Board hears two reinstatement petitions; deliberation deferred to closed session

The California State Board of Barbering and Cosmetology heard two petitions for reinstatement of professional licenses on May 19, 2025, considering the cases of Angelina Leon Pedraza (cosmetologist) and Francisco Lemus (barber). Both petitioners testified and answered questions from the deputy attorney general and board members; the board closed the hearings and deferred decisions to a closed-session deliberation.

Pedraza, who was represented herself at the Office of Administrative Hearings portion of the proceeding, testified about family obligations and past business operations as she sought reinstatement of a cosmetologist license revoked in 2018. Deputy Attorney General Kevin J. Sheddick summarized the agency’s file for the board during the hearing, and noted that Pedraza’s record included a previous stipulated surrender of an establishment license, multiple citations and a revocation following a default when she did not appear at an earlier proceeding. Sheddick also told the panel that the burden for reinstatement is “by clear and convincing evidence.”

Petitioner Angelina Pedraza described personal circumstances she said limited her ability to respond earlier, said she had taken a rules-and-regulations class in Santa Ana and provided several character letters, and repeatedly told the board that she wanted to return to work primarily in senior-care settings. Board members pressed her on specifics including whether she had been paid for services while revoked and whether she had completed rehabilitation steps required under the California Code of Regulations. The record shows the board’s file lists eight prior citations and an outstanding balance of $5,195 in fines and cost recovery that must be paid before a license could be issued.

Francisco Lemus separately petitioned to reinstate a barber license also revoked in 2018. The board’s summary of his case showed two citations in 2017 and a default decision after the petitioner failed to file a notice of defense during an earlier action; Lemus later moved to vacate the default, and his most recent petition for reinstatement was previously denied in 2022. Lemus told the panel he has since stopped cutting hair, operates a party-supply business and would seek to work as an employee in a shop if reinstated. He said he had not completed additional barbering-specific remedial training since the revocation but expressed remorse and a desire to re-enter the field.

After questioning and public testimony, the administrative law judge closed the record in both matters. No formal votes or final orders were read into the public record at the meeting; board members said they would deliberate in closed session and issue written decisions later. Both matters therefore remain pending with no board action recorded at the public meeting.

Why it matters: Reinstatement petitions prompt the board to weigh public-safety concerns against evidence of rehabilitation. The hearings included specific factual records — prior citations, inspection findings and outstanding money owed to the board — that will frame the panel’s closed‑session deliberations and any future conditions the board may attach to a reinstatement.

What’s next: The board moved both matters to closed session for deliberation and will issue written decisions by the timeframes set under administrative hearing rules. The public record remains closed until the board’s final mailed decision.