COURT REFUSES 2 DEPORTATION CASES

WASHINGTON (AP) In a pair of confusing orders, the Supreme Court
today refused to shed new light on the validity of government efforts
to speed up the deportations of aliens convicted of committing crimes
in this country.

Handling two separate but similar cases from Massachusetts and
California, the court denied review to one and told a lower court to
restudy the other.

In both, Justice Department lawyers had argued that lower court
rulings would "lead to significant delays in the removal of such
aliens ... despite Congress' clear intent that removal of criminal
aliens be expedited."

At issue were two 1996 laws, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act. They dramatically altered the government's
treatment of aliens who commit crimes or for other reasons face
deportation.

Each law narrowed the opportunities given to aliens facing deportation
to seek a federal court's help. The government's two appeals acted on
today said federal appeals courts blunted the effect of both laws by
allowing a greater chance for judicial review than Congress intended
to provide.

The government said tens of thousands of pending cases could be
affected. Government lawyers told the justices that 23,000 "removal
aliens" are being held in federal prisons and 54,000 more are state
prison inmates.

The nation's highest court ruled Feb. 24 that aliens who are in the
United States unlawfully have no right to ask federal courts to thwart
deportation based on alleged selective enforcement of immigration rules.

That ruling gave the government a big victory in its efforts to deport
eight aliens who support a Palestinian group the government considers
a terrorist organization.

In the California case acted on today, Daniel Magana-Pizano was deemed
to be deportable after a 1995 conviction in state court for being
under the influence of cocaine and a methamphetamine. A native and
citizen of Mexico, he entered the United States as a lawful permanent
resident in 1977, when he was 5.

Magana-Pizano indicated he would apply for a discretionary waiver of
deportation because he did not realize Congress had changed the law.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court used his case to rule last November that
the 1996 immigration reform law did not preclude aliens' ability to
ask federal trial judges for help in such situations.

Today, the justices set aside the appeals court's ruling and sent the
case back for reconsideration in light of their Feb. 24 ruling.

In the Massachusetts case, Raul Percira Goncalves was declared
deportable after his 1992 state court conviction for knowingly
receiving stolen property. A native and citizen of Portugal who was
admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent alien at age three
in 1972, Goncalves previously had been convicted in 1988 and 1989 on
various charges.

He sought discretionary relief from deportation in 1994 under
provisions then provided for by immigration law, but while his
application was pending Congress passed and President Clinton signed
the two 1996 laws.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the laws could not be
applied retroactively to Goncalves' case to deny him a chance for
discretionary relief.

Justice Department lawyers contend both lower courts were wrong but
the Supreme Court today allowed the 1st Circuit court's ruling to
remain intact.

The cases are Reno vs. Goncalves, 98-835, and Immigration and
Naturalization Service vs. Magana-Pizano, 98-836.