People Seeking Asylum in U.S. Win Safeguards : Immigration: Judge approves settlement of lawsuit that grants new, private interviews to thousands. Decision comes as Clinton Administration seeks to streamline the system.

Concluding a bitter, five-year court battle pitting asylum-seekers against U.S. immigration authorities, a federal judge Thursday approved a settlement that guarantees additional safeguards to thousands of foreign nationals filing for political asylum in the Los Angeles area.

Under terms of the accord, federal authorities will provide new interviews and other protections to asylum-seekers from Central America and elsewhere who say they were denied asylum between 1988 and 1990 after perfunctory sessions with hostile and ill-informed immigration interviewers, sometimes without interpreters present.

U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. approved the settlement during a brief hearing in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.

Lawyers for the immigrants filing the class-action lawsuit--known as Mendez vs. Reno--said as many as 38,000 claimants would be affected, all from Southern California. Although most are Central Americans, affected applicants include a mix of Eastern Europeans, Ethiopians, Chinese and Peruvians, among others.

Verne Jervis, a spokesman for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, said only a “few thousand” people would benefit because the agency had already provided many applicants with new hearings under revamped asylum procedures that went into effect two years ago. The government has not conceded any wrongdoing.

Whatever the numbers, civil libertarians see the protracted case as a cautionary tale at a time when the White House is proposing broad streamlining of the nation’s beleaguered asylum system. The asylum process, experts say, is collapsing under the weight of inefficiency, a lack of personnel and abuse by economic migrants seeking work papers under the guise of political persecution.

Among the most provocative proposals is greatly restricted judicial review for asylum-seekers arriving at airports and other ports of entry.

Such revisions would narrow the likelihood of future successful legal challenges like this case in Los Angeles and an even more sweeping litigation, known as the American Baptist Churches case, which was settled two years ago. That landmark class-action suit resulted in fresh asylum applications for more than 200,000 Salvadorans and Guatemalans who say they were victims of politicized asylum procedures that discriminated against refugees fleeing brutal, U.S.-backed regimes.

“These cases illustrate exactly why what the Clinton Administration is proposing is so dangerous,” said Linton Joaquin, attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, which provides legal assistance to immigrants and refugees.

Under the Clinton Administration’s plan, asylum claimants at airports and other ports would be denied entry and quickly repatriated if they fail to demonstrate a “credible fear of persecution” in their homelands. Those initially rejected would be allowed a single level of appeal, to trained asylum officers. Subsequent judicial review would largely be limited to ensuring correct identification of the applicant.

“The INS systemically has abused the asylum system, and only because the federal court stepped in did many individuals ever get fair hearings,” said Lucas Guttentag, who heads the immigrants’ rights project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Now the Clinton Administration is proposing a new system that’s not subject to the same kind of review.”

President Clinton has vowed to retain safeguards for asylum-seekers who legitimately fear persecution for political, religious, racial or other reasons.

“The Clinton Administration has made clear that they want people to have ample protection, so that legitimate asylum applicants are not refused the protection that is due to them,” said Jervis.

The streamlining of asylum procedures is part of a broader planned White House revision of the nation’s much-criticized asylum process, now reeling under a backlog of 300,000 cases, half of them from California residents. Authorities are expected to unveil a sweeping package of additional proposed changes next month.

The Los Angeles case dates back to 1988, when INS authorities here instituted task forces to handle swelling backlogs of asylum applicants, mostly from El Salvador and Guatemala.

Most applicants had little chance of success, as authorities were then rejecting the great majority--more than 95%--of asylum applications from nationals of those two Central American nations. However, many emerged from the nether world of the illegal immigrant and applied for asylum anyway because they needed working papers under the terms of a 1986 statute mandating that employers check the legal status of new employees. Under the law, asylum applicants with “non-frivolous” claims are entitled to working papers while their cases drag on, a period that--with lengthy appeals--can last for years.

In attempting to reduce the logjam, immigrants charged, the INS assigned ill-trained employees, including clerks and criminal investigators, to adjudicate asylum claims. Interviewers were “ignorant about the most fundamental principles of asylum law and the standards governing eligibility,” lawyers charged in court papers.

Moreover, attorneys said asylum interviews were rushed, sometimes lasting less than 10 minutes, and were conducted in public waiting rooms, open cubicles and other spots offering little privacy. The interviews often took place without benefit of interpreters, claimants charged.

“The system was a trapdoor to deportation,” said Guttentag of the ACLU.

Added Vibiana Andrade, counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund: “When you set up a system that is this rushed, it’s bound to be rife with abuse.”

Under terms of the settlement, those affected will be entitled to new hearings under revised and improved asylum procedures that went into effect two years ago.