The surge of Central American children coming to the United States who are not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian and who lack proper immigration documents is raising complex and competing sets of humanitarian concerns and immigration control issues. Adults and families from the same three countries—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—have also been coming in increasing numbers over the same period. These three countries have been experiencing high violent crime rates, poor economic conditions fueled by relatively low economic growth rates, high rates of poverty, and the presence of transnational gangs. Although these factors may prompt nationals of these countries to emigrate and may also elicit a humanitarian response from the receiving nations, the factors do not necessarily lead to a determination that those fleeing are refugees or asylees under the law. Current law requires that unaccompanied alien children are treated differently than unauthorized adults or unauthorized families with children who come to the United States seeking asylum. The treatment of adults and families with children is prescribed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as notably amended by the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. By contrast, two statutes and a legal settlement (as well as the INA) most directly affect U.S. policy for the treatment and administrative processing of unaccompanied children: the Flores Settlement Agreement of 1997; the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA; P.L. 107-296 ); and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA, P.L. 110-457 ). This report focuses on unaccompanied alien children as asylum seekers. To bring clarity to the unique policies toward unaccompanied children, this report compares their treatment to that of unauthorized adults and families with children in the specific contexts of asylum and expedited removal. It further builds on a set of CRS reports analyzing the issues surrounding unaccompanied alien children. Under the INA, foreign nationals present in the United States may apply for asylum with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau (USCIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after arrival into the country, or may seek asylum before the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) during removal proceedings. To receive asylum in the United States , foreign nationals must demonstrate a well-founded fear that if returned home, they will be persecuted based upon one of five characteristics: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Because "fear" is a subjective state of mind, assessing the merits of an asylum case rests in large part on the credibility of the claim and the likelihood that persecution would occur if the alien is returned home. The standards for "well-founded fear" have evolved over the years and have been guided significantly by judicial decisions, including a notable U.S. Supreme Court case. The regulations specify that an asylum seeker has a well-founded fear of persecution if: (A) The applicant has a fear of persecution in his or her country of nationality or, if stateless, in his or her country of last habitual residence, on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion; (B) There is a reasonable possibility of suffering such persecution if he or she were to return to that country; and (C) He or she is unable or unwilling to return to, or avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of such fear. The regulations also state that an asylum seeker "does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant could avoid persecution by relocating to another part of the applicant's country." Foreign nationals—specifically in this context adults and families with children—apprehended along the border or arriving at a U.S. port of entry who lack proper immigration documents or who engage in fraud or misrepresentation are placed in a procedure known as expedited removal; however, if they express a fear of persecution, they receive a "credible fear" hearing with a USCIS asylum officer and—if found credible—are referred to an EOIR immigration judge for a hearing. Prior to 1996, foreign nationals arriving at a port of entry to the United States without proper immigration documents were eligible for a hearing before an EOIR immigration judge to determine whether the aliens were admissible. Foreign nationals lacking proper documents could request asylum in the United States at that time. If the alien received an unfavorable decision from the immigration judge, he or she also could seek administrative and judicial review of the case. Critics of this policy argued that illegal aliens were arriving without proper documents, filing frivolous asylum claims, and obtaining work authorizations while their asylum cases stalled in lengthy backlogs. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the mass exodus of thousands of asylum seekers from Central America, Cuba, and Haiti prompted further concerns that the then-current policy was unwieldy and prone to abuses because it provided for multiple levels of hearings, reviews, and appeals. In response, the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208 ) amended the INA to require DHS immigration officers to summarily exclude a foreign national arriving without proper documentation, unless the foreign national expresses a fear of persecution if repatriated. Absent a stated fear, a DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer is allowed to exclude foreign nationals without proper documentation from the United States without placing them in removal proceedings. This procedure is known as expedited removal. According to DHS immigration policy and procedures, CBP inspectors, as well as other DHS immigration officers, are required to ask each individual who may be subject to expedited removal the following series of "protection questions" to identify anyone who is afraid to be returned to his or her home country: Why did you leave your home country or country of last residence? Do you have any fear or concern about being returned to your home country or being removed from the United States? Would you be harmed if you were returned to your home country or country of last residence? Do you have any questions or is there anything else you would like to add? If the foreign national expresses a fear of return, the alien is supposed to be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and interviewed by a USCIS asylum officer. The USCIS asylum officer then makes a "credible fear" determination of the foreign national's claim. The INA states that "the term credible fear of persecution means that there is a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim and such other facts as are known to the officer, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under §208." Integral to expedited removal, the credible fear concept also functions as a pre-screening standard that is broader—and the burden of proof easier to meet—than the well-founded fear of persecution standard required to obtain asylum. A foreign national whom the USCIS asylum officer finds to have a "credible fear" is referred to an EOIR immigration judge; this determination places the asylum seeker on what is commonly referred to as the "defensive" path to asylum. If the USCIS asylum officer finds that an alien does not have a credible fear, the alien may request that an EOIR immigration judge review that finding. The most notable and recent revisions to asylum policy that pertain to unaccompanied children were included in the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008. The asylum provisions of the TVPRA were part of a larger set of provisions that revised the initial processing, temporary placement, and immigration relief options for unaccompanied children. Prior to the TVPRA revisions, the unaccompanied child who sought asylum did so during a removal proceeding before an immigration judge in EOIR. The legislative road to the TVPRA provisions on asylum for unaccompanied children began in the 1980s and 1990s, when immigration rights and child welfare advocacy groups challenged the policies of treating unauthorized children much the same as unauthorized adults under the INA. In 1997, the Flores Settlement established a nationwide policy for the detention, treatment, and release of UAC and recognized the particular vulnerability of UAC while detained without a parent or legal guardian present. The Flores Settlement provided the basis for then-Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) policy guidance that unaccompanied alien children would not generally be subject to expedited removal, even though the statute did not expressly exclude minors. This policy guidance provided that unaccompanied children would have the opportunity to seek asylum during removal proceedings before an EOIR immigration judge. The policy guidance further stated: "[E]xisting guidelines permit granting a waiver, deferring the inspection, or employing other discretionary means, if applicable, including withdrawing of an application for admission." It further directed that expedited removal might be applied to unaccompanied children if the minor has previously been issued a final order of removal, had a criminal record, or engaged in criminal activity in the presence of an INS officer. For years after the Flores Settlement , immigration rights and child welfare groups continued to criticize immigration officials who were responsible for unaccompanied children. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) divided responsibilities for the processing and treatment of UAC between the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS's) Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). The HSA also established a statutory definition for "unaccompanied alien children" as children who lack lawful immigration status in the United States, who are under the age of 18, who are without a parent or legal guardian in the United States, or for whom no parent or legal guardian in the United States is available to provide care and physical custody.