UPDATE ON NACARA AND CSS/LULAC AMNESTY CASES

There have been some new developments in relation to the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s implementation of the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). NACARA is the new law that grants certain Central Americans the right to permanent residency and others from both Central America and Eastern Europe relief from deportation. The INS has told advocacy groups that it will soon issue regulations on interpreting cancellation of removal provisions in the new law, especially in relation to the requirement to show “extreme hardship.”

Despite complaints from at least one member of Congress, the INS has indicated that its asylum officers, and not Immigration Judges, will handle initial applications for cancellation of removal under NACARA. Congressman Bill McCollum, (R-FL) wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno to protest the INS policy saying that “although NACARA may have adjusted the standards for determining cancellation of removal, it did not alter the process for making such a determination. Congress was reassured that applicants for cancellation of removal would continue to appear before Immigration Jueges in order to prove their case for cancellation of removal, with all the attendant due process safeguards in place.”

The INS has indicated that it intends to charge an application fee of between $200 and $280 for NACARA-based suspension of deportation applications with no cap based on the size of the family. The American Immigration Lawyers Association considers this development “troubling” arguing that such a high fee will prevent many from seeking relief under NACARA.

Attorneys with clients already ordered deported have the opportunity to reopen these cases over the next few months by submitting petitions to reopen along with a legal brief explaining why NACARA is applicable to their client’s case. The Legal Action Center of the American Immigration Law Foundation has drafted a legal memorandum to assist attorneys in preparing their NACARA briefs. If you are an attorney and would like to get a copy of the memorandum, fax a request to Criona McLaughlin at AILF at 202-371-9449 or e-mail her at cmclaughlin@ailf.org.

With respect to the CSS amnesty case, many of you may have seen reports in our newsletter over the last few months about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision sending the case back to the lower court with an order to dismiss. As a response to this decision, the INS has issued a memorandum to all of its offices instructing personnel to deny requests for extension of work authorization in these cases and to confiscate the Employment Authorization Document. Furthermore, if someone comes in to apply for an extension, INS officers are instructed to put them into deportation proceedings. Those outside the country seeking readmission to the US are to be put in expedited removal proceedings. This INS policy affects CSS cases only and does not relate to people in the LULAC or Zambrano cases (though we have received late word that the Zambrano case was just dismissed and we will report on that in the next issue).

Peter Schey, Carlos Holguin and Miranda Junowicz of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (“CHRCL”) in Los Angeles are the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the CSS case. On March 12, 1998, they have recently filed a Petition for Rehearing with the 9th Circuit Court of Appelas. On April 5, 1998, they also filed a Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief with the US Disrict Court for the Eastern District of California in order to prevent INS from further carrying out its crackdown on CSS plaintiffs.

The lawyers for the CSS plaintiffs as well as representatives of the American Immigration Law Foundation have also been meeting with Clinton Administration officials about the possibility of an executive order to administratively deal with the issue. Specifically, CSS lawyers are asking the President to issue an order to INS NOT to place CSS plaintiffs in removal proceedings and to count the years spent in CSS status as a stay authorized by the Attorney General for purposes of the three and ten year admissibility bars.

< Back | Next >

Disclaimer: This newsletter is provided as a public service and not intended to establish an attorney client relationship. Any reliance on information contained herein is taken at your own risk.