How has this regulation reversed the asylum policy so far for Central Americans fleeing violence? During the proceedings for American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, which began in 1985 [the case was originally American Baptist Churches of the U.S.A. v. Meese], a judge, as a complainant, certified a class of Guatemalan and Salvadoran nationals stating that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) [now United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)), the Executive Office for immigration review (EOIR) and the Ministry of State (DOS) were active in the discriminatory handling of Guatemalan asylum claims. In 1990, the government entered into an agreement (ABC comparison) with the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs, and this transaction was approved in American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh. In this context, coupled with the lack of asylum protection for refugees, religious organizations have begun not only to provide services to migrants already living in the United States, but also to transport refugees who are still in Central America to the United States via Mexico.  The defence of these acts, claiming that the persons they allegedly helped were in fact refugees, although they were illegitimately denied these protections, were nevertheless prosecuted by the INS for their actions. This would lead to the beginning of the colony, together with various religious, legal and municipal activists, organizations that oppose the INS for violating the rights of religious organizations and migrants themselves. All applicants who met the conditions, to the extent that they were entitled to settlement benefits, were entitled to a work permit as one of those benefits.
American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991),  formerly American Baptist Churches v Meese, is a scheme obtained on January 31, 1991, resulting from a class action against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Department of State. (DOS). The complaint was filed in 1985 by a coalition of religious organizations, refugee aid associations and numerous human rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the National Lawyers Guild. (NLG) Although the case initially identified two different groups of complainants, various religious organizations participating in the sanctuary movement and Central American refugees after changes were made to the criminal laws previously used to persecute these religious organizations, the complaint focused on the rights to discriminate against Central American refugees in asylum proceedings. This directly violates the principles of the Refugee Act 1980, which aimed to establish uniform criteria for verifying cases in which persons fleeing political persecution and humanitarian crises could be granted asylum.
After five years, the colony provided many Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants with temporary protection status (GST), including offers asylum interviews, deportation stays and work permits. Registered ABC class members whose asylum claims were rejected prior to the ABC scheme were entitled to de novo asylum interviews for a new assessment of the right to asylum in accordance with the scheme. However, they were not required to request such a new consultation and evaluation in order to qualify for ABC benefits. A coalition of religious and refugee organizations has filed a complaint challenging the federal government`s rejection of asylum applications by Salvadorans and Guatemalans who fled violence in the 1980s. Under the Reagan administration, these asylum seekers were largely considered “economic refugees” and offered no protection.