WASHINGTON: The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether lower federal courts improperly extended the deadline for undocumented aliens seeking amnesty to remain in the United States. The Court will hear a Bush administration appeal that according to INS could affect the fates of more than 300,000 undocumented immigrants. The administration said that the lower courts exceeded their authority in extending the deadline for people to apply under the amnesty program, At issue are provisions of IRCA which permit immigrants to win amnesty if they were out of the country since 1982 for “brief, casual and innocent absences.” The INS initially interpreted that provision to ban amnesty eligibility for those who had left the U.S. without INS permission after the 1986 law took effect, The INS also held that undocumented aliens who left the country anytime since 1982 and returned using phony entry papers would be ineligible for amnesty. The registration period for applying for amnesty ended May 4,1988.
Two federal judges in California effectively extended the eligibility deadline indefinitely after immigration rights groups sued to strike down the INS policies limiting casual absences. The INS since has changed those policies. But the Bush administration continued to challenged the power of the courts to extend the amnesty eligibility deadline.
The 9th Circuit ruled against the government last February. The appeals court said the INS must consider the amnesty applications of more than 300,000 illegal aliens who have been out of the country briefly since 1982. That court found that Congress clearly intended for undocumented aliens to have meaningful opportunities to apply for amnesty. The INS’s erroneous interpretation of IRCA deprived the aliens of the full 12month application period Congress had provided.
The government in its appeal claims that the 9th Circuit’s ruling would force INS to examine on an individual basis more than 300,000 applications to consider whether their failure to seek relief in a timely manner was caused by INS’ invalid regulations.
Article extracted from this publication >> Aug 28, 1992
