with the entire Guidance & Counseling class on both 4/10/12 and
1/15/13 entailed the State-Approved Educator Preparation Program.
F. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS CAPABLE TO PROVIDE VALID
INTERNSHIP REQUIRED TO WORK IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
125. Both internships of working in SUAGM school library and volunteer at private Catholic
School at Lady of Lourdes church are invalid. Neither internship meets state requirements, per FL
Statutes 240.529 and 1004.04. As only one example of failed requirement, supervisor of internship
must have Florida Educator Certificate in subject area.
126. It is especially egregious that Defendant continued their deceptive and dishonest scheme
during my pregnancy, manipulating me to work while pregnant as a volunteer at a second ineligible
internship under the false pretense of a valid internship. Both myself and Maria Arizala pleaded and
pleaded for the school to provide a valid internship. They initially ignored our emails and calls, and
they later provided unreasonable excuses – until finally a second internship was provided – again, an
invalid one that completely wasted my time while working as a “volunteer” while pregnant. SUAGM
specifically confirmed by email two separate times that this second internship would indeed be eligible
per Department of Education standards for the purpose of obtaining the required education certificate
from the state of Florida. The Defendant’s fraud is particularly cruel and callous as I was pregnant at
the time and pushed myself to complete the second internship since I was promised it was an eligible
internship and only was making sacrifices to try and better my future.
127. Defendant promised to provide a valid internship, per state of Florida requirements, so
that I could be eligible to work in Florida public schools.
128. Both internships were invalid and Defendant is unable to provide a valid internship
because only a State-Approved Educator Preparation Program can provide a valid internship.
Furthermore, Defendant does not have necessary contacts with local school districts because they are
not approved by state of Florida as Approved Educator Preparation Program.

G. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS CAPABLE TO VALIDATE COLLEGE
CREDITS/DEGREES FROM FOREIGN COLLEGE
129. Defendant promises to validate both credits and degrees from foreign colleges. I was
told my degree & credits from Cuba would be validated by SUAGM. Due to difficulty and expense,
U.S. colleges rarely, if ever, validate/recognize foreign credits or degrees. Defendant uses this to their
advantage by falsely promising to validate foreign credits and degrees in order to induce immigrants to
enroll.
130. Luis Zayas, President of Agmus Ventures, Inc., states that SUAGM “will give students
the opportunity to validate college credits from both United States and Latin America accredited
institutions”
131. Yvonne Cadiz, Director of Tampa campus, states: “We have a genuine commitment to
attend to the necessities of Hispanics and prepare students highly prepared according to what private
companies and government agencies require with bilingualism as a competitive advantage.”… “The
growth has been incredible since we recognize credits of foreigners. If you were a professor in your
country, for example, we recognize the courses of your profession. 75-80% of the students that we
receive have studies in their country.”
132. It is noteworthy that most students are “first generation immigrant adults” and this false
promise induces enrollment.
H. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION THAT AN EDUCATION DEGREE IN
GUIDANCE & COUNSELING WOULD PROVIDE ELIGIBILITY TO WORK AS LICENSED
PSYCHOLOGIST
133. I was decieved that I could continue my previous career in Cuba as Psychologist, rather
than an unrelated degree in Education. School falsely portrayed degree and job prospects as “clinical
counseling” (jobs that a Psychologist or Mental Health Counselor would do), rather than “educational
counseling” (specifically, a job as a Guidance Counselor).

134. I would not have enrolled if I was not fraudulently induced by Defendant. At my first
meeting with the school, I was assured that I would be able to continue my previous career from Cuba
as a Psychologist, rather than enroll for an unrelated degree in Education. Defendant falsely portrayed
“clinical counseling” (jobs that a Psychologist or Mental Health Counselor would do), rather than
“educational counseling” (specifically, a job as a Guidance Counselor). Defendant exaggerated job
prospects by stating that I could work in the typical workplaces of a psychologist: prisons, hospitals,
private practice, and actually be a psychologist in schools. It was not disclosed that Guidance and
Counseling provides a career path exclusively in schools. Furthermore, Guidance & Counseling degree
does not permit one to work in a school with any role as a psychologist. I specifically stated that my
background is in Psychology and that my Bachelor degree is in Psychology from University of Habana,
Cuba, and that I worked as a licensed Psychologist in Cuba prior to coming to United States – and I
expressed an interest in continuing my Psychology career here in United States. It was represented to
me that my studies at Ana G Mendez would make me eligible for a license in Psychology through the
Guidance & Counseling (M.Ed.) Program. U.S. campuses do not have Master level Psychology
program.
135. I was given a book from the school library that portrayed “clinical counseling”, entitled
“The Professional Counselor”. I later bought online a relevant book for “educational counseling” and
was surprised to see the remarkable difference between the contents.
136. Note that later (after enrollment) I was promised eligibility to work in public schools as
a guidance counselor.
VI. DEFENDANT ENGAGES IN “REVERSE REDLINING” BY TARGETING LATINOS AND
RESIDENTS OF LOW-INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS
137. SUAGM & Agmus Ventures’ use unfair, deceptive, & fraudulent practices to
specifically target Latinos and low-income neighborhoods to take out predatory student loans. Internal
document “Guias
Estrategicas de Desarrollo – 2011-2015” show profile of a student at Agmus Ventures, Inc. Florida
campuses has average family income of $30,000, with an average family size of 2-3, and average age
of 33. The vast majority of students are female, many of them being single mothers – 80% of Tampa
students are female, while 73% at Orlando and 65% at South Florida female. There is extreme
disparity between the racial makeup and average income of students at Agmus Ventures, Inc. and the
population from which those students are drawn as a direct result of Defendant’s pattern or practice of
intentionally targeting Latinos and residents of low-income neighborhoods for enrollment.
Exploitation of Latinos and poor is calculated and deliberate.
138. SUAGM admit that “MOST STUDENTS ARE FIRST GENERATION IMMIGRANT
ADULTS” in their revised position paper of their dual language program. Most recent study published
in 2016 with revised data shows student profile at U.S. campuses is comprised of 73% women, average
age is 38 years old.”
139. Defendant is engaged in a pattern or practice of specifically and intentionally targeting
this unlawful scheme at Latinos by focusing SUAGM marketing and outreach at channels that
disproportionately reach a Latino audience. This includes, but is not limited to, advertising on
television channels Univision and Telemundo, advertising on Spanish-language radio stations (ex: 92.5
Maxima), advertising in Spanish-language newspapers (ex: El Tiempo Latino); advertising online at
Univision and Telemundo websites; and even advertisements at outdoor bus shelters.
140. Marketing Machine of SUAGM is overreaching, with advertising in Spanish-language
television, Spanish-language websites, & Spanish-language radio stations, bus shelters, and extensive
social media campaigns, as well as telemarketing and direct mail campaigns. Advertising costs for
2015 and 2014 amounted to $7,520,261 and $6,775,986, respectively.
141. Defendant targets Latinos for enrollment at Agmus Ventures, Inc. Defendants similarly
target low-income neighborhoods of the Tampa, Orlando, Miami, Washington DC, and Dallas areas.
142. Defendant target Latinos and low-income neighborhoods, encourage students to take out
federal loans by promising a future career and English proficiency, and then fail to provide adequate
education/training. Latinos and poor are systematically exploited and left with a worthless degree,
unmanageable student debt, unable to speak English fluently, and unable to work in their field of study
– in order to provide a massive income stream to SUAGM, and, upon information and belief, venture
capital investors.
143. Targeting Latinos to take out loans on the basis of deceptive and otherwise unfair
practices constitutes “reverse redlining.” Reverse redlining has repeatedly been held to violate federal
anti-discrimination laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. The
disparate impact of Defendant’s practice of targeting poorer neighborhoods also violates the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act.
144. Reverse Redlining with involvement of Federal Funds directly violates Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
145. “Our campuses are strategically located in cities emerging with Hispanic market”.
Campuses do not have native English-speakers that want to learn Spanish while obtaining a university
degree, as marketing is geared towards Latinos. Experts point out that dual-language programs should
involve 50% native language speakers from each of the languages in order to achieve synergy in the
classroom and cultural benefits. Agmus Ventures’ U.S. campuses have a hugely disproportionate
amount of native Spanish speakers while severely lacking native English speakers. Furthermore,
nearly all teachers are native Spanish speakers.
146. Upon information and belief, Defendant targets Latinos because it believes that Latinos
are unsophisticated. It believes that it can take advantage of and manipulate Latinos into taking out
large federal loans without appropriately considering and appreciating the long-term consequences of
such debt and the poor quality of SUAGM educational programs. Defendant especially exploits newly-
arrived immigrants that know nothing about the U.S. educational system and fully rely on SUAGM. I
contacted SUAGM 11 months after my arrival from Cuba. Many Latino immigrants face the problem
of their university degrees from foreign universities not being recognized in the U.S. – Defendant
aggressively pursues these immigrants by falsely promising to “validate foreign credits” - which has
been the cause of “incredible growth”, since “75-80% of the students we receive have studies in their
country.” FL DOE Rue 6A-4.0021 states that lack of proficiency in the English language does not
qualify as a disability to request a reader or extra time – all FTCE Exams must be taken in English (for
example – the exams required for Florida Teacher Certificate to become Guidance Counselor).
Defendant knowingly enrolls students that will not be able to pass required state exams in English.
147. Defendant targets low-income neighborhoods for comparable reasons and because
people with less financial resources are eligible for a broader range of federal financial aid, which is the
cornerstone of Defendant’s scheme to further enrich themselves. Defendant’s practice of targeting
low-income neighborhoods has a disparate impact on Latinos because it leads disproportionately to the
enrollment of Latinos at Agmus Ventures, Inc. Vast majority of Agmus Ventures Students are low-
income.
148. Exploitation of Latinos and poor was calculated, studied, and deliberate. SUAGM’s
Presentation in year 2005 entitled “Serving Underserved Learners” by Luis J. Zayas and Luis A.
Burgos especially show the calculated, studied, and deliberate nature of these crimes: “Reasons to
serve the Underserved” are stated as “Financial – Additional Enrollments and Income for the
Institution” as well as “Image and Public Relations”. Also stressed is the importance of “defining who
you want to serve” by “Researching the numbers, growth, composition, and characteristics of the target
population.” The “definition of our target market” is “Latinos represent the fastest population segment
in the U.S.” “Targeted research” was done – as SUAGM “Conducted Feasibility Study to determine
overall demographic trends in the area, market need, workforce demands, and geographic distribution
of target population”.
149. Advertising Campaign specifically targets Latinos and the poor. “interest was piqued
among the local Hispanic community in time for the campus' grand opening”..”advertisements that
generated more than 16 million media impressions”..”television and radio advertisements in
Spanish”..”two print advertisements”..”online advertisements featured on Telemundo and Univision's
local website”..”Outdoor bus shelter ads”. Defendant advertised at bus shelters to emphasize that their
campuses are accessible on the bus line. This is a direct approach to intentionally portray itself as a
school for Latinos and to target Latino communities that rely disproportionately on public
transportation system – Defendant similarly targets residents of low-income neighborhoods.
150. Marketing Plan from 2010 Annual Report – the Red Interactiva de Servicios -
“communications center”, physical structure looks as a high tech call center – the communications
center's telemarketing campaigns urge students to enroll. Agmus Ventures reaches prospects through
social networking media, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and YouTube. Direct mail is also used to reach
prospects. The Red Interactiva de Servicios is especially noted for the use of “targeting segments of
the student population for specialized campaigns”.
151. Agmus Ventures, Inc. hires Student Recruitment Coordinator, who participates in
telemarketing and direct mail campaigns.
152. I was provided marketing brochures that stated:
“TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR FAFSA (Federal Student Aid) TO THE MAXIMUM”.
“COMPLETE YOUR FEDERAL STUDENT AID APPLICATION BY JUNE 30 AND YOU WILL
PARTICIPATE IN A DRAWING TO WIN A NEW IPAD 3!”
Defendant does not properly advise students on the risks and consequences of large federal loans,
preferring to push them with a drawing for the new IPAD!
153. What is “Predatory Lending”? Predatory Lending is not simply imposing unfair or
abusive loan terms, but, more importantly, encompasses any practice that convinces a borrower to
accept unfair terms through deceptive, coercive, exploitative, or unscrupulous actions for a loan that a
borrower doesn’t need, doesn’t want, or can’t afford.
154. By targeting its deceptive and unlawful programs at and in a manner that disparately and
intentionally impacts Latinos, SUAGM causes damage that is well beyond the tuition dollars for which
students receive no commensurate benefit. The student loans that SUAGM persuades its students to
take out frequently are unmanageable and result in default. This destroys credit ratings, which is
especially harmful in Latino communities because they have traditionally been denied equal access to
credit. This significantly impedes these students’ ability to obtain credit and find employment in future
years. SUAGM’s practices make it harder for these students to buy a car or a home, or to take out
loans for a legitimate education that will improve their economic opportunities. Impaired credit also
makes it harder to find a job because employers often obtain credit reports as part of background
checks.
155. In addition to the detailed allegations regarding my experiences at SUAGM/Agmus
Ventures, I would be able to acquire a multitude of declarations from former and current
students to corroborate my allegations and further demonstrate Defendant’s consistent pattern
or practice of unlawful activity.
VII. EXPERIENCE OF PLAINTIFF
156. It was not until well after graduation that I learned that (1) I attended for-profit college
Agmus Ventures, Inc. (2) I attended a program that did not provide eligibility to work in public schools
(3) Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model® is the "first of its kind", not backed by any
evidence, and, at best, appropriate for elementary schools.
157. The Defendant not only causes a disparate impact from “disparate discrimination”, but
Defendant also engages in “intentional discrimination”. The Defendant’s practice of Reverse
Redlining is calculated and deliberate. Targeted research was done, along with feasibility studies, in
order to define target market for marketing machine that was channeled very specifically. "Equally
effective alternative practices" were available that would have resulted in less disproportionality, but
Defendant studied, calculated, and intended to bring their predatory enrollment specifically to Latinos
and the poor.

158. I learned about the school by marketing on Spanish-language television commercials.
When I contacted the school, I was pressured to enroll by fraudulent and predatory marketing. Many
blatant lies induced me to enroll. I enrolled because I was promised (1) professional career (2)
proficiency in English (3) validation of my Psychology degree & credits from University of Havana,
Cuba. (4) eligibility to become a licensed Psychologist (5) an education from Sistema Universitario
Ana G Mendez in the form of a non-profit, licensed, and accredited education.
159. It is especially noteworthy that as a newly arrived immigrant from Cuba with a lack of
knowledge of the education system in United States, I fully relied on Defendant’s promises and claims,
which induced me to enroll in a predatory student loan. I was deliberately misled as Defendant stressed
to me their institutional accreditation while deliberately not disclosing the lack of programmatic
accreditation. I also was deliberately misled as it is stressed to you that you are attending an
established institution with 60+ years of history, rather than Agmus Ventures for-profit college formed
only in 2003. I was even shown a very abstract graph that falsely shows that tuition/price at SUAGM
was very low in comparison to other colleges. Defendant makes representations that are knowingly
false to prospective students to induce them to enroll.
160. I later was promised (1) eligibility to work as a licensed Guidance Counselor in Florida
public schools (2) a valid internship per state requirements (3) an education that meets state
requirements for Guidance & Counseling.
161. I, Yelanis Brook, was a student in the Guidance & Counseling, Master in Education
Program – I began on February 16, 2011 and graduated on June 25, 2013. I was a stellar student. The
school put me in a television commercial since I was a star student. My GPA was perfect at 4.0. One
of my primary missions in life has been to help people. My dream was to continue my Psychology
career here in United States in order to continue to help people, as I previously did for many years in
Cuba. I arrived in United States from Cuba on September 10, 2009. I learned about Sistema
Universitario Ana G. Mendez through commercials on Spanish-language channels. I contacted

Defendant after only 11 months in United States, as a newly arrived immigrant, when I agreed to attend
classes after I would acquire my residency. I then began class 6 months later (only 17 months after
arrival to United States).
162. I was given an “English Assessment Exam” by Defendant prior to admittance to
graduate program. I scored at 11th percentile for English Reading and 13th percentile for English
Language Use. It is not clear how Defendant permitted me to enter a graduate-level program,
especially one that required me to pass many state license (FTCE) exams that are only given in English
in order to work in the field of study.
163. The lies & manipulation continued throughout my enrollment, and even after graduation
in my efforts to resolve this situation directly with the school.
164. During enrollment, there were many fraudulent misrepresentations made in group
meetings with my classmates. The school portrayed itself in words and actions very explicitly as a
State-Approved Educator Preparation Program. As one example, one meeting was focused on a
“sudden change in requirements from Florida Department of Education” (I later realized that this was a
trick to help SUAGM avoid internship requirement in public school). Myself and my colleagues were
kept in a state of mystery and as we pushed for answers and certainty the school continued to deceive
us that we would be eligible for state education certificate to work in public schools.
165. After graduating on 6/25/13, I later went to Hillsborough Department of Education on
10/10/13 and was told that I need a valid internship that must be in a public school K-12, and that the
university is responsible to plan the internship. I realized that my previous internship, completed as a
project/presentation in the SUAGM school library, was not valid. That same day, 10/10/13, I went
directly to the school and began a long process of pursuing the school to provide me with a valid
internship. (at the time, I did not realize that the bigger problem is that the school is not a State
Approved Educator Preparation Program – i.e., with or without a valid internship I would not be
eligible to work in public schools).

166. Both myself and Maria Arizala pleaded and pleaded with the school to provide a valid
internship. Defendant initially ignored our emails and calls, and they later provided unreasonable
excuses – until finally a second internship was provided – again, an invalid internship that completely
wasted my time while working as a “volunteer” while pregnant. SUAGM specifically confirmed by
email two separate times that this second internship would indeed be eligible per Department of
Education standards for the purpose of obtaining the required education certificate from the state of
Florida.
167. The Defendant’s fraud is particularly cruel and callous as they manipulated me to work
while pregnant under the false pretense of a valid internship. Even though I was pregnant, I pushed
myself to complete the second internship since I was promised it was an eligible internship and only
was making sacrifices to try and better my future.
168. Well after graduation, I was motivated by a news story regarding fraud at a college in
Florida, which led to Google searches for the Tampa Campus physical address and phone number.
These searches led to the initial discovery of Agmus Ventures, Inc.
169. It was not until further research, in May of 2015, that it was realized that I attended a
program that is not approved by Florida Department of Education, and therefore is ineligible to obtain
Florida Educator Certificate and ineligible to obtain license to work as Guidance Counselor in Florida.
170. Welcome Letter given to me states that I have access to catalogs, academic programs &
courses, institutional regulations & policies, academic progress rules, and important information ON
OUR WEBSITE, WWW.SUAGM.EDU/FLORIDA – this shows that Defendant makes an effort to do
business verbally, without proper written disclosures to inform students. The suagm.edu website does
not have proper disclosures, but acts more as a sales portal. Rather than be conscientious in trying to
inform students and provide proper disclosures, Defendant makes a conscious effort to hide the
necessary disclosures that should be made.
171. Yelanis was an outstanding student and received many accolades. Her GPA was a
perfect 4.0. Edwin DeJesus states in his recommendation letter that Yelanis “performed exceptionally
well” and “continues to impress me with her knowledge, skill, and dedication to her work”, noting that
“each year I notice that only a few outstanding students offer a unique perspective and really embrace
their learning of the subject matter.”
172. Shortly after graduation, I was put on television to showcase that I was an outstanding
student. I pointed out that “I did not know how the education system works in United States...Ana G
Mendez showed me step-by-step how to understand the process, which is very difficult for many
Latinos.” This is further proof that I RELIED on information provided by Defendant to me, an
immigrant without knowledge or experience of the education system in U.S when I enrolled.
173. Two of my professors had great things to say about me, as they commented on the video
that was shared on Facebook. George Suarez states “Wow! Our Yelanis – great example of excellence,
both personal and professional.” Adriana Oberhausen states “Yelanis Brook – you are a proud Latina!”
Both of these comments were made on 8/15/13, less than two months after graduation.
174. Yelanis was recognized in a ceremony with Director Yvonne Cadiz as an “Outstanding
Student” on 7/14/13. This was featured in the newspaper and includes a photo of Yelanis.
175. My complaints to SUAGM were answered with further lies and manipulation to hide the
misrepresentation that the school is not a State-Approved Educator Preparation Program. My initial
complaints resulted in me being manipulated to work while pregnant as a "volunteer" in a second
ineligible internship, while being assured that the internship was state-approved for education
certificate.
176. SUAGM continued to mislead me and conceal material facts from me, well after
graduation. For example, SUAGM assured me that the “official letter” given to me on 4/2/14 would
enable me to work in public schools, which fooled me into believing my second internship was valid.
Meeting with Ramon Nieves, SUAGM/Agmus Ventures Director of Licensing and Accreditation at
U.S. Campuses on 12/10/14, was more of the same – more misleading statements and more
concealment of material facts.
177. SUAGM modus operandi of handling complaints is to accept zero responsibility and to
attack the student by faulting them and blaming them as the responsible party. My complaints also
resulted in SUAGM attorneys contacting me in an effort to intimidate me. My response was that I have
not done anything illegal and that I am demanding answers directly from SUAGM. SUAGM
administration then attempts to insulate themselves by surrounding themselves with numerous
attorneys (for example, a conference call with Agmus Ventures COO and three SUAGM attorneys). I
have pushed for SUAGM to directly provide me with answers, but they continue to push
communication to their attorneys. I have no other recourse then to present this case to the court system
in this formal complaint. The illegal activities stated in this complaint have been previously sent to
SUAGM President Jose F. Mendez Jr., Agmus Ventures President Luis J. Zayas, and University Turabo
President/Agmus Ventures Officer Denis Alicea, neither of whom replied or have shown any interest in
correcting the situation.
VIII. INJURY TO PLAINTIFF
178. I completely wasted years of my life in exchange for student loan, worthless degree, and
two worthless internships.
179. The Defendant’s for-profit college scheme has caused me past, present, and future
injuries and suffering, such as mental and emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of past
wages due to time spent studying at SUAGM and working at two ineligible internships, loss of future
wages due to ineligibility to work in public schools as guidance counselor due to SUAGM breaching an
implied-in-fact contract, and unnecessary student loans in excess of $40,000, as a direct, foreseeable,
and proximate result of Defendant’s intentional, malicious, callous, reckless actions. All of the above
financial, mental, and emotional damages were and continue to be further exacerbated due to receiving
a major setback at a critical time in my life as a recent immigrant only 11 months newly-arrived in U.S.
It is especially egregious that Defendant continued their deceptive and dishonest scheme during my
pregnancy, manipulating me to work while pregnant as a volunteer at a second ineligible internship. I
have completed requirements of degree program, graduated with 4.0 GPA, and completed two
internships through SUAGM – the non-performance of contract by SUAGM prevents me from working
in public schools as guidance counselor and has resulted in wage loss.
180. Defendant was especially malicious, callous, and intentional as they knew that their
reckless fraud would cause immense harm to me – especially as they knew that I was wasting my time
and efforts to ultimately be unable to practice in field of study since the education provided is
inadequate, insufficient, and unable to meet Florida Department of Education Requirements and,
therefore, leaves me with a very large student debt with no income to support that debt.
IX. CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I – Violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.
181. Plaintiff Yelanis Brook realleges and incorporates by reference all of the allegations set
forth in paragraphs 1 through 180 above
182. Defendant is a “creditor” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1691a(e).
183. Plaintiff has been an “applicant” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1691a(b) when she
has applied for an extension, renewal, or continuation of student loans.
184. Defendant’s acts, policies, and practices are intentionally discriminatory against Latinos
with respect to aspects of credit transactions, constitute reverse redlining, and violate 15 U.S.C. §
1691(a)(1).
185. Defendant’s acts, policies, and practices disparately impact Latinos with respect to
aspects of credit transactions in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1).
Count II – Violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
forth in paragraphs 1 through 185 above
187. Defendant receives “Federal financial assistance” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
2000d as the recipient of its students’ federal financial aid dollars.
188. Upon information and belief, Defendant Sistema Universitario Ana G Mendez, in its
own name or doing business as SUAGM or one of the school’s alternative names, has entered into one
or more Program Participation Agreements with the United States Department of Education pursuant to
34 C.F.R. § 668.14 in which it explicitly acknowledges, inter alia, that it must comply with Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
189. Defendant’s acts, policies, and practices are intentionally discriminatory against Latinos,
subject Latinos to intentional discrimination in Defendant’s programs and activities, constitute reverse
redlining, and violate 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.
Count III – Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S. §501.201 et
seq.
forth in paragraphs 1 through 189 above.
191. Plaintiff is a “consumer” within the meaning of F.S. §501.203(7)
192. The benefits and professional opportunities that Defendant promised to Plaintiff are
“things of value” within the meaning of F.S. §501.203(9)
193. Defendant engages in “trade or commerce” within the meaning of F.S. §501.203(8).
194. Defendant committed fraudulent acts or practices with respect to Plaintiff’s enrollment
that constitute “unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable trade practices” in violation of F.S. §501.204(1)
Count IV – Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract
196. Contractual basis is sufficient by Defendant providing instruction. However, as a factual
matter, the SUAGM School Catalogs for Florida campuses, Education Internship Handbook for Florida
Campuses, and various handouts provided in group meetings laid out the basis of the relative
obligations of the students and the university. SUAGM further confirmed on two separate occasions by
email that they were providing eligibility for state education certificate.
197. In this case there was a contract. The contract was understood to mean that for the
payment of tuition and the attainment of the required academic and professional standards the graduate
would be able to practice as a guidance counselor in Florida public schools. In fact, Defendant
unequivocally indicated to me in writing, verbally, and in action that if I completed the program then I
would be eligible to practice as a guidance counselor in public schools. This sets a standard for
damages.
198. Case precedents show that the terms and conditions for graduation are those offered by
the publications of the college “as such they have some of the characteristics of a contract between the
parties and are sometimes subject to civil remedies in courts of law”. Stetson v. Hunt (1924);
University of Miami v. Militana (1966); Sharick v. Southeastern University (2000). Those case
precedents show that the implied-in-fact contract became the basis of the relationship between the
university and the student.
199. SUAGM has breached an implied-in-fact contract and is at fault for preventing Plaintiff
from working in public schools as a guidance counselor. Yelanis Brook has completed requirements of
degree program, graduated with 4.0 GPA, and completed two internships through SUAGM. Due to
SUAGM non-performance of contract, Yelanis cannot work in public schools as guidance counselor.
Plaintiff has the right to damages for future wage loss.
200. A conservative estimate of future wage loss resulting from lost career is $70,000 per
year X 20 years = $1,400,000. This loss of earning capacity would have been avoided if Defendant
would have provided eligibility to work in Florida public schools, as SUAGM unequivocally promised.
Count V – Fraudulent Inducement to Contract

202. Defendant, to induce me to enter contract with Sistema Universidad Ana G Mendez /
Universidad de Turabo, made positive statements of fact regarding the education to be provided that
were false, material to the contract, and which I relied upon in deciding to enroll at SUAGM.
203. I was specifically told that my enrollment would lead to eligibility to work as a licensed
Psychologist in U.S., which would have enabled me to continue my previous career in Cuba (note that
later, after enrollment, I was promised eligibility to work as guidance counselor in public schools).
Many false statements were made regarding the Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model®.
I also was promised that SUAGM would validate my Psychology degree & credits from University of
Havana, Cuba. I also was assured that I would be attending SUAGM, an accredited, licensed college
with over 60 years of history – rather than unlicensed, unaccredited for-profit college Agmus Ventures,
Inc.
204. Defendant knew that its false statements regarding the education to be provided were
false at the time they were made and did not intend that SUAGM would satisfy the statements at the
time they were made.
X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff respectfully prays that the Court grant the following relief on behalf of herself and for the
protection of the Latino community:
(i) Enter a declaratory judgment that the foregoing acts, policies, and practices of
Defendant violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq; violate Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq; violate the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act; constitute Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract; and constitute Fraudulent Inducement to
Contract.
(ii) Enter an injunction enjoining Defendant and their directors, officers, agents and

Brook V Sistema Universitario Ana G Mendez Flmdce-17-00171 0001-0

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Brook V Sistema Universitario Ana G Mendez Flmdce-17-00171 0001-0

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 8:17-cv-00171-JSM-AAS Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 53 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G. MENDEZ, INC., a Puerto Rico non-profit corporation

Filed January 23, 2017 - English Complaint - Page 1 of 53

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

V. EXPLOITATION OF LATINOS & LOW-INCOME BY SHAM CAMPUSES

A. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO

VI. DEFENDANT ENGAGES IN “REVERSE REDLINING” BY TARGETING

VII. EXPERIENCE OF PLAINTIFF

VIII. INJURY TO PLAINTIFF

IX. CAUSES OF ACTION

X. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

XI. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1. I am a fraud victim of unlicensed, unaccredited for-profit college by the name of Agmus

Academic Content, Delivery of Academic Programs, CACREP Accreditation, Internship, Entry/Exit

Requirements, Facilities, Libraries, Technology, Mission, History, and Intellectual Development.

well as looking at statistics from internal document “Strategic Guides 2011-2015”.

3. Defendant’s predatory marketing exploits Latinos, poor, and desperate immigrants to

even disseminated through internet, television, and newspaper.

4. Defendant is especially egregious in that the victims of worthless degrees in exchange

women, average age is 38 years old.

5. Defendant is engaged in a pattern or practice of specifically and intentionally targeting

television channels Univision and Telemundo, advertising on Spanish-language radio stations,

advertising in Spanish-language newspapers; advertising online at Univision and Telemundo websites;

been on the list of State-Approved Educator Preparation Programs, found at:

8. Defendant’s actions are especially egregious since actions were premeditated,

emphasis on the elementary-level dual-language program, complete lack of academic content/books,

no course materials to study.

to students, per 34 CFR 668.5(e) & 668.43(a)(12).

14. Documents submitted to accreditation agency, prepared by SUAGM, specifically hide

Ventures U.S. campuses from 2004-2015.

damages for future wage loss.

Agmus Ventures, Inc.

I am Latino and 38 years old.

20. SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G. MENDEZ (hereinafter “SUAGM”) is a Puerto

21. AGMUS VENTURES, INC. (hereinafter “AVI”) is a Delaware for-profit corporation

Defendant uses Agmus Ventures, Inc. as an instrument for fraud.

22. Defendant is deemed to reside in Tampa, FL under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Defendant is

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

question; and supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

A. Agmus Ventures, Inc. - Joint Venture

College was then investigated by U.S. Department of Justice).

B. Federal Title IV Funds

27. Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez is exceptionally dependent on federal financial

programs through Title IV Programs (under guise of parent, SUAGM).

hidden from accreditation and governmental regulation.

by U.S. Secretary of Education. SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G. MENDEZ Plaintiff, Appellant,

U.S. Department of Education-recognized body.

title IV, HEA program purposes.”

access to Title IV funds due to “substantial misrepresentation as described in 34 CFR §§ 668.72 or

accreditation of an institution or any of the institution's educational programs or locations”. This is

stated in 34 CFR 668.83(c)(2)(ii)(A) and 34 CFR 668.83(c)(2)(iii)(C)(2).

34. 34 CFR §668.72 – Prohibited Misrepresentations by institutions that receive Title IV

objectives” (Discipline-Based Dual Language Immersion Model®). “appropriateness of its courses

35. 34 CFR §668.74 Prohibited Misrepresentations by institutions that receive Title IV

Employability of Graduates – “false, erroneous, or misleading statements concerning: “requirements

authorized training leading directly to employment”.

permission to use the OP-EID of their parent.

family member, while violating FERPA themselves.

instrumentality of the parent.

requires repayment of Title IV Funds from an ineligible program.

even disseminated through internet, television, and newspaper.