Eligibility for Legalization Under IRCA

For legalization applicants and INS adjudicators, determination of eligibility for temporary residency
under IRCA, and the standard of proof that would be required, challenged them both. During the
initial implementation period, and subsequently, INS' interpretation and adjudication of these
eligibility requirements has been subjected to considerable legal challenge - most of which was
decided against the INS.

In the main, the requirements for general legalization program for "pre-1982" applicants were more
stringent than those required under the Special Agricultural Workers program.

Former illegal aliens were allowed to gain temporary residence in the United States under two the
following provisions of IRCA:

Eligibility for Temporary Resident Status Under the Main Legalization Program
(for what became known as "pre-1982" applicants)

1. Timeliness of filing, that is, within the 12-month filing window);

2. Evidence of unlawful entry into the United States before January 1, 1982, and unlawful
residence since then qualified under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(using INS Form I-687),
3. Continued physical presence in the United States from the date of the.passage of IRCA
(November 6, 1986) to the time of application (except for "brief, casual and innocent
absences" which had to be proved by applicants and adjudicated by INS);
4. General admissibility as an immigrant (that is, not subject to any grounds of excludability
added to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965). especially the ground of "public
charge" excludability if they had received any public cash assistance since 1982.

Eligibility for Temporary Resident Status Under the Special Agricultural Workers (SAWs)
Program

1. Timeliness of application, that is, applicants had to file between June 1, 1987 through
November 30, 1988);
2. Evidence of having worked on perishable crops (specifically, in "seasonal agricultural
services") for at least "90 person days" between May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986, qualified
under the INS's Section 210 (using INS Form I-700) - and this residence did not need to be
either "continuous" or "unlawful;"
3. Applicants could apply while they were outside the United States and were not required to
maintain any "continued physical presence" in the United States while their applications
were being adjudicated;
4. General admissibility as in immigrant, with the "public charge" excludability applied only if
they had relied on public case assistance.

Two Phases of the Legalization Program

The Legalization process consists of two stages:

• Acceptance to Temporary Resident Status (Phase I); and,

• Acceptance to Permanent Resident Status (Phase II).

The one-year application period for Section 245A temporary residency b

ended May 4, 1988. The application period for permanent residency beg
and has no fixed ending date.

The application period of SAWs applicants began June 1, 1987 and end
Permanent residency for SAWs is virtually automatic if granted temporal
who worked on perishable crops for 3 years were eligible on December
 Accepts Legalization Questionnaires as District Court Issues Permanent Injunction in... Page 1 of 2

il

U.S. Department of Justice

Immigration and Naturalization Service
V&shington, DC 20536

F«:Ca>2)514-1776

INS Accepts Legalization Questionnaires as District Court Issues

Permanent Injunction in 'Late Amnesty' Case
On July 2, 1999, Judge William Keller of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California issued a permanent injunction against the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) in the Newman v. INS lawsuit more commonly known as
"LULAC v. INS."

The permanent injunction requires INS to adjudicate the legalization applications of

aliens who can establish that they were "front-desked" during the legalization
application period. The injunction also continues the work authorization and stays of
deportation already granted to the roughly 26,000 Newman class members.

The injunction identifies "front-desked" class members as "those who attempted to file a
legalization application and fee with INS or a Qualified Designated Entity (QDE),
between May 5, 1987 and May 4,1988, but INS or QDE refused to accept the
application." INS will determine which aliens were "front desked."

In July 1998, INS voluntarily began accepting a legalization questionnaire for aliens to
detail any claim of "front desking" by INS. To conform with the injunction, INS has
redesigned the questionnaire to include the possibility of "front desking" by QDEs,
which were public service, non-governmental organizations authorized to accept
legalization applications from aliens who were reluctant to present themselves to INS.
Class members who believed that they were "front desked" must c-1~ ~1—1--~^"«
questionnaire on or before February 2, 2001. The questionnair ,
office and on the Internet at www.ins.usdoj .gov. The court ordei ^T/
notices are attached. *—r~~r~"

Questionnaires should be submitted to the following address

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Vermont Service Center-Attention: Front-Desking Claims
75 Lower Welden Street
St. Albans, VT 05479-0001

INS will review the questionnaire and notify the applicant in writing of its decision. If
the claim of "front desking" is substantiated, the alien is eligible to have the application
for legalization adjudicated. The appropriate INS Service Center will send instructions

http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/lulacins.htm 4/27/2004
 Accepts Legalization Questionnaires as District Court Issues Permanent Injunction in... Page 2 of 2

on any additional steps or information needed to complete the adjudication of the

legalization and employment authorization applications.

The questionnaire is not limited to class members in the Newman/LULAC case,

although the injunction applies only to that case. Any alien, including one affected by
the Catholic Social Services v. Reno case, wishing to assert a claim of "front-desking"
should obtain and submit a legalization questionnaire.

Background

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) provided for the legalization
of certain aliens who had been unlawfully present in the United States since January
1982. In order to legalize under IRC A, aliens were required to submit an application
during a one-year period that ended in May 1988. This lawsuit, League of United Latin
American Citizens v. INS, (LULAC, later renamed as Newman v. INS), challenged the
implementation of the legalization program. To date, there are approximately 26,000
registered class members, an additional 25,000 aliens applied for class membership but
were denied.

In 1993, the Supreme Court agreed with the government's position and held that these
lawsuits could not be maintained by aliens who had not actually applied or attempted to
apply (by submitting a complete application and fee to an INS officer) before May 4,
1988. Section 377 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 was enacted on September 30, 1996. That section provides that courts may only
hear cases brought by persons seeking relief under the IRC A if they in fact filed a timely
application for legalization before May 4, 1988, or were "front desked."

-INS-

Last Modified 02/20/2003

http://uscis.gov/graphics/publicaffairs/newsrels/lulacins.htm 4/27/2004
Eligibility for Legalization Under IRCA
For legalization applicants and INS adjudicators, determination of eligibility for temporary residency
under IRCA, and the standard of proof that would be required, challenged them both. During the
initial implementation period, and subsequently, INS' interpretation and adjudication of these
eligibility requirements has been subjected to considerable legal challenge - most of which was
decided against the INS.

In the main, the requirements for general legalization program for "pre-1982" applicants were more
stringent than those required under the Special Agricultural Workers program.

Former illegal aliens were allowed to gain temporary residence in the United States under two the
following provisions of IRCA:

Eligibility for Temporary Resident Status Under the Main Legalization Program
(for what became known as "pre-1982" applicants)

1. Timeliness of filing, that is, within the 12-month filing window);

2. Evidence of unlawful entry into the United States before January 1,1982, and unlawful
residence since then qualified under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(using INS Form I-687),
3. Continued physical presence in the United States from the date of the passage of IRCA
(November 6, 1986) to the time of application (except for "brief, casual and innocent
absences" which had to be proved by applicants and adjudicated by INS);
4. General admissibility as an immigrant (that is, not subject to any grounds of excludability
added to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965), especially the ground of "public
charge" excludability if they had received any public cash assistance since 1982.

Eligibility for Temporary Resident Status Under the Special Agricultural Workers (SAWs)
Program

1. Timeliness of application, that is, applicants had to file between June 1, 1987 through
November 30, 1988);
2. Evidence of having worked on perishable crops (specifically, in "seasonal agricultural
services") for at least "90 person days" between May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986, qualified
under the INS's Section 210 (using INS Form I-700) - and this residence did not need to be
either "continuous" or "unlawful;"
3. Applicants could • '"while they were outside the United States and were not required to
maintain any "co '~*\" in the United States while their applications
were being adjir *L/S
4. General admis' ?&~- "^ "^ublic charge" excludability applied only if
they had relief

Two Phases of the

The Legalization p

• Acceptance to Temporary Re*t^^^^ (Phase I); and,

• Acceptance to Permanent ResidenTSt&t^s (Phase II).

The one-year application period for Section 245A temporary residency began on May 5, 1987 and
ended May 4, 1988. The application period for permanent residency began on November 7, 1988
and has no fixed ending date.

The application period of SAWs applicants began June 1, 1987 and ended November 30, 1988.
Permanent residency for SAWs is virtually automatic if granted temporary residency. SAW aliens
who worked on perishable crops for 3 years were eligible on December 1, 1990.
Eligibility for Legalization Under IRCA
For legalization applicants and INS adjudicators, determination of eligibility for temporary residency
under IRCA, and the standard of proof that would be required, challenged them both. During the
initial implementation period, and subsequently, INS' interpretation and adjudication of these
eligibility requirements has been subjected to considerable legal challenge - most of which was
decided against the INS.

In the main, the requirements for general legalization program for "pre-1982" applicants were more
stringent than those required under the Special Agricultural Workers program.

Former illegal aliens were allowed to gain temporary residence in the United States under two the
following provisions of IRCA:

Eligibility for Temporary Resident Status Under the Main Legalization Program
(for what became known as "pre-1982" applicants)

1. Timeliness of filing, that is, within the 12-month filing window);

2. Evidence of unlawful entry into the United States before January 1, 1982, and unlawful
residence since then qualified under Section 245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(using INS Form I-687),
3. Continued physical presence in the United States from the date of the passage of IRCA
(November 6, 1986) to the time of application (except for "brief, casual and innocent
absences" which had to be proved by applicants and adjudicated by INS);
4. General admissibility as an immigrant (that is, not subject to any grounds of excludability
added to the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965), especially the ground of "public
charge" excludability if they had rece/Vedany public cash assistance since 1982.

Eligibility for Temporary Resident Status Under the Special Agricultural Workers (SAWs)
Program

1. Timeliness of application, that is, applicants had to file between June 1, 1987 through
November 30, 1988);
2. Evidence of having worked on perishable crops (specifically, in "seasonal agricultural
services") for at least "90 person days" between May 1, 1985 and May 1, 1986, qualified
under the INS's Section 210 (using INS Form I-700) - and this residence did not need to be
either "continuous" or "unlawful;"
3. Applicants could apply while they were outside the United States and were not required to
maintain any "continued physical presence" in the United States while their applications
were being adjudicated;
4. General admissibility as in immigrant, with the "public charge" excludability applied only if
they had relied on public case assistance.

Two Phases of the Legalization Program

The Legalization process consist? -'

• Acceptance^ .. /I isel);and,
• Acceptance to "T^r l^T se ")•

The one-year applicatioi ry residency began on May 5, 1987 and

ended May 4, 1988. The ^jesidency began on November 7, 1988
and has no fixed ending a

The application period of S/ ^^^TTcants began June 1, 1987 and ended November 30, 1988.
Permanent residency for SAWs is virtually automatic if granted temporary residency. SAW aliens
who worked on perishable crops for 3 years were eligible on December 1, 1990.
 Testimony of Paul Virtue
General Counsel
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Department of Justice

A Hearing On
Past Designation of Temporary Protected Status
and Fraud in Prior Amnesty Programs

Before
The House Immigration and Claims Subcommittee
House Judiciary Committee

Thursday, March 4,1999

2237 Rayburn House Office Building
10:00 AM
Brief Background on the Legalization Program

More than three million aliens filed applications for legalization under the

provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The statute was drafted

both to encourage undocumented aliens to present themselves to the INS for legalization

and to address the migrant worker's lack of documents that could be used in support of an

application. These and other factors led to a high degree of fraud in the program. INS

was committed then, as it is, now to fighting application fraud, but a variety of factors

made it difficult to attack fraud at the level of the individual applicant. INS anti-fraud

efforts concentrated on filers of false affidavits and false document vendors. This

category of fraud was most prevalent both in the underlying legalization program and in

applications for class membership in the legalization litigation.

The legalization program was created under the Immigration Reform and Control

Act of 1986 (IRCA). ERCA was passed in a legislative environment in which sweeping

changes were being made to the Immigration and Nationality Act. In addition to IRCA,

the last days of the 99th Congress also saw the passage of the Immigration Marriage

Fraud Amendments of 1986, as well as the Immigration and Naturalization Act

Amendments of 1986.

IRCA was intended to solve the problem of illegal immigration through a two-

pronged approach: The first prong created a system of employer sanctions, intending to

remove the job "magnet" that attracts illegal immigrants. To address the illegal

16
population already present in the United States, the second prong provided a means by

which long-term illegal residents, in addition to certain agricultural workers, could obtain

lawful permanent resident status, thus becoming "legalized."

The legalization provisions of the IRCA provided for adjustment of the status of

aliens who had resided in the United States continuously in unlawful status since January

1, 1982. Upon satisfactory proof of such continued residence, an alien was granted

temporary resident status, followed by a grant of permanent resident status after eighteen

months. These provisions are referred to as "245 A," for the section of the Immigration

and Nationality Act containing the provisions, or more generally as "legalization."

In addition to section 245A legalization, agricultural workers who could

demonstrate that they performed qualifying agricultural work in the United States for at

least ninety days during a designated period were granted temporary lawful resident status

which was automatically converted to lawful permanent status after one year. This

program was known as the Special Agricultural Worker program (SAW).

17
 CSS applicants for class membership were required to file an application for

legalization (Form 1-687) and establish by independent evidence such as a bus ticket,

airplane ticket, or declaration of a third party that they were outside of the United States

due to a brief, casual and innocent absence after May 1, 1987 and before May 4, 1988. In

addition, these applicants had to submit a declaration explaining the reasons why no

application was filed during the application period. If these conditions were met, the INS

was required to issue an Employment Authorization Document.

Many aliens claim eligibility for legalization through these lawsuits, which are

commonly referred to as the "late amnesty" litigation. The approximate number of aliens

affected by the litigation is as follows: In the CSS case, 180,287 aliens sought class

membership. Of this total, 40,306 received class membership. In the LULAC/Newman

case, 50,778 aliens sought class membership. Of this total, 25,768 received class

membership.

INS together with the Department of Justice prosecuted a large number of cases

involving class membership fraud. By far, the largest operation was Operation Desert

Deception in Las Vegas, Nevada. The organizations and individuals targeted in that

investigation filed some 22,000 applications, many of which were fraudulent, for both

legalization and class membership. As of esulted in 55

criminal convictions. Of these, the most r """/"T^ / xf Jose Velez,

the director of the Nevada chapter of LUI it of LULAC at

the time the offenses leading to his convii ch 1988 and

24
January 1991, Velez and his co-conspirators submitted approximately 3,000 fraudulent

applications.

1996 Statutory Amendments

Section 377 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act

of 1996 (IIRIRA) was enacted on September 30, 1996. That section provides that courts

may only hear cases brought by persons seeking relief under the IRCA if they in fact filed

a timely application for legalization before May 4, 1988, or "attempted to file a complete

application and application fee with an authorized legalization officer of the INS but had

the application and the fee refused by that officer."

Based on the enactment of IIRIRA section 377, the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 16, 1998 instructed the district court to dismiss

the CSS case and vacated all interim relief orders in the case. The LULAC/Newman case

was remanded to the district court to determine if there were any persons who could meet

the standard established in IIRIRA section 377.

In April 1998, following the Ninth Circuit's dismissal in CSS, plaintiffs filed a

nearly identical lawsuit (CSS2) in the same district court (the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of California). On July 2, 1998, Judge Lawrence Karlton entered a

preliminary injunction ordering INS to stay the removal and continue to extend

25
 ,62 Former National Hispanic Leader Found Guilty of Immigration Fraud Page 1 of 1

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CRM

TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1995 (202) 514-2008
TDD (202) 514-1888

FORMER NATIONAL HISPANIC LEADER

FOUND GUILTY OF IMMIGRATION FRAUD

The Department of Justice and Kathryn E. Landreth, the U.S.

Attorney in Las Vegas, Nevada, announced today that on May 8,
1995, a jury in Las Vegas found Jose Velez, who had been the
national President of the League of United Latin American
Citizens (LULAC) from 1990 to 1994, guilty of 10 counts of
immigration fraud.
Velez was convicted of conspiring with others to file false
legalization applications with the Immigration and Naturalization
Service on behalf of thousands of unqualified alien applicants.
He was also convicted of actually filing false legalization
applications on behalf of nine unqualified aliens. Velez, 57, is
scheduled to be sentenced on August 18, 1995. He faces a maximum
term of imprisonment of 50 years and a maximum fine of
$2,500,000.
The legalization applicants false claimed that the aliens
had performed certain required seasonal agricultural services in
the United States or falsely claimed that the aliens had resided
continuously and illegally in the United States since before
January 1, 1982. The purpose of these applicants was to obtain
for the applicants a Temporary Resident Card. The law would then
permit the applicant to apply for a Resident Alien Card, commonly
known as a "green card," which permits an alien to reside
permanently in the United States and to later apply for United
States citizenship. The applications were filed with the
Immigration and Naturalization Service pursuant to a legalization
program enacted by Congress, the Immigration Reform and Control
Act, which went into effect in 1986.
The prosecution of Velez is the product of an INS
Legalization Fraud Task Force investigation into widespread
legalization fraud in Las Vegas, Nevada. In addition to Velez,
the investigation has thus far resulted in the guilty pleas or
convictions of 20 individuals, who together are responsible'for
filing false legalization applicants for in excess of an
estimated 11,000 unqualified aliens.
####
95-262

http://w^rw.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/May95/262.txt.html 4/26/2004
ABOUHALIMA, MOHAMMED
-2-

PART A. THE OFFENSE

Chare (s) and Convict ion (s)

S9 93 CR 181 (MBM), a two-count

Southern District of New York on Sey
Count S9-1; In late February and Ma
District of New York and elsewhere.,\ ^.m,,
ABOUHALIMA, together with others, r^&s^.-:^" ;/'"•'*•
'^_
Mahmud Abpuhalima to John F. Kennedy 1
a flight to Saudi Arabia, with ful^5ci^,/^
Abouhalima had participated in the f ac ^
of the World Trade Center, by use of ASL./ ,. •/
device, in violation of 18 USC 844 (i).uc^=5^;, ,.-"'/
caused injury to in excess of 1,000 fe -^v :*v
to John DiGiovanni, Robert Kirkpatrictory^ /$
Macko, WiIfredo Mercado, and Monica
(18 USC 3)
3. Count S9-2; From September 28, 1987
the Southern District of New Y
defendant, MOHAMMED ABOUHALIMA,
affidavit to the Immigration
which he, in support of «3t
status as a Special
that he had work^d^gjp^r f^m sj% '.SOc^vassr
fact continued ^f^^^^te^^rary re
that affidavi
(18 USC .1426 (b) )
Following a jury trial before th'~v.
Mukasey, MOHAMMED ABOUHALIMA, on May^
on Count S9-1. His sentence date
September 22, 1997.
Related Casefs)
Indictment 93 CR 180 (KTD) was filed
of New York on March 17, 1993.
superseding Indictments were filed
New York on the following dates,
1993, April 7, 1993, May 26, 1993 ar
S5 93 CR 180 (KTD) was filed in the
York on September 1, 1993.

1Count S9-2, which was severed from

17, 1997, remains pending.
/nline NewsHour: Immigrants fight back — October 23, 1996 Page 1 of6

ONLINE FOCUS M-:\\S11OI.R

IMMIGRANTS FIGHT BACK

OCTOBER 23,1996

TRANSCRIPT

In the past few years immigrants have been the focus of legislation and political rhetoric
suggesting that they are the cause of economic woes in America. Charles Krause talks to
Hispanic-Americans to get their reaction and finds that they aren't taking it sitting down.

CHARLES KRAUSE: They came by the tens of thousands, A RealAudio

Hispanic Americans protesting in Washington what they version of this
perceive to be growing anti immigrant discussion is available.
sentiment across the country. As
evidence, they point to Proposition 187— October 22,1996:
the ballot initiative passed two years ago A Kwame Holman's
in California that would prohibit health background report on
and education benefits to illegal the immigration issues in
immigrants—and then, this year's this years election.
immigration and welfare reform bills which prohibit future
federal benefits even for legal immigrants until after they've October 1,1996:
become citizens. President Clinton signed the two bills into Two experts discuss the
law. But it's House Speaker Newt ramifications of a new
51.
1 Gingrich and the Republicans who get Immigration law.
: most of the blame.
September 20,1996:
Marchers Chanting: Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Republican and
Newt Gingrich has to go. Democratic legislators
discuss the various paths
CHARLES KRAUSE: Mexican-Americans call the new Immigration legislation
anti-immigrant climate La Amenza—the threat. What tv><--'- might take.
angry about was most clearly refler.t^ *-- ~
incendiary rhetoric during Calii \, for Hispanics, his wordsMay 2,1996:
Elizabeth Farnsworth
an emotional rallying cry. discusses the status of
immigration reform with
REP. LUIZ GUTIERREZ, (D) II. the heads of two
picked up a rifle in his hands, ana advocacy groups.
looked across the border with that March 26,1996:
his hands, and he said, "This is wh

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/october96/immigrants_l 0-23.html 6/10/2004

 nline NewsHour: Immigrants fight back — October 23, 1996 Page 2 of6

have for you Jose!" Y Hoy, and today we say to Pat

Buchanan this is what we have for you. Pat Buchanan! Check out this debate on
the future of social
sevices for illegal aliens.
CHARLES KRAUSE: What may have seemed like good
politics at the time blaming the country's economic and March 26,1996:
budgetary problems on hordes of illegal immigrants from A look at California's
Mexico, and elsewhere has created a backlash. controversial Prop. 187.
which cuts off some
ENRIQUE SOLVANZANO, Marcher: We're not saying that health and social
we want special treatment, what we want is our rights. We services, including access
want is justice as immigrants, as human beings. to public education to
illegal aliens and their
CHARLES KRAUSE: Instead of reducing the flow of legal children.
and illegal migrants into the United States, Latino political
activist Juan Jose Gutierrez says the new anti immigrant
climate has politicized many Hispanics who've never been active in politics before.

JUAN JOSE GUTIERREZ, March Coordinator: The Latinos finally are emer;
coherent political force, more so every day, and so that in the future we
can already envision the day when politicians are going to have to
understand that their political calculus can no longer assume that there
will be no political consequences if they are going to continue to
practice the simplistic politics of scapegoating those least able to protect
themselves, namely the immigrants.

CHARLES KRAUSE: What Hispanics some of them in the U.S. for decades have begun to
realize is that suddenly their rights are not fully protected until they become citizens. So,
fearful that the anti immigrant fever will spread, record numbers of legal immigrants are
being naturalized in mass swearing in ceremonies across the country. And it's not just
Latinos who are rushing to become citizens.

DORIS MEISSNER, Commissioner, INS: You have come from 113 countries around the
globe.

CHARLES KRAUSE: A record 1.2 million immigrants have taken out citizenship this year
alone, an increase of more than 100 percent.

DORIS MEISSNER: Congratulations! You're a citizen of the United

States of America! (applause and cheers)

CHARLES KRAUSE: Immigration and Naturalization Commissioner

Doris Meissner says some of the reasons for the increase are technical:
from changes in the green card process to an amnesty law passed by
Congress a decade ago.

DORIS MEISSNER: A very large number of people- about three million people- who
became legalized under a 1986 immigration law in the last two years— have become eligible
to file for citizenship.

MR. KRAUSE: But Meissner and activists on both sides of the issue stress the impact of

http ://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/october96/immigrants_l 0-23 .html 6/10/2004

 ,xecutive Summary Page 2 of26

cards for analysis—were arriving in INS offices only after the applicant had been sworn in as a
United States citizen. These and other allegations of flaws in naturalization processing suggested
that INS had sacrificed naturalization processing integrity in the name of processing applicants
more quickly. In September 1996, the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs,
and Criminal Justice of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight (the
Subcommittee) held its first hearings concerning CUSA to explore the nature and extent of these
processing flaws and the motives behind INS' accelerated naturalization initiative.

The portrait of naturalization processing that emerged from the September hearings did not allay
congressional concerns. Although Executive Associate Commissioner T. Alexander Aleinikoff
described the efforts INS had made to improve the off-site testing program, his testimony
confirmed that off-site testing had lacked standards and not been monitored by INS. In addition,
INS employees from Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas testified to the extraordinary rush imposed
on naturalization adjudications during CUSA. That rush, according to these witnesses, meant that
INS had naturalized people without ensuring that they were eligible. Some of the shortcuts to
which these witnesses testified were that INS had not properly trained the new adjudicators hired
for CUSA, had not conducted thorough applicant criminal history checks, had not provided
applicants' permanent files to adjudicators for review before making decisions on naturalization
applications, or, when those files had been available, had discouraged the thorough review of the
file to determine whether the applicant had lawfully obtained the prerequisite permanent residency
status.

The Subcommittee and other congressional subcommittees continued to investigate these

allegations about CUSA and to seek information from INS, from the White House, and from the
Office of the Vice President. Although Commissioner Meissner asserted that political motives had
not influenced CUSA, documents provided to Congress suggested otherwise. In particular, e-mail
messages to the Vice President and others from Douglas Farbrother, an NPR employee who was
assigned to work on naturalization "reinvention" efforts in March 1996, connected CUSA's goals
with the goal of naturalizing one million new citizens in time for the November 1996 election.

In the meantime, in response to congressional requests the Justice Management Division (JMD) of
the Department of Justice engaged an outside accounting firm, KPMG Peat Marwick, to oversee a
systematic review of CUSA naturalizations that INS would conduct using INS employees. The
KPMG-supervised review first concentrated on determining whether each person naturalized during
CUSA had a fingerprint check conducted by the FBI. Subsequent reviews would determine how
many persons had naturalized during CUSA despite a disqualifying criminal history. The KPMG-
supervised review continued over the course of the next two years, but even its preliminary results
were troubling. In March 1997, JMD reported to Congress that of the 1,049,867 persons INS had
then identified as having naturalized between August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996,1 the
fingerprint cards of 124,111 had been returned by the FBI as "unclassifiable," meaning that the
fingerprints submitted had not been suitable for comparison. For an additional 61,366 persons, the
FBI had no record of having conducted any fingerprint check. This data, therefore, indicated that
for 18 percent of those persons naturalized during CUSA, INS had not conducted a complete
criminal history background check.

This information was troubling to cause of what it reflected about criminal

history checking procedures =»- JSA adjudications, but also because it
suggested that INS had do, Tint processing procedures since 1994,
when both the OIG and the 'AO) had issued reports critical of those
procedures and had recomrr • that INS had agreed to undertake.

In late April 1997, then-Inspe :h announced the investigation that is

the subject of this report. It w ^stigation of its kind ever undertaken by
the OIG.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0007/execsummary.htm 6/8/2004
/iterviews and Adjudications Page 46 of 95

(because five years had passed since the time that permanent residency had been granted), as
well as other persons who were not yet eligible to naturalize. These A-files were stored in an INS
facility in Las Vegas until sentencing and post-trial motions were completed on the 54 defendants
in the spring of 1996.

The 22,000 cases were of interest to the ODD prosecution team not just because they contained
evidence of the defendants' criminal conduct, but also because the applicants themselves—though
not the primary targets of the investigation—included persons who knowingly participated in the
defendants' criminal scheme. Although prosecutors decided that the task was too great to consider
pursuing criminal charges against individual applicants, EAC Aleinikoff, in a declaration signed on
September 13, 1995, and later filed with the federal court in Nevada in support of INS' request for
restitution from one prominent defendant in the case, told the court that INS was going to begin a
costly review of the 22,000 files

...in an effort to identify any fraudulent documents or false applications submitted by an

individual applicant to obtain immigration benefits under the Immigration Reform and
Control Act (IRCA). To the extent permitted by law, based upon that review, the INS
will then take action to divest any alien of any benefit fraudulently obtained through
the legalization process.

Thus, the files were also kept segregated in Las Vegas in anticipation of this INS review.^^

(2) The delay

Despite Aleinikoff's representations, and despite INS' representations to Congress later in 1995
that it would take steps to ensure that cases in which SAW fraud was suspected would be
investigated before any decision was made to approve naturalization, INS did not timely undertake
the promised review of the 22,000 cases. The lead federal prosecutor working on the criminal
cases told the OIG that he became concerned when, despite his requests in October 1995, INS had
not taken any steps toward reviewing the cases by late 1995. The prosecutor said that each day
more of the legalization applicants were becoming eligible, and he believed that INS was bound by
Aleinikoff's declaration to conduct a thorough review. The prosecutor told the OIG that he recalled
discussions with INS officials in late 1995 during which INS balked at conducting the case review
because of budget concerns.

By May 1996, INS still had not begun to review the files. During a conference call with INS officials
on May 14, 1996, the prosecutor was advised that the reason for delays in implementing the
review was budgetary concerns, specifically that INS' resources were primarily devoted to CUSA.
As he indicated in his contemporaneous notes, INS told him that the "big priority is naturalization,
to naturalize 1.6 million people." Michael Niefach of the General Counsel's Office, who also
participated in the conference call, corroborated the prosecutor's recollection that he had expressed
his concern about the delay and had asked INS to undertake the promised review. Niefach told the
OIG that budget constraints, although not specifically the CUSA program, had prevented INS from
undertaking the review project before that date.—

(3) 144 naturalized before INS' file review begins

Finally, however, as a result of *^~ •— and because of unfavorable media

attention INS was receiving in
Operation Desert Deception ca
reviewed, sorted, and categori
individuals who had been lawfi
to naturalize at any time. In ac
who had already naturalized (t
INS assembled a team to review the
996. By June 14, 1996, the team had
jnd that 5,840 of the A-files belonged to
lore than five years and thus could apply
of the A-files belonged to individuals
had naturalized even though their A-

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0007/interviews.htm 6/10/2004