The regular denial of asylum applications from Salvadorans and Guatemalans fleeing violence in their homelands during the 1980s led to this legal challenge which forced changes to U.S. procedures for handling such cases.
How did this settlement reverse previous asylum policies toward Central Americans fleeing violence?
What considerations does the settlement say are not relevant in determining asylum claims?
What groups/ movement pushed the federal government to extend protections to Central American Asylum seekers?
A coalition of religious and refugee assistance organizations filed suit to challenge the federal government’s denial of asylum applications from Salvadorans and Guatemalans fleeing violence during the 1980s. Under the Reagan administration, these asylum seekers were largely categorized as “economic refugees” and provided no protection. Widespread protests in the 1980s coalesced into the modern sanctuary movement. These pressures produced the out-of-court ABC settlement which permitted certain applicants to have their cases re-evaluated if they had arrived before 1990. In the meanwhile, they were permitted stays of deportation and could be detained only if they had committed of a “crime involving moral turpitude” and received a jail sentence of more than 6 months or posed a risk to national security or public safety. Many Guatemalans and Salvadorans were able to regularize their statuses through the new procedures.
AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Richard THORNBURGH, et al., Defendants.
January 31, 1991.
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, many Salvadoran and Guatemalan citizens in the United States, have filed this action . . . raising, among other issues, systemic challenges to the processing of asylum claims filed by Salvadorans and Guatemalans pursuant to the Refugee Act of 1980 and the regulations promulgated thereunder ; and
WHEREAS, the system of asylum processing has been significantly changed by regulations effective October 1, 1990; and
WHEREAS, under the new asylum regulations as well as the old: foreign policy and border enforcement considerations are not relevant to the determination of whether an applicant for asylum has a well-founded fear of persecution . . . . the fact that an individual is from a country whose government the United States supports or with which it has favorable relations is not relevant to the determination of whether an applicant for asylum has a well-founded fear of persecution . . . ; and
WHEREAS, . . . the Attorney General to [may] designate any foreign state (or any part thereof) so as to give Temporary Protected Status to nationals of such state; and
WHEREAS, Section 303 of the Immigration Act of 1990 designates El Salvador under INA Section 244A and thereby entitles Salvadorans who meet the requirements of Section 303 to Temporary Protected Status . . . .
THEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Defendants enter into and stipulate that this agreement imposes binding obligations on the parties and their successors and that this agreement constitutes a full and complete resolution of the issues raised in this action.
