Speech #990264165

Mr. Speaker. today the House passed H.R. 5558. the administrative bill. While the bill helps streamline the naturalization process. concerns have been expressed about the bill by some national Hispanic organizations. I would like to share with my colleagues a statement from the National Association of Latino and Appointed Officials [NALEO]: NALEO is concerned with Section 2 of H.R. 5558. which confers exclusive jurisdiction to naturalize upon the Attorney General. Reports from NALEOs national network of citizenship service providers and from our Citizenship Hotline callers (some 45.000). point to the need for more not fewer checks on INS already broad discretion in the naturalization process. By stripping the courts of authority to naturalize. H.R. 5558 sacrifices important protections against INS misuse/abuse of discretions. Access to a final hearing before a judge is crucial in a significant number of naturalization cases. including: Continued casesin which INS delays a decision for unjustifiably long periods of time (sometimes years). While INS does not report data summarizing the number or length of continuances. a considerably body of evidence details the extent of this pressing problem. Nonfiled casesthose 15 percent of applicants (more than 78.000) who INS turns away but does not officially deny (data summarized in attached chart). Concern about this practice. which has no statutory or regulatory basis and. since not an official denial. is not subject to judicial scrutiny. prompted the Senate Appropriations Committee to mandate an INS study of "nonfiles". "Effective denials"-cases in which INS takes irregular action amounting to a denial. For example. INS officers in New York City have administered impromptu "English exams" to persons actually waiting to be swornin. sent home those who "failed" these "exams." and subsequently recommended denial based on these applicants "failure to prosecute their petitions." Denialscases in which INS officially finds the applicant ineligible for naturalization. under H.R. 5558. such a determination will constitute a final rejection of that application (unless the applicant pursues administrative appeal). The above determinations are made entirely at the discretion of individual INS examiners. and. unfortunately. often reflect inconsistent. subjective or arbitrary decisionmaking. Naturalization practices. e.g. the number and difficulty of exam questions asked. and the standards used to judge eligibility. vary widely among and within INS District offices. Many cases are continued or denied when immigration officers substitute their personal judgment of "good moral character." "public charge." or "English proficiency" in lieu of Congressional intent. While such inconsistencies more often reflect a lack of uniform procedure rather than an intentional abuse of discretion. the outcome for the naturalization applicant is the samea denial of U.S. citizenship that appears arbitrary or capricious.