Posted by: Oops i did it again August 31, 2025
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
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
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