American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh

760 F. Supp. 796, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3446, 1991 WL 35429
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 31, 1991
DocketCiv. C-85-3255-RFP
StatusPublished
Cited by102 cases

This text of 760 F. Supp. 796 (American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3446, 1991 WL 35429 (N.D. Cal. 1991).

Opinion

STIPULATED ORDER APPROVING CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

PECKHAM, District Judge.

On December 19, 1990, this Court provisionally approved the Stipulated Settlement Agreement submitted by the parties. Published notice of the pendency of the Settlement Agreement and of the fairness hearing was given to class members as provided in the Order Preliminarily Approving Stipulated Settlement Agreement by counsel for the plaintiffs in the manner set forth in the Declaration of Deborah Smith, filed on January 29, 1991. On January 31, 1991, the Court held a fairness hearing to consider objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement.

The Court having considered the one objection received and having made an independent determination that the Settlement Agreement is a fair, adequate and reasonable settlement of this action, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement attached hereto is approved; and it is further

ORDERED that the instant action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement except insofar as the Court retains continuing jurisdiction as provided for in Paragraph 33 of the said Agreement; and it is further

ORDERED that the defendants, in making the disbursements of funds referred to in Paragraphs 5 and 41 of the said Agreement, will make the payments to Marc Van Der Hout as trustee and it is further

ORDERED that costs and fees shall be as set forth in Paragraph 41 of the Settlement Agreement.

APPENDIX STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

. AMENDMENT OF CLASS . 799

CLASS MEMBERS ELIGIBLE FOR DE NOVO ASYLUM ADJUDICATION... .799

. a. SALVADORANS WHO: . 799

. b. GUATEMALANS WHO:. 800

. NOTICE OF RIGHTS HEREUNDER. 800

. a. NOTICE BY PUBLICATION . 800

. b. NOTICE BY MAIL. 800

. 1. CLASS MEMBERS IN EOIR PROCEEDINGS. 800

2. CLASS MEMBERS WITH CASES PENDING IN FEDERAL COURT .

3. CLASS MEMBERS NOT IN PROCEEDINGS.

SALVADORAN CLASS MEMBERS.

1. APPLICANTS FOR TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS .

2. APPLICANTS GRANTED TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS WHO DO NOT RE-REGISTER. tH O 00

3. APPLICANTS WHO DO NOT APPLY FOR TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS.

d. CLASS MEMBERS DETAINED UNDER INS AUTHORITY.

CONTENTS OF NOTICES.

FUNDING FOR PUBLIC NOTICE .

TIME TO RESPOND TO MAILED NOTICE.

TIME FOR FILING NEW ASYLUM APPLICATION.

AVAILABILITY OF NOTICES AT INS OFFICES.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE AND FILING REQUIREMENT...

COMMENCEMENT OF DE NOVO ADJUDICATION. — I

SCHEDULING OF INTERVIEWS. — H

LEGAL ASSISTANCE.

CONTINUANCE OF INTERVIEW. T“H

*798 Page

14. INSTRUCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO REVIEW OF PRIOR APPLICATIONS.803

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT AFTER INTERVIEW.803

ADDITIONAL REVIEW PROCEDURES.804

DETENTION OF CLASS MEMBERS ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF.804

EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZATION.804

a SCOPE .805 I <

b. FILING OF A COMPLETE ASYLUM APPLICATION OO cr

c. TIMELY ADJUDICATIONS. OO cr

d. ELIGIBILITY AND FEES. OO cr

e. WORK AUTHORIZATION AFTER DENIAL. OO cr

STAY OF DEPORTATION AND DEFERRAL OF EXCLUSION AND DEPORTATION CASES PENDING NEW ADJUDICATION. oo o CR h-i O

a. PENDING ASYLUM OFFICER DETERMINATION. oo o CR

1. ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSING OF CASES PENDING BEFORE EOIR.
2. CASES PENDING BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
3. CASES PENDING IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.
4. CASES NOT STAYED.

b. STAY PENDING JUDICIAL REVIEW.

RESUMPTION OF CASES IF ASYLUM IS DENIED. O <M

a. CASES PENDING BEFORE IMMIGRATION JUDGES .

b. CASES PENDING BEFORE THE BIA.

c. CASES PENDING IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.

CLASS MEMBERS WITH FINAL ORDERS. DO

COMMENTS OF THE BUREAU OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN AFFAIRS TO THE ASYLUM OFFICER. 00 -q DO CO

REVIEW OF GLOSSARIES. 00 -q CO CM

CENTRALIZED INFORMATION CENTER. 00 -q 03

INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS. 00 -q lo CM

OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS TRAINING SESSION TO BE HELD FOR THE BHRHA. 00 o 00 CO CM

OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS TRAINING SESSION FOR NEW ASYLUM OFFICERS. — CO —3

OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IMMIGRATION JUDGES . —

GAO MONITORING. —

PLAINTIFFS’ MONITORING. —

TOLLING PROVISION. —

REPRESENTATION AND WARRANTY. —

RETENTION OF JURISDICTION. —

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION. —

CLAIMS BY INDIVIDUAL CLASS MEMBERS . —

DISPUTE RESOLUTION. —

a. NOTICE OF CLAIMED VIOLATION. —

b. RESPONSE OF ADVERSE PARTY. —

c. NEGOTIATION. —

d. DEPORTATION. —

e. DETENTION. —

TERMINATION. — c-CO

DISMISSAL . — oo CO

RELEASE FROM OBLIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO SIGNING OF AGREEMENT BY THE PARTIES. rH rH CO o CO

REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING AGREEMENT. rH i — I GO O

PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS . t — i rH GO H

rH rH oc 4^ DO

*799 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, many Salvadoran and Guatemalan citizens in the United States, have filed this action against Defendants, Richard L. Thornburgh, on behalf of the United States Department of Justice, Gene McNary, on behalf of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), and James A. Baker, III, on behalf of the United States Department of State, 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;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Alvarado v. Bondi
Ninth Circuit, 2025
Santeliz v. Garland
Ninth Circuit, 2024
Jesus Zuniga Romero v. William Barr
937 F.3d 282 (Fourth Circuit, 2019)
CASTRO-TUM
27 I. & N. Dec. 271 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 2018)
Enio Mazariegos-Chojolan v. Jefferson B. Sessions
709 F. App'x 388 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)
Ruballos v. Sessions
682 F. App'x 59 (Second Circuit, 2017)
Rudy Montenegro v. Loretta E. Lynch
648 F. App'x 725 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Elmer Lopez-Ordenas v. Loretta E. Lynch
648 F. App'x 682 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Balmore Hernandez v. Loretta E. Lynch
625 F. App'x 336 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Selomi Villalta v. Eric Holder, Jr.
599 F. App'x 628 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Silder Ramos v. Eric Holder, Jr.
592 F. App'x 612 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Ramirez v. Holder
590 F. App'x 780 (Tenth Circuit, 2014)
Manuel Mondragon v. Eric Holder, Jr.
706 F.3d 535 (Fourth Circuit, 2013)
Jose Alonzo v. Eric Holder, Jr.
496 F. App'x 741 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Consuelo Solis v. Eric Holder, Jr.
490 F. App'x 744 (Sixth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
760 F. Supp. 796, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3446, 1991 WL 35429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-baptist-churches-v-thornburgh-cand-1991.