Judge Clears INS’ Swift Expulsion of Detained Foreigners

A federal judge in Washington has dismissed all challenges to Immigration and Naturalization Service implementation of a controversial 1996 law under which the INS has been expelling more than 1,200 people a week detained at ports of entry nationwide.

In a significant ruling little noticed outside of immigration circles, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on Aug. 20 threw out three separate federal lawsuits alleging both constitutional and procedural violations by the INS.

The ruling gives the agency the green light to continue its existing implementation of so-called “expedited removal” procedures, now in place at ports of entry nationwide.

Under this policy, foreign nationals arriving without valid visas or other legal entry documents can be quickly expelled--sometimes even placed on the next plane home. Furthermore, they are barred from reentry to the United States for five years.

Those removed under the fast-track deportation procedures generally have no opportunity for appeal of the decision made by INS officers. Under previous law, anyone facing expulsion could seek a hearing before an immigration judge.

The policy was among the most momentous changes included in Congress’ sweeping 1996 overhaul of U.S. immigration law. Motivating lawmakers was a widespread concern that many illegal immigrants were manipulating the system to drag out deportation cases for months or years, often filing false claims for political asylum.

In the 1996 act, Congress also narrowed the avenues for judicial review of the new expedited removal policy. Consequently, the cases before Sullivan likely will be the last major challenges to INS implementation.

Critics maintain that many people, including some who may face torture or even death in their homeland, are being wrongly sent home under the new policy. Their fates remain largely unknown, immigrant advocates say.

“We were really hoping that the judge would send a message to the INS, and to Congress, that their procedure was flawed and needed better safeguards,” said a disappointed Roy Petty of the American Immigration Law Foundation, one of the attorneys handling the challenges. An appeal is being contemplated, he said.

INS officials say the procedure is being implemented fairly. Anyone citing a fear of persecution in their home nation is afforded the opportunity to make a case before an independent political asylum officer, authorities say. Those found to have a “credible fear” of persecution are then sent before immigration judges.

“We’re pleased that the court upheld our position in the case,” said Russell A. Bergeron, an INS spokesman.

“The court ruling clearly rejects claims that the system of expedited removal deprives people of their rights,” he said.