Ruling Could Provide 2nd Chance at Amnesty for Some Illegal Aliens

A U.S. District Court judge in Sacramento issued a ruling Tuesday that could lead to a reopening of the amnesty application process for many illegal aliens--including many welfare mothers--who had been rejected or discouraged from applying.

A lawyer for plaintiffs in the case said that the decision could result in thousands of new amnesty applicants, many of them undocumented women who have been receiving federal welfare benefits for their U.S.-citizen children.

“Many people were told they weren’t eligible simply because they were receiving benefits,” said Beth Zacovic, an attorney with the Legal Aid Society in San Mateo County, which represented the six plaintiffs.

The one-year amnesty application period expired on May 5, after some 1.8 million people applied for legal status nationwide, but the Sacramento case is one of a number of federal court challenges seeking to reopen the period for certain groups who maintain they were wrongly denied the opportunity to apply. Tuesday’s ruling is the latest legal setback for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service as the lawsuits work their way through the courts.

Specifics of the ruling were still murky Tuesday afternoon, but a clerk for U.S. District Judge Edward J. Garcia confirmed that the judge had signed an order granting the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction ordering the INS to revise its procedures regarding so-called “public charge” applicants. The judge also certified the plaintiffs as a class, meaning the ruling applied to potential applicants throughout the West.

Judge Garcia gave attorneys for both sides 20 days to work out a procedure for implementing the order--an effort that could prove daunting. Complicating the matter, Zacovic said, is the fact that many of those affected were discouraged from applying and never submitted formal amnesty applications. “I really don’t know how many people we’ll be able to reach,” he said. “That’s a real concern of ours.”

A more accessible group, she said, are the unknown number of undocumented immigrants whose applications were denied or put on hold because the applicants were deemed likely to be public charges. Their names are on record with the INS and the order requires the agency to reconsider those cases, Zacovic said.

Public Charge Exception

John Belluardo, an INS spokesman in Los Angeles, said he had yet to see the ruling and could not comment.

At issue is the amnesty law’s public charge exception, which excludes from eligibility applicants who were likely to rely on the government for future support. In implementing the statute, the INS issued regulations stating that “past acceptance of public cash assistance” would constitute a “significant factor” in determining whether an application would be rejected.

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs contended that the INS interpreted the public charge exception too broadly, resulting in the disqualification and discouragement of many applicants, notably mothers receiving federal welfare payments for children born in the United States.