Deportations Blocked Until INS Gives New Interviews to 23,000

A federal judge Monday blocked deportation proceedings against an estimated 23,000 immigrants who have applied for asylum in Los Angeles, saying they must be granted new interviews before immigration authorities to assure they receive a fair hearing.

U.S. District Judge Terry Hatter issued the order, effective over the next 90 days, in response to complaints from immigrants rights groups that asylum applications by immigrants from war-torn Central America are being summarily denied by the Immigration and Naturalization Service after only cursory review.

Under the order, the INS will not be able to launch deportation proceedings against thousands of immigrants whose applications are pending unless they are given a new chance to make their case.

“It obviously has enormous impact on all the people who have applied for asylum in L.A. since June of 1988,” said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lucas Guttentag.

The issue arose after INS officials in Los Angeles, confronted with a large backlog of asylum applications, formed a new task force to handle the applications as expeditiously as possible.

In a complaint filed earlier this year, the National Center for Immigrants Rights alleged that applicants were being rushed through the process without any meaningful chance to argue that they faced persecution in their homelands.

“What they basically did was they set up a system that made their pre-judgment that the cases were frivolous a self-fulfilling prophecy,” Guttentag said. “They just rushed these people through in two-, three-, four-minute interviews . . . . What they really did was kind of eliminate the affirmative asylum process in L.A.”

In court papers, immigrants rights groups complained that applicants were given no access to interpreters. They also alleged that INS officials conducting the interviews often seemed unfamiliar with the regulations governing asylum applications.

In a deposition of one of the interviewers attached to the plaintiffs’ exhibits, attorneys cited the interviewer’s responses when asked about the Supreme Court’s holding that asylum applicants must demonstrate only a “well-founded fear of persecution.”

“When you say, ‘well-founded fear of persecution,’ do you have a definition in your own mind as to what well-founded means?” the interviewer was asked.

“No, I don’t,” she replied.

“Or fear means?”

“No, I don’t,” she said.

“In determining whether a fear is well-founded, do you have a set of criteria which you apply?”

“Personal idea,” she replied.

Assistant U.S. Atty. George Wu, representing the INS, said the asylum review task force has already eliminated the backlog of asylum applications and new interview procedures are going into effect, which should alleviate the plaintiffs’ concerns.

But Wu denied that applicants in recent months have been unfairly limited. “Most of the interviewers never limited the amount of time they gave to an applicant. If it needed an hour, they would give them an hour,” he said.

The INS had argued there was no need to issue a preliminary injunction. Any applicants who were denied asylum and are subject to deportation proceedings already can make their asylum request anew before an immigration judge, Wu said.