Judge Tells INS to Extend Amnesty Period

A federal judge Friday ordered the Immigration and Naturalization Service to accept late amnesty applications from as many as 100,000 aliens, who the agency had ruled ineligible for the program because they briefly left the United States.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton in Sacramento ruled that the application period for the program, which ended May 5, shall be extended to Nov. 30 for aliens who were denied amnesty or discouraged from applying because of the INS rule. The new deadline coincides with the final day of a special amnesty program for agricultural workers.

In another ruling in the same case last month, Karlton declared invalid the INS rule that required aliens applying for amnesty to obtain the agency’s permission before leaving the country for “brief, casual and innocent” trips anytime during the one-year amnesty application period. Karlton ruled that Congress intended the law to allow for such departures and required the agency to determine on a case-by-case basis whether an absence met the “brief, casual and innocent” criteria.

Karlton’s ruling came in a 1986 national, class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of Catholic Social Services and other public-interest groups. It was the first of many court challenges to INS’ implementation of the amnesty program.

‘Major Victory’

Immigrants rights lawyers involved in the case called Karlton’s ruling “a major victory.”

“It’s the first broad reopening of the amnesty application period for a large group,” said Ralph Santiago Abascal, general counsel for California Rural Legal Assistance, which assisted plaintiffs in the suit. While other court rulings throughout the country have ordered extensions, they have generally been more limited and affected smaller groups.

Abascal said he believes the INS will appeal the ruling. INS officials could not be reached for comment.

The Sacramento suit presented numerous examples of potential applicants who had been disqualified by the INS rule, including the case of a 12-year-old San Ysidro boy who lost his eligibility when he crossed into Tijuana to visit his barber, as he had done for years.

Peter Schey of the National Center for Immigrants Rights Inc. of Los Angeles, a lead attorney in the suit, said many of the cases involved aliens who routinely crossed the border and were largely unaware that the crossings would cost them the chance to apply for amnesty.

A woman from Harlingen, Tex., for instance, crossed the border for three hours to visit her mother on Mother’s Day and was surprised when her amnesty application was denied because of it, Schey said.

A San Francisco woman, who had lived there with her brother for nine years, lost her eligibility after her brother died and she returned to Mexico for four days to deliver her brother’s body to their parents, Schey said.

‘Great Reluctance’

Only one request in the lawsuit was denied by Karlton, according to Schey. Karlton concluded with “great reluctance” that he did not have the authority to allow aliens who had been apprehended and deported to return to apply for amnesty, even if they had been denied admittance to the United States after “brief, innocent and casual” trips.

Nevertheless, Schey estimated that the ruling will effect up to 100,000 aliens who remain in the country but did not apply for amnesty because of the INS absence rule.

In his ruling Karlton ordered that the INS search its records for applicants who were denied amnesty because of the brief absence rule and that their cases be reopened. If it appears that they are eligible for amnesty, they are to be allowed to stay in the country and provided with work permits, pending a final determination in their cases.

The INS was directed to develop rules on how to require aliens, who did not apply for amnesty before the May deadline, to show that they missed the opportunity because they knew they were ineligible under the INS rule on absences.

The judge also ordered the federal agency to prepare a plan for publicizing the order’s provisions.

Times staff writer Patrick McDonnell in San Diego contributed to this story.