## Facts

- Salvadoran and Guatemalan nationals fled civil-war violence in the 1980s and sought asylum in the United States.
- A nationwide class action alleged a pattern and practice of discriminatory asylum adjudication against these nationalities, contrary to the Refugee Act of 1980.
- Defendants were federal officials and agencies responsible for asylum policy and adjudication, including the Attorney General and the INS.
- After discovery, the parties negotiated a stipulated class settlement; the court provisionally approved it, ordered notice, and set a fairness hearing.
- The settlement defined eligible class members principally by nationality and date of U.S. entry (Guatemalans on or before Oct. 1, 1990; Salvadorans on or before Sept. 19, 1990), subject to registration/asylum-filing deadlines and disqualifying conditions.
- Core relief included de novo asylum adjudications, a bar on removal pending access to settlement benefits, potential employment authorization, and limits on detention.
- The court held a fairness hearing, received and considered one objection, and evaluated the settlement in light of updated asylum regulations effective Oct. 1, 1990.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class action settlement should be approved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) as fair, adequate, and reasonable.
2. Whether the action should be dismissed with prejudice while the court retained limited continuing jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.

## Decision

- The court approved the stipulated settlement as fair, adequate, and reasonable under Rule 23(e).
- The court found that class notice and the opportunity to object were properly provided and that the objection received did not warrant rejecting the settlement.
- The court dismissed the action with prejudice pursuant to the settlement’s terms.
- The court retained continuing jurisdiction as specified in the settlement to supervise and enforce compliance.
- The court authorized administrative implementation measures contemplated by the agreement, including handling of settlement-related funds and fees/costs.

## Legal Principles

- A class action settlement requires judicial approval under Rule 23(e) based on an independent determination that the agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
- Adequate notice to class members and a meaningful opportunity to object are essential procedural components of Rule 23(e) review.
- In assessing fairness, a court may consider the scope of class relief, litigation risks avoided, and practical implementation safeguards, including ongoing judicial supervision.
- Settlement relief may include prospective procedural protections (e.g., de novo adjudications and stays of removal) designed to address alleged defects in administrative processing.

## Conclusion

The district court approved a nationwide class settlement providing eligible Salvadoran and Guatemalan asylum seekers new, independent asylum adjudications and protection from removal while pursuing settlement benefits, and it ended the litigation with prejudice while retaining jurisdiction to enforce the agreement.


Am. Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991)