The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisions on Nepal TPS and Venezuela TPS were based on distinct legal and factual grounds, which explain why the court allowed the termination of Nepal TPS to proceed while upholding a postponement of the Venezuela TPS termination. Below is a clear breakdown of the reasons, based on available information:

Nepal TPS Termination (Allowed to Proceed)
• Case Context: On August 20, 2025, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit granted the Trump administration’s request to stay a district court order that had postponed the termination of TPS for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua until November 18, 2025. This allowed Nepal’s TPS to expire as of August 5, 2025, and Honduras and Nicaragua’s TPS to expire on September 8, 2025, unless further court orders intervene. The case is National TPS Alliance v. Noem (25-4901).
• Reasons for Termination:
1. Government’s Argument on Judicial Review: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), represented by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign, argued that TPS terminations are largely unreviewable by courts, citing a Supreme Court precedent from May 2025 that allowed DHS to end TPS for Venezuelans. The government claimed the court could not block the administration’s policy to terminate TPS for Nepal, as it was within the DHS Secretary’s discretion.
2. Changed Country Conditions: DHS Secretary Kristi Noem determined that Nepal no longer met TPS criteria, stating that the conditions from the 2015 earthquake had sufficiently improved, justifying termination. The government argued that TPS is meant to be temporary and that Nepal’s recovery negated the need for continued protection.
3. Irreparable Harm to Government: The government argued it faced “irreparable harm” by being unable to implement its immigration policy due to the district court’s stay. The 9th Circuit agreed, granting the emergency stay without detailed reasoning, suggesting the court found the government’s argument persuasive enough to act swiftly.
4. Lack of Court Explanation: The 9th Circuit’s ruling was criticized for not providing a detailed rationale, which some advocates argued fell short of due process. This lack of explanation suggests the court prioritized the government’s claim of executive authority over the plaintiffs’ arguments about unlawful termination or racial animus.
Venezuela TPS Termination (Postponement Upheld)
• Case Context: On August 29, 2025, the 9th Circuit affirmed a March 31, 2025, district court order by Judge Edward Chen that postponed the DHS’s termination of the 2023 Venezuela TPS designation, protecting nearly 600,000 Venezuelans temporarily. However, a May 2025 Supreme Court stay kept the 2023 designation expired pending further appeals. The case is also National TPS Alliance v. Noem (Case No. 3:25-cv-01766).


• Reasons for Upholding Postponement:
1. Unlawful Reversal of Prior Extension: The plaintiffs argued that DHS Secretary Noem overstepped her authority by reversing a Biden-era extension of Venezuela’s TPS (designated in 2023). The 9th Circuit agreed with Judge Chen that this reversal was likely illegal under the TPS statute, which is designed to ensure predictable periods of safety for beneficiaries. Sudden reversals contravene the statute’s purpose.
2. Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs: The court found that TPS holders faced significant harm—loss of legal status, work authorization, and risk of deportation to a crisis-ridden Venezuela—outweighing the government’s claimed harm. The 9th Circuit cited the Supreme Court’s Nken v. Holder standard, which prioritizes harm to plaintiffs in such cases.
3. Allegations of Bias: Plaintiffs alleged that Noem’s decision was motivated by racial or national-origin bias, citing statements portraying Venezuelan migrants negatively (e.g., references to the Tren de Aragua gang). The court found these claims had enough merit to justify postponing termination until a full merits hearing.
4. Statutory Constraints: The 9th Circuit emphasized that the TPS statute constrains executive discretion to ensure stability for beneficiaries. Unlike the Nepal case, where the termination was based on improved country conditions, the Venezuela case involved a challenge to the process of reversing a prior extension, which the court deemed procedurally questionable.
Key Differences Explaining the Outcomes
1. Legal Basis:
• Nepal TPS: The court accepted DHS’s argument that terminations based on improved country conditions (post-2015 earthquake) were within its discretion and less subject to judicial review.
• Venezuela TPS: The court found that reversing a prior TPS extension (from the Biden administration) violated the TPS statute’s intent for predictable protection periods, making the termination legally questionable.
2. Harm Assessment:
• Nepal TPS: The government successfully argued it faced irreparable harm from being unable to enforce its policy, and the court did not find sufficient countervailing harm to Nepali TPS holders to maintain the stay.
• Venezuela TPS: The court prioritized the severe harm to nearly 600,000 Venezuelans (e.g., deportation risks, family separation) over the government’s policy preferences.
3. Duration of Stay:
• Nepal TPS holders (designated in 2015) had been in the U.S. for about a decade, and the court may have viewed their situation as less urgent compared to Venezuelans, many of whom fled recent crises.
• Venezuelan TPS holders (designated in 2021 and 2023) were seen as facing immediate danger due to ongoing political and humanitarian crises, strengthening their case for continued protection.
4. Judicial Precedent:
• The Nepal case leaned on a May 2025 Supreme Court ruling allowing DHS to terminate Venezuelan TPS, reinforcing the government’s broad authority over TPS decisions.
• The Venezuela case distinguished itself by focusing on the procedural illegality of reversing an extension, not just the termination itself, which the 9th Circuit found reviewable.
Why the Difference?
The 9th Circuit treated the Nepal TPS termination as a standard executive decision tied to country conditions, aligning with DHS’s authority and a recent Supreme Court precedent. In contrast, the Venezuela TPS case hinged on the unique issue of reversing a prior extension, which the court viewed as a procedural violation likely motivated by improper factors, justifying judicial intervention. The larger number of affected Venezuelans (600,000 vs. 7000 and the ongoing crisis in Venezuela likely amplified the court’s concern for irreparable harm in the Venezuela case.


मलाई त होप छैन १८ माँ पनी . चैट जीपीटी ले

Why Nepali TPS holders have a winning legal case before the Supreme Court (or any appellate forum),

(1) Nepal TPS is not as a discretionary termination case but as a constitutional rights and statutory violation case,

(2) irreparable harm outweighing any claimed government harm, and

(3) Nepal's case in some way is different from Venezuela, so much so that the government’s own arguments back against them.

Here’s a legal advocacy brief-style argument:

ARGUMENT: WHY TPS FOR NEPAL MUST BE CONTINUED

I. Constitutional Principles: Life, Liberty, and Equal Protection Demand Continuation of TPS for Nepali Beneficiaries

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Nepali TPS holders—many of whom have lived in the United States for over a decade, raised U.S. citizen children, and built lawful reliance on their status—face imminent deprivation of all three if TPS is terminated without meaningful judicial review.

Life: Deporting individuals back to Nepal exposes them to dangerous and destabilizing conditions that remain despite partial recovery from the 2015 earthquake—political instability, infrastructure collapse, economic weakness, and recurring natural disasters. This creates a foreseeable risk to life, which the Constitution protects against arbitrary government action.

Liberty: Families will be separated, lawful employment authorization lost, and individuals stripped of freedom of movement. This is not a mere inconvenience; it is an existential deprivation of liberty interests that have constitutional weight.

Equal Protection: When similarly situated groups (e.g., Venezuelans) receive judicial protection while Nepalis are denied it, without rational basis, the government’s actions take on the character of arbitrary discrimination.

Thus, constitutional principles require the judiciary to step in, despite DHS’s claims of unreviewable discretion.

II. The Statutory Framework of TPS Prohibits Arbitrary or Premature Termination

Congress designed Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a to provide stability, predictability, and humanitarian relief. It is not an executive whim; it is a statutory safeguard.

Textual Interpretation: The statute requires the Secretary of DHS to make determinations based on “conditions that prevent safe return.” Nepal remains afflicted by recurrent earthquakes, flooding, and economic collapse, which indisputably continue to “prevent safe return.”

Legislative Intent: Congress enacted TPS to prevent precisely what DHS now attempts—the forced removal of long-term residents into unsafe conditions. Terminating Nepal TPS while those unsafe conditions persist undermines Congressional purpose.

Judicial Review: While DHS argues TPS terminations are discretionary, courts retain authority to review whether that discretion was exercised lawfully and rationally, especially where decisions contradict the statute’s humanitarian objectives.

III. Irreparable Harm to Nepali TPS Holders Far Outweighs Government Claims of Harm

The government argued, and the Ninth Circuit accepted, that it suffers “irreparable harm” when its immigration policy cannot be enforced. But that harm is purely policy-based and reversible. By contrast:

Human Harm: Nepali TPS holders face deportation to a country still unsafe, loss of work authorization, family separation, and destruction of established community ties.

Economic Harm: Nepali TPS holders contribute millions to the U.S. economy in essential industries. Their removal would harm—not benefit—the public interest.

Reliance Interests: For over ten years, Nepali families lawfully relied on TPS. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held (see Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211 (2016)) that abrupt agency reversals ignoring reliance interests are unlawful.

Thus, under Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), the balance of harms overwhelmingly favors continuation of TPS for Nepal.

IV. The Government’s “Improved Country Conditions” Argument is Factually and Legally Flawed

Superficial Assessments: While DHS claims Nepal “recovered” from the 2015 earthquake, U.N. and World Bank reports show ongoing displacement, fragile infrastructure, and economic instability.

Cumulative Hardship: Natural disasters in Nepal are recurrent, not isolated. Conditions preventing safe return persist.

Disparate Treatment: The government treats Venezuela as warranting extended protection despite arguments of discretion, while claiming Nepal no longer qualifies. This inconsistency itself demonstrates arbitrariness.

V. Precedent Requires Judicial Intervention to Prevent Unlawful Agency Action

Arbitrary & Capricious Review: Under the APA, courts must set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. DHS’s termination of Nepal TPS, while ignoring reliance interests, humanitarian risks, and equal protection concerns, fits squarely within this standard.

Separation of Powers: Allowing DHS unchecked discretion undermines judicial review and permits executive overreach—precisely what the Framers sought to avoid.

Comparative Precedent (Venezuela TPS): The Ninth Circuit itself recognized that sudden reversals and disregard of statutory purpose warrant judicial intervention. The same principles apply with equal or greater force to Nepal.

VI. Public Interest Strongly Supports Continuation of TPS for Nepal

The Supreme Court has long held that equitable relief turns on the public interest. Here:

U.S. citizen children will be protected from family separation.

Communities will retain essential workers.

The United States will uphold its humanitarian commitments consistent with international norms.

Terminating TPS for Nepal serves no legitimate public interest—it only imposes cruelty and instability.

CONCLUSION

The Constitution, the TPS statute, and binding precedent all converge on one principle: Nepali TPS holders must not be cast aside by an arbitrary stroke of executive discretion. The irreparable harm to families, communities, and fundamental rights far outweighs any speculative government harm.

This Court must therefore reverse the Ninth Circuit’s stay, reinstate protections, and hold that the termination of Nepal TPS was unlawful, unconstitutional, and contrary to both statutory mandate and humanitarian principle.