The role of the State Bar, acting throughits examining committee, is to “certify to the Supreme Court for admission” the application of any individual who meets the requirements to practice law in California. Greene v. Zank (1980) Cal. App. 3d 497, 505; see also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6064 (“[T]he Supreme Court may admit such applicant as an attorney at law”after certification by the examining committee.”). The State Bar has no independent authority to deny an applicant admission to the Bar. Hustedt v. Workers Compensation Appeals Bd. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 329, 339; see also Cal. Rules of the State Bar, rule 4.9. Thus, although the Baris clearly involved in the processing of 13 applicationsto practice law, it in no way “provide[s]” the license within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1621(c).° Courts are virtually never considered to be agencies.

The applicant must establish that he has good moral character.13 Again, the Committee’s decision is only a recommendation,14 as the California Supreme Court retains its authority to admit individuals to practice.15 California provides constitutionally sufficient procedural due process in admissions and discipline.16 If the Committee determines that the applicant does not have good moral character, he has the right to several levels of review. First, he may partake in a State Bar Court Hearing Department17 formal evidentiary hearing.18 Second, the State Bar Court Review Department19 then conducts an independent de novo review.20 Third, the California Supreme Court reviews petitions from applicants refused certification.21 The California Supreme Court review follows 11 See Rules Regulating Admission to Practice Law in California, rule I, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6064. See also Green v. Zank 158 Cal.App.3d 497, 505 (1984).