The key differences between the Venezuela and Nepal TPS cases, as well as their legal and procedural implications:
Venezuela - Temporary victory: Federal courts granted injunctions to block DHS actions.
Nepal - Temporary Loss: DHS termination upheld, no injunction granted. Nov 18 can bring Victory
See below
V = Venezuela
N = Nepal , Nicaragua and Honduras
Legal Basis
V- Procedural and constitutional issues: Arbitrary DHS decision, discriminatory intent, lack of evidence.
N - Statutory grounds: TPS based on crisis conditions; recovery after 2015 Earthquake.
DHS Rationale
V- DHS decision was deemed arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional.
N- DHS ended TPS after determining conditions in Nepal improved post-Earthquake.
Court Rationale
V- Courts found likely success on procedural claims, with harm to TPS holders and U.S. communities.
N- Courts upheld DHS’s statutory authority and decision that conditions in Nepal no longer warranted TPS.
Appeal Status
V- Ongoing uncertainty with appeals pending, particularly in the Ninth Circuit.
N- Termination temporarily upheld, Nov 18 decision pending .
Impact of Legal Claims
V- Focused on due process, bias, and procedural flaws in DHS actions.
N- Focused on the statutory mandate for TPS termination when country conditions improve.
November 18 Court Decision Impact
V- Could hinge on whether procedural flaws and bias are upheld in appeals.
N- Less relevant to Venezuela, as the legal theories differ (statutory vs procedural).
Immediate Effect
Venezuelan TPS holders remain in limbo, with stay in place until appeals are resolved.
Nepal - No immediate effect—TPS termination stands, Nepalese face deportation or transition. Now bigger hope for November 18
Key Precedent
V- May set a precedent for TPS termination cases if constitutional claims succeed.
N- Court ruling reflects DHS’s authority in terminating TPS based on country conditions.
Impact on November 18 Decisions:
The Venezuela case may influence future TPS termination cases depending on how courts interpret the procedural flaws and discriminatory actions of DHS.
The Nepal case, grounded in the statutory conditions and the absence of procedural flaws, may not directly impact the Venezuelan case but shows a trend toward supporting DHS decisions when legal and factual grounds are strong.
This distinction could be crucial for how courts rule on the fate of TPS holders, especially for those from countries like Venezuela, as it will depend on whether judges view the procedural and constitutional arguments as valid.
Venezuela TPS holders achieved a temporary legal victory over the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) despite the recent temporary loss for Nepal TPS holders because federal courts found major differences in the facts and legal bases for each decision. This distinction is likely to impact November 18 court outcomes as Venezuelan TPS cases hinge on procedural and constitutional claims, while the Honduras case was decided strictly on statutory and country conditions grounds[3][1][6].
What can we do now ?
For Nepal TPS holders to maximize their chances of winning the November 18 court case, their legal team should focus on challenging the DHS termination on several specific legal and factual grounds. The most promising strategies are to demonstrate that
the termination decisions
1. violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
2. involved discriminatory intent, and
3. failed to properly consider humanitarian impacts and established legal precedents[1][2][7].
## Strengthen Administrative Procedure Arguments
- The team should argue that DHS’s abrupt reversal and the unusually short 60-day transition period departs from prior agency practice without adequate explanation, raising APA concerns[1][2].
- They can emphasize that DHS failed to provide a reasoned, evidence-based justification for ending TPS, especially if current country conditions in Nepal still present dangers or obstacles to return, and that the review process was not objective[1][2][7].
## Highlight Discriminatory or Prejudged Motives
- Plaintiffs should provide evidence or credible allegations of racial or nationality-based animus, which are constitutional violations, or that the decisions to terminate were preordained, rather than based on new country conditions reviews. Citing prior court findings or internal documents is key here[2].
- Past statements or policies from the Trump administration, now revived, could be leveraged to show that the supposedly “new” terminations merely rubber-stamped earlier contested decisions[2].
## Focus on Humanitarian, Family, and Equity Impacts
- Demonstrating the deep ties of TPS holders—many with decades in the U.S., U.S. citizen children, and strong community contributions—can sway the court’s assessment of the “irreparable harm” and public interest in granting relief[2][4].
- Expert testimony on the dangers or lack of infrastructure in Honduras may further rebut DHS’s claim that return is safe[1][2].
## Leverage Recent Precedent and Continue Organizing
- The team should distinguish the Honduran case from adverse precedent (e.g., the Ninth Circuit stay for Nepal[3][4]), while aligning arguments with favorable district court trends and injunctions in other TPS cases (including Venezuela), especially where courts found procedural or constitutional defects[2][7].
- Ongoing public advocacy and community organizing can also underline the urgent real-world implications of the court’s choice[2][4].
In summary, the most effective legal steps are to attack the legitimacy and process of the TPS termination, expose possible discriminatory or political motives, provide strong evidence of ongoing country risk, and highlight the significant harm to established families and communities in the U.S. These approaches are supported by both past court language and ongoing advocacy success for other TPS populations[1][2][7][4].
Sources
[1] Appeals Court Stays Postponement of TPS Terminations for ... https://www.fragomen.com/insights/united-states-appeals-court-stays-postponement-of-tps-terminations-for-honduras-nepal-and-nicaragua.html
[2] Federal Judge Orders Trump Administration to Delay Termination of ... https://www.nationaltpsalliance.org/breaking-federal-judge-orders-trump-administration-to-delay-termination-of-tps-humanitarian-protection-for-60000-tps-holders-who-have-lived-in-the-us-for-years/
[3] Ninth Circuit Court Allows Termination of TPS to Proceed for 60,000 ... https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/ninth-circuit-court-allows-termination-tps-proceed-60000-long-term-residents-nepal
[4] Ninth Circuit Court Allows Termination of TPS to Proceed for 60,000 ... https://law.ucla.edu/news/ninth-circuit-court-allows-termination-tps-proceed-60000-long-term-residents-nepal-honduras-and-nicaragua
[5] Federal Court Ruling Clears Path to End TPS for Nicaragua ... https://leadingage.org/federal-court-ruling-clears-path-to-end-tps-for-nicaragua-honduras-and-nepal/
[6] DHS Complies with District Court-Issued Stay to Postpone ... - USCIS https://www.uscis.gov/save/current-user-agencies/news-alerts/dhs-complies-with-district-court-issued-stay-to-postpone-the-termination-of-tps-for-nepal-honduras
[7] TPS for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua: Another Shift in the Legal ... https://www.throughtheimmigrationlens.com/2025/08/tps-for-honduras-nepal-and-nicaragua-another-shift-in-the-legal-winds/
[8] Practice Alert: Termination of TPS for Nepal https://www.aila.org/dhs-terminates-temporary-protected-status-for-nepal
Details and References
## Key Differences in the Cases
- **Venezuela TPS:** Courts ruled in favor of Venezuelan TPS holders, granting injunctions that temporarily block DHS from stripping work permits, deportation deferral, and legal status.
The rationale included findings that
the DHS decision was
1. “arbitrary and capricious,”
2. lacked evidentiary support, and, in part,
3. was motivated by unconstitutional bias.
4. Judges cited severe harm to TPS holders and U.S. communities, plus
5. potential illegal administrative shortcuts[3][4][6].
- ** Nepal TPS:** DHS ended TPS based on the statutory mandate that TPS is temporary and should be removed when original crisis conditions no longer exist. After extensive review, DHS determined Earthquake recovery was complete and Nepali government could reintegrate returnees. The courts saw these as sufficient legal and factual grounds and did not grant an injunction[1][7].
## Legal and Procedural Differences
- **Venezuela:** Plaintiffs presented strong arguments on improper process, discrimination, and lack of evidence in DHS rationale. Courts found a likelihood of success on these claims and granted a stay; the matter is still pending, with ongoing uncertainty for tens of thousands until higher courts resolve appeals[3][6].
- **Nepal** The termination was also challenged, but courts sided with DHS, as the process met statutory requirements and country conditions no longer warranted protection. Prior legal precedent (especially in the Ninth Circuit) upheld government authority in these contexts[1][7].
## Impact on November 18 Court Decisions
- **Precedential Effects:** The Venezuelan TPS victory is tentative and rooted in specific findings of administrative overreach and discriminatory intent, potentially distinguishing it from the Nepal precedent[3][6].
- **Uncertainty:** The outcome for Venezuelans will depend on upcoming appeals, particularly the Ninth Circuit review and possibly the Supreme Court. Since the Nepal case was decided on different facts and legal theories, it won’t necessarily dictate the Venezuelan result but could indicate a judicial trend toward upholding DHS’ discretion, absent procedural or constitutional flaws[6][7].
- **Immediate Impact:** Unless further court intervention occurs, Venezuelan TPS holders remain in legal limbo; the judge’s stay could be lifted if higher courts side with DHS in November, but if not, the injunction might hold and set new precedent for the treatment of TPS terminations[4][6].
In summary, the Venezuela TPS win was due to courts finding serious procedural and constitutional issues with DHS action, while the temporary Nepal loss relied on improved country conditions and statutorily correct process.
November 18 decisions will hinge on whether those critical legal distinctions—especially allegations of bias and lack of due process—are upheld or rejected[1][3][6][7].
Sources
[1] DHS Ends TPS for Honduras as Conditions Improve https://www.jeelani-law.com/dhs-ends-tps-for-honduras/
[2] TPS Twist: Court Halts DHS Action on Certain Venezuelan Work ... https://www.throughtheimmigrationlens.com/2025/06/tps-twist-court-halts-dhs-action-on-certain-venezuelan-work-authorization-for-now/
[3] Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration's Termination of TPS for ... https://www.nationaltpsalliance.org/breaking-federal-court-blocks-trump-administrations-termination-of-tps-for-hundreds-of-thousands-of-migrants-from-venezuela/
[4] Supreme Court “De-Documents” 350000 Venezuelans https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/supreme-court-de-documents-350000-venezuelans/
[5] Uscis TPS Honduras : r/immigration - Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/immigration/comments/1lstg6z/uscis_tps_honduras/
[6] Federal judge puts Venezuelan TPS ruling on hold, thousands in ... https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/federal-judge-puts-venezuelan-tps-ruling-on-hold-thousands-in-limbo/
[7] Ninth Circuit Court Allows Termination of TPS to Proceed for 60,000 ... https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/ninth-circuit-court-allows-termination-tps-proceed-60000-long-term-residents-nepal
[8] Appeals court blocks end of TPS for 600000 Venezuelan migrants https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhjROUzelN0
[9] The U.S. cut off a million TPS holders. Here's why that's everyone ... https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-u-s-cut-off-a-million-tps-holders-heres-why-thats-everyone-elses-opportunity/
[10] [PDF] the end of the ramos litigation: tps holders declare victory https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/faq_-_the_end_of_the_ramos_litigation_-_final.pdf
Last edited: 30-Aug-25 02:51 PM
Last edited: 30-Aug-25 02:52 PM
Last edited: 30-Aug-25 02:54 PM
Last edited: 30-Aug-25 02:55 PM
Last edited: 30-Aug-25 03:02 PM
Last edited: 30-Aug-25 03:02 PM
Last edited: 30-Aug-25 03:12 PM
