Courts Give Some Reprieves on Amnesty Deadline

Federal courts in New York and Washington, as part of a series of decisions around the nation providing reprieves for some illegal aliens, ruled Wednesday that some aliens could have extra time beyond Wednesday’s midnight deadline to seek legal residency.

Immigration lawyers cited these cases and others as examples of the protracted legal struggle that will continue to rage even after the end of the one-year amnesty program. Estimates of those potentially affected range from 100,000 to half a million, although no one really knows.

In Washington, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia extended the filing period to Aug. 31 for illegal immigrants nationwide who failed to file for amnesty because they were “misled directly or indirectly” by the Immigration and Naturalization Service or private agencies.

This group, estimated to be at least 50,000, is made up of people--mainly students and tourists--who came to the country legally but then violated the terms of their visas.

Until recently, they had been told that they could not qualify for the legalization program because their illegal status was not “known to the government.” The court broadened the definition of government knowledge, ruling that the aliens could be known to any government agency, not just to the INS.

In New York, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order extending the program two weeks for some New York aliens. The ruling came in response to a state suit that cited confusion over whether the program applied to parents of children born in the United States and receiving welfare.

The New York case centered on a provision in the 1986 immigration law that prohibited people on welfare from applying for amnesty. The INS ruled at one time that parents of children receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children were ineligible but later reversed itself. In the meantime, however, many people were confused and failed to file.

The order, which covers an estimated 2,000 people, extends the program until the week of May 16, when a hearing will be held on the state’s petition for a 60-day extension.

In most instances, those filing the cases are requesting that U.S. authorities be required to publicize any court-ordered deadline extensions or other changes, as well as notifying newly eligible amnesty-seekers whose applications were rejected. Underlying the plethora of legal challenges is a widespread belief among immigrant advocate groups that the INS has imposed an extremely narrow definition on the 1986 immigration law.

“It’s going to be a while before it’s over,” said Crystal Williams, an attorney with the American Immigration Lawyers Assn. in Washington.

While the amnesty program is expected to attract 1.5 million applicants, Williams said, the litigation, in cases from New York to California, “could cover another half million people.”

INS officials attempted to play down the long-term significance of Wednesday’s rulings and those likely to follow.

“The program has operated very well and fairly,” INS spokesman Verne Jervis said. “There’s not been a lot of room to challenge it.”

In another case, U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton has already voided an INS rule that left undocumented immigrants ineligible for amnesty if they left the United States without permission since May 1, 1987. Immigrants’ rights groups are seeking to expand the application period for this group until next Nov. 30. Karlton, who called for a “case by case” review of such cases, has yet to outline his remedy.

The number of people affected by Karlton’s ruling could be large, particularly in U.S.-Mexico border areas where residents frequently cross back and forth.

‘Emergency’ Absences

Another pending case before Karlton also involves absences from the United States. Attorneys are challenging the INS’s interpretation of a rule that prevents foreigners from receiving amnesty if, since 1982, they have been away from the United States for more than 45 days at any one time or have been away for a total of 180 days. Plaintiffs maintain that the INS has not notified applicants of the possibility of waivers in cases of “emergency” absences--such as returning home for the death of a relative.

Another legal challenge is pending before U.S. District Judge Edward Garcia in Sacramento. That suit seeks to extend the amnesty application deadline for certain applicants who have been ruled ineligible for amnesty--or discouraged from applying--because they could not demonstrate “financial responsibility,” said Beth Zacovic, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County.

The suit, Zacovic explained, generally involves immigrants who received some form of government assistance, such as welfare, for dependants who are U.S. citizens. A recent study, she noted, indicated that there may be as many as 16,000 households in Los Angeles County in which U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants received federal welfare payments.

“Congress intended this to be a generous program,” Zacovic said. “It’s not fair to exclude people just because they were in a desperate financial situation.”

Lee May reported from Washington and Patrick McDonnell from San Diego.