Reno Letter on Nicaraguan Review Program
WASHINGTON, DC 20590
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Thank you for your June 6, 1997 letter requesting extension of the Nicaraguan Review Program. I share your concerns about the Nicaraguans and others who have been living in this country for many years who are adversely affected by the new immigration law (IIRAIRA). In particular, I am concerned about ensuring a fair transition to the new tighter rules applicable to the relief from deportation formerly known as suspension of deportation.
Although the Nicaraguan Review Program expired in 1995, and subsequent transitional measures expired in June of this year, the Department is committed to working with Congress to make sure that the transition to the new immigration law accounts for the special circumstances of certain immigrants who were present in the United States when the law was enacted. Of particular concern are Nicaraguans and other Central Americans who may have fled their countries during periods of civil war, and who have received temporary protection from deportation and other special legal treatment in this country for significant periods of time.
To ensure fair treatment of transitional cases under the new immigration law, I am vacating and taking under review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Matter of N-J-B, Interim Decision 3309 (BIA, February 20, 1997). This decision prevented many aliens who were in immigration proceedings before April 1, 1997, from having their applications for suspension of deportation considered. It interpreted a provision of the new law as requiring these existing cases to meet one of the tighter standards for relief from deportation which requires a suspension applicant to have accumulated a requisite amount of time in the U.S. by the time they are served with a charging document (the “stop-time” rule).
Though the new law clearly makes this stop-time rule applicable to cases filed after April 1, I believe that the legal question of its application to pre-April 1 cases deserves my careful review. If the decision is reversed, many who were in proceedings as of April 1 will simply be afforded the opportunity to apply for suspension, but reversal will not require that any affected cases be granted. While the case is under review, I will take immediate steps to protect against deportation persons who might have been able to claim suspension but for the N-J-B decision.
In addition, the Administration will submit to Congress shortly a proposal for amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act which are necessary to ensure a better transition to the new, tighter rules applicable to the relief formerly known as suspension of deportation. This proposal allows those whose cases were already in the pipeline the opportunity to seek suspension under the standards that applied before the 1996 immigration reform law took effect, eliminating any unfair application of the new rules governing suspension-type relief to cases in proceedings before April 1, 1997. These transitional cases would be exempted from the stop-time rule, described above, that accrual of necessary time in the U.S. stops when a charging document is served. They would also be exempted from the new 4,000 yearly cap on grants of suspension-type relief. Post-April 1 cases, however, would continue to be governed by the new standards.
Also, in recognition of the special circumstance of the persons covered by the Bush Administration’s settlement of the ABC litigation in 1991 and the Reagan Administration’s Nicaraguan Review Program, the proposed amendments apply the pre-April 1 rules to such persons. These are, in effect, “pipeline” cases and I believe that their applications for relief should be judged under the earlier substantive standards.
None of the amendments dictates that any of the affected persons will be granted relief. Every application for relief from deportation must still be considered, case-by-case, by an immigration judge.
If these legislative proposals are not enacted, the Administration is willing to consider any available administrative option, including Deferred Enforced Departure, to protect from deportation nationals of El Salvador or Guatemala who were ABC class embers and nationals of Nicaragua who were in the Nicaraguan Review Program who would have been eligible for suspension but for the new rules. Deferred Enforced Departure is based on the Presidential authority over foreign affairs and has previously been used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
I look forward to working closely with you to secure the enactment of transitional legislation which will eliminate any unfair application of the new rules restricting relief from deportation.
Sincerely,
JANET RENO