In the 1991 case of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jairo Jonathan Elias-Zacarias, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Guatemalan man seeking asylum in the United States had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a "well-founded fear" of political persecution if he were returned to his home country. The court held that Elias-Zacarias failed to show that he would be persecuted on account of his political opinion or any other protected ground under immigration law, as required by statute for granting asylum status. He claimed fear from being forcibly recruited into guerilla warfare but did not establish this was due to his political beliefs rather than general violence in Guatemala at the time. The ruling clarified standards for proving eligibility for asylum based on fears of persecution.

In the dissenting opinion for Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Elias-Zacarias, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of "persecution on account of political opinion" was too narrow. He believed that a person who resists forced recruitment by guerillas is expressing a political opinion opposing those guerillas' cause, even if they don't explicitly state it. Furthermore, he contended that resistance to forced recruitment should be seen as an expression of personal autonomy or freedom - concepts inherently tied to politics. Therefore, such individuals should qualify for asylum under U.S law which protects people persecuted due to their political beliefs. The majority's requirement for explicit evidence demonstrating persecutors' awareness and opposition to victims’ political views was deemed unrealistic in real-world conditions where direct proof is often unavailable.