Protracted Amnesty Suits Raise Immigrants’ Hopes : Courts: At the lone remaining office, applicants continue to file years after program’s deadline. They say the INS illegally barred them from applying.

More than five years after the application deadline for illegal immigrants seeking amnesty, hundreds of hopeful beneficiaries clutching documents daily besiege an Eastside mall that houses the government’s last amnesty office.

“I heard on the radio about this amnistia tardia (late amnesty) so I thought that I’d give it a try,” said Claudio Garcia, a Mexican-born city street vendor and father of four who turned up this week with his wife and children, all undocumented. “I missed out on the last amnesty, but maybe this time I’ll be more fortunate.”

He and others are among an expanding pool of about 350,000 illegal immigrants nationwide--more than one-third of them residents of Greater Los Angeles--who are seeking slots alongside those granted lawful status in 1987-88 in what U.S. authorities call the world’s largest immigration pardon. The initiative allowed more than 3 million formerly illegal immigrants to emerge from the shadow world of the indocumentado (undocumented), including about 1.6 million California residents.

The 350,000 people who are filing late contend they were illegally disqualified because of short-term absences from the United States during the amnesty litmus years of 1982-88. Applicants were required to show continuous U.S. residence during those years, but brief absences were permitted.

Today’s legions of those who are filing late--their aspirations often falsely buoyed by the prevalent confusion and misinformation about the erroneously dubbed “late amnesty”--are the legacy of more than six years of acrimonious litigation between the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and two immigrant advocacy groups, Catholic Social Services and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Two linked nationwide class-action lawsuits, brought by the organizations, are among the most potentially far-reaching legal challenges to U.S. immigration policy.

The Supreme Court, acting on a government appeal, remanded the cases to the lower courts last month for reconsideration, prolonging the uncertainty for hundreds of thousands immigrants and their families.

Federal authorities have tenaciously resisted activists’ efforts to open the now-expired amnesty application process to those excluded under the government’s allegedly restrictive reading of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, the landmark legislation that begat amnesty. In the meantime, courts have ordered the INS to accept provisional applications, swelling the backlogged late-filing queue to vast proportions.

During 1987-88, immigrants allege, clerks at INS offices and at facilities under contract to the agency discouraged many from applying, turning them away in a procedure known as “front-desking.” The lawsuits allege that front-desking was a deliberate attempt to exclude applicants--a charge denied by INS officials, who have described the rejection policy as a charitable effort to spare immigrants with deficient applications the $185 individual filing fee.

Federal district and appeals courts have sided with the immigrants, ruling that INS officials wrongly excluded legitimate applicants who were briefly out of the country.

Although the Supreme Court opinion last month skirted the central issues, the justices ruled that applicants who can prove they were front-desked may merit additional review.

The Supreme Court action set the stage for years of further legal squabbling in a dispute that has already cost taxpayers millions in legal and administrative costs and left hundreds of thousands of immigrants subject to deportation.

“It’s time to clean this mess up,” said Peter A. Schey, executive director of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, who is the lead attorney for the immigrants.

In a letter this week, advocates from more than 60 groups nationwide called on Atty. Gen. Janet Reno to seek an amicable settlement and end the uncertainty for eligible immigrants. Few of these longtime residents will return to their homelands, whatever happens to the litigation, said the activists, who noted that many of those who filed late had gained temporary legal status.

“Neither the national interest nor the interests of the INS will be well served by a decision to revert hundreds of thousands of people to undocumented status,” the letter stated, noting that city officials in Los Angeles, New York and Chicago endorse the applicants’ position.

Joe Krovisky, a spokesman for the Justice Department, parent body of the INS, would not comment on a possible settlement. “We’ll be starting all over again,” said Krovisky, who declined to provide details.

The government’s determination to appeal unfavorable lower court decisions has had the unintended effect of creating a de facto five-year extension of the initial yearlong amnesty sign-up period, which ended in 1988. And there is no end in sight, as the lines at the INS amnesty office demonstrate, creating an administrative nightmare for the service.

Ironically, authorities appealed earlier court-ordered amnesty application extensions that would have only prolonged the sign-up phase for up to six months. Lawyers estimate that about 50,000 people would have come forward under a six-month amnesty application extension, one-seventh of the population now under consideration.

Asked if government attorneys regretted their legal strategy, Paul Virtue, deputy general counsel for the INS, responded: “I don’t think anyone anticipated it would take this long.”

Schey said: “The INS, through its obstinacy and mismanagement, has squandered its limited resources and turned an extension of a few months into an extension of five years and counting.”

Government authorities defend the time-consuming appeals, citing what Virtue called rampant fraud among applicants, often abetted by profiteering attorneys and consultants who sell their services to immigrants seeking legal status.

But critics say wrongdoing is greatly exaggerated, citing government figures showing only 42 related fraud convictions among the initial 300,000 applications--fewer than 1 for every 7,000 cases. Moreover, advocates say legitimate amnesty-seekers should not be penalized for the activities of an unscrupulous few.

“Hogwash,” is how Juan Jose Gutierrez, executive director of One Stop Immigration, a Los Angeles-based immigrant assistance organization, characterizes the fraud charges.

The emphasis on fraud, the immigrants’ representatives charge, has created a climate of hostility toward those filing late, resulting in hasty rejections of applicants who have documented claims.

“This whole thing has snowballed into ugliness,” said Carmen Raisner, a Santa Ana immigration consultant and former INS legalization officer. “There’s nothing to protect people while this mindless litigation goes on.”

In response, INS officials say officers treat applicants with courtesy and respect, despite the unceasing workload. Only a minority of amnesty-seekers receive temporary approval to remain in the United States, officials say, because few qualify under the terms of the two pending lawsuits.

“Most of the people who come in are honest and hard-working, but a lot of them don’t understand what they’re applying for,” said Anita Maker, who heads the Eastside INS legalization office.

The INS facility is the last of amnesty offices that opened nationwide in 1987. That the final amnesty outpost is situated here is testament to Los Angeles’ status as the nation’s premier hub for new immigrants.

Advocates blame the INS for much of the confusion, contending that the agency has been loath to disseminate accurate information to the community. INS officials, acknowledging “inconsistent” practices, agreed in March to issue nationwide guidelines for late applicants, to conduct an information outreach campaign and to re-interview tens of thousands of immigrants previously turned down.

Illegal immigrants, many desperate to normalize their status and ease fears of deportation, have clung with great hope to the apocryphal word that a long-awaited late or new amnistia is in place, its arrival heralded by the rumor mill and Spanish-language news accounts and advertisements. Many have watched as relatives and friends granted amnesty have prospered. The 1986 law that created amnesty also made it illegal for employers to hire undocumented workers, rendering it more difficult for those here unlawfully to find work.

“I’m wondering if I qualify for late amnesty as a farm worker,” said Isidro Carmona, a father of three from Mexico’s northern Durango state who was mystified by an INS information sheet handed out to those filing late at the amnesty site.

Others, though, left convinced that this is their path to legal residence.

“I’m quite sure that I’ll qualify,” said Maria Susana Granados, an El Salvadoran domestic worker who says she came to the United States in 1981, before the amnesty cutoff date of January, 1982. She, like others, carried receipts and other papers attesting to longtime U.S. residence.

Granados didn’t apply for amnesty during 1987-88, she said, because she briefly returned to El Salvador to care for her ailing mother. That trip technically disqualified her under the initial guidelines.

Amelia Solis Sanchez, a 27-year-old maintenance worker, says she went back to Mexico for a monthlong visit in 1987, intending to apply for amnesty when she returned. However, a lawyer later informed her that her trip had rendered her ineligible.

“Everyone was giving out a lot of bad information last time,” Solis said Friday after dropping off her late-filing application. “I was devastated when I learned last time that I wasn’t eligible. I’m just thankful to have this new opportunity. This could improve my life a lot.”