Complaining that is being overwhelmed by the number of applications still coming in from aliens Claiming to be eligible for amnesty, the INS has asked the Ninth Circuit to modify the existing stays pending appeal in two legalization Class actions: Catholic Social Services, Inc. (CSS) v. Thornburgh, Nos. 8815-046, 8815-127, 8815-128, and league of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. INS, No. 886447. Directly involved are applications for work authorization and stays of deportation during the pendency of the appeals. To make matters worse, on June 28, 1990, the Ninth Circuit issued an order deferring decision in these cases until the Supreme Court issues its decision next term on the underlying jurisdictional issue in McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc., No. 891-332.3 By way of relief, the government’s August 2, 1990 motion asks the Court of Appeals to modify the existing stays by placing a 90day limit on the time within which remaining applications must be presented.
The two class actions have had a long and complicated development. Dissatisfied with various INS legalization regulations, plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. In both cases, the district court overruled the government’s jurisdictional objections ultimately issued orders invalidating the challenged regulations. The government appealed both decisions to the Ninth Circuit, which consolidated them for argument. To obtain a stay pending appeal, the government agreed to accept late legalization applications from class members. These, in tum, involve applications for employment authorization and stay of deportation.
In its argument in support of its motion, the government points to the burdens to which it is subjected by the present stays pending appeal. For one thing, these stays are open ended, and there is no time limit within which aliens who claim to be class members must apply. An unanticipated large number (over 74,000) have already applied, almost 4,000 new applications come in every week, and the number appears to be escalating recently. Since the jurisdictional issue must await the Supreme Counts ruling in McNary, which will not come down before the beginning of 1991 at the earliest, the present opened stays will result in many more new filings. To make matters worse, the CSS stay does not permit the INS to collect application fees from late filers. This has cost the INS $7 million in fees, which might have gone far to provide resources needed to handle the applications. Finally, there is increasing evidence of fraudulent applications, which places additional burdens on the INS. All of these factors, argues the INS, establish a pressing need to modify the pending stays to provide a 90day cutoff for further applications.
On August 20 the appeals filed a response opposing the government’s motion. According to Steve Rosenbaum, one of plaintiffs’ counsel, the response asks the court to modify the stay but for a different reason from the government’s. The Response cites numerous examples where the INS has obstructed legalization applicants by, for example, requiring greater documentation than necessary and imposing long waiting periods. Mr. Rosenbaum said that the response asks the court to order the Service to streamline the process.
In a related development, immigrants’ rights organizations held a news conference in Los Angeles on August 9 to denounce the high level of fraud spawned by confusion over who may qualify for legalization under the two lawsuits. According to these organizations, thousands of undocumented aliens are being victimized by unscrupulous notaries and others who delude the aliens into applying for so called “new amnesty.” According to one account, some of these ‘operations in the Los Angeles area charge up to $2,000 per amnesty applicant.2 In New York City, has sued the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) for helping aliens file fraudulent amnesty applications.
Some advocates are concerned that the INS may be using this high level of fraud as an excuse to deny legitimate applications. Cesar Noriega Pena, an attomey in Los Angeles, charged that many more persons qualify under CSS and LULAC than the INS claims. According to Service officials, of the 5,456 CSS and LULAC applications handled in July in Los Angeles, only 243 actually qualify for amnesty.4
Mr. Noriega Pena also complained of “shoddy” treatment of applications by the INS, which has consolidated amnesty applications in the Los Angeles area into its Hollywood office, For example, he noted, the Service has not issued written denials in certain cases, and has demanded more documentation than required for LULAC cases, which require only “skeletal” applications.
Article extracted from this publication >> September 28, 1990
