In a courtroom in the Northern District of California, U.S. District Court Judge Trina L. Thompson presided over a hearing in National TPS Alliance et al. v. Noem et al., concerning a motion to postpone the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 7,500 Nepali, 52,000 Honduran, and 3,500 Nicaraguan individuals.
The hearing involved legal arguments from attorneys representing both sides and concluded with the case under submission. A decision is anticipated after 48 hours, by July 31, 2025. The outcome of this decision could impact the status of thousands of TPS holders who have resided lawfully in the U.S. for decades.
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs, Ahilan T. Arulanantham and Jessica Bansal, argued that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to terminate TPS for Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua is inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and constitutional protections.
Their claims focused on three main areas. The plaintiffs’ attorneys contended that DHS’s termination decisions, announced by Secretary Kristi Noem, were not based on objective assessments of country conditions as stipulated by 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a). They argued that these decisions instead reflect a predetermined policy to end TPS across multiple countries, aligning with Executive Order 14159, titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.”
The attorneys referenced public statements by Secretary Noem and the administration, including press releases describing TPS as a “magnet for illegal immigration” and terminations as “restoring integrity” to the immigration system. They also highlighted discrepancies in DHS’s Federal Register notices, which indicate improved country conditions but, in the plaintiffs’ view, do not adequately address factors such as crime in Honduras, political instability in Nicaragua, and food insecurity in Nepal—issues previously cited in TPS extensions as recently as 2023.
The attorneys challenged the brevity of the provided wind-down periods—two months for Nepali TPS holders (effective August 5, 2025) and slightly longer for Hondurans and Nicaraguans (effective September 8, 2025). They asserted that these periods diverge from a 22-year practice of granting at least six to twelve months, a pattern documented in a submitted chart (ECF 28). The attorneys contended that DHS did not acknowledge this change or provide a reasoned explanation, potentially violating APA requirements under FDA v. Wages and White Lion. They emphasized that such short timelines may limit TPS holders’ ability to relocate or pursue alternative legal status.
Under the Arlington Heights framework, the plaintiffs’ attorneys alleged that the terminations were influenced by racial animus, citing President Trump’s past remarks concerning certain countries (e.g., El Salvador, Haiti, and Honduras in 2018, referenced in ECF 17-20) and the “invasion” rhetoric within Executive Order 14159. They argued that DHS v. Regents permits courts to consider all evidence of animus, including contemporaneous statements and the administration’s pattern of terminating TPS for seven countries (Venezuela, Haiti, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Honduras) since January 2025, with South Sudan being the only country to receive an automatic extension due to inaction. The attorneys differentiated this case from Trump v. Hawaii, which applied a narrow rational basis review to entry bans, asserting that it does not apply to long-term lawful residents such as TPS holders.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys highlighted the potential consequences for TPS holders, who have resided in the U.S. for an average of 14 to 26 years and contribute as workers, taxpayers, and parents to approximately 38,500 U.S. citizen children. They cited potential immediate impacts of termination, including job loss, loss of health insurance, and invalidation of driver’s licenses, as well as the risk of detention and deportation. The Tolchin Declaration (ECF 17) was referenced to suggest that few TPS holders have viable alternative legal status options, and asylum processes are lengthy, uncertain, and do not prevent detention. The attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that a temporary postponement would cause minimal harm to the government while potentially preventing significant adverse effects for TPS holders and their communities.
Regarding jurisdiction, the plaintiffs’ attorneys contended that 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A), which restricts judicial review of “any determination” concerning TPS designations, applies only to specific country condition findings, not to collateral issues such as pretext, procedural violations, or constitutional claims. They cited McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center and related cases, which interpret “determination” narrowly to individual acts rather than broad agency practices. They distinguished Patel v. Garland, noting its use of “judgment” instead of “determination,” and asserted that “any” in the statute refers to all specific determinations under subsection B, not broader legal or procedural challenges. They also cited Immigrant Defenders Law Center v. Noem to argue that the APA’s authority to postpone agency action (5 U.S.C. § 705) is not precluded by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f).
On the scope of relief, the plaintiffs’ attorneys urged Judge Thompson to postpone the terminations for all TPS holders from the affected countries, not solely National TPS Alliance members. They argued that limiting relief would be impractical, as immigration enforcement, employers, and state agencies may not be able to readily distinguish TPS Alliance members in scenarios such as worksite raids or driver’s license checks. Citing Immigrant Defenders, they acknowledged its limitation of relief to organizational clients but argued that the APA generally allows for vacating or postponing agency action universally, unless specific foreign policy concerns exist. The attorneys noted that DHS did not claim foreign policy disruptions from a postponement, unlike in Immigrant Defenders, which involved U.S.-Mexico negotiations concerning the Remain in Mexico program.
DHS attorney William Weiland argued that 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) broadly precludes judicial review of “any determination” related to TPS, drawing a comparison to the “any judgment” bar in Patel v. Garland. They maintained that Congress intended to grant the executive broad discretion in TPS decisions due to their foreign policy implications, citing Trump v. Hawaii for a rational basis standard. The government disputed the pretext claim, asserting that the terminations reflect a legitimate policy shift by a new administration, openly linked to Executive Order 14159’s objective of limiting immigration policies perceived as encouraging undocumented migration. He argued that Department of Commerce v. New York is not applicable, as Secretary Noem’s actions are transparent, and that the plaintiffs’ pretext argument improperly invites the court to reweigh country condition evidence, which is statutorily barred.
Regarding the scope of relief, the DHS attorney argued that any relief should be limited to named plaintiffs or TPS Alliance members, stating that USCIS could issue individual notices to maintain their benefits. He cited Immigrant Defenders and Trump v. Casa to argue that relief should be no broader than necessary to address the plaintiffs’ harm. The government attorney acknowledged the challenges described in the declarations submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs but maintained that TPS is a temporary program and its termination does not automatically result in deportation, as individuals must undergo removal proceedings and can seek other forms of relief, such as asylum or withholding of removal. He noted that some TPS holders have pursued pathways to permanent status, though they conceded that immigration processing can experience delays.
Judge Thompson actively engaged both sides, seeking clarification on key issues. She inquired about the distinction between “determination” and “judgment,” exploring whether Congress intended to preclude all judicial review, as the government attorney argued, or if Loper Bright and McNary permit a narrower interpretation. She expressed reservations regarding the precedential value of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket stay in NTPSA v. Noem (concerning Venezuelan TPS holders), noting its lack of explicit reasoning and limited applicability to this case due to differences in claims and the longer U.S. residency of the current plaintiffs.
Thompson highlighted the TPS holders’ adherence to the law, their contributions, and the absence of a clear path to citizenship, questioning the government on the immediate risks of termination, including detention and deportation to potentially unsafe countries or third-party nations. She also challenged DHS on the practicality of limiting relief to TPS Alliance members, asking how immigration officers or employers could differentiate them in practice. The judge further raised concerns about the administration’s “invasion” rhetoric and past statements (ECF 17-20), seeking clarification on their relevance to the pretext and animus claims.
The court reviewed various materials, including administrative records for Honduras (ECF 62), Nicaragua (ECF 63), and Nepal (ECF 64), the motion to postpone (ECF 17), responsive documents (ECF 18, 35, 53), and an accepted amicus brief (ECF 66). Thompson noted the volume of information, including over a thousand pages of administrative records, but indicated that the core agency documents for each country were relatively concise. She also referenced supplemental questions provided to counsel (to be uploaded as ECF 69) and allowed for potential further briefing on the administrative record if deemed necessary.
Following a 15-minute recess, the hearing concluded with the case under submission. Judge Thompson stated that all prior orders remain in effect, and a decision is expected by July 31, 2025. The ruling will determine whether the TPS terminations are postponed, potentially influencing the immediate future of thousands of TPS holders and their families, including their employment, health insurance, and protection against detention and deportation.
The lawsuit, filed on July 7, 2025, by the National TPS Alliance and seven individual plaintiffs, accuses the Trump administration of violating the Administrative Procedure Act, engaging in racially motivated constitutional violations, and failing to provide an adequate transition period for TPS recipients.
Among the plaintiffs are two Nepali individuals: S.K., a 33-year-old TPS holder living in San Francisco, married to a U.S. citizen and employed in theater, and Sandhya Lama, a 43-year-old single mother of three U.S. citizen children living in Virginia, one of whom requires special medical care.
In June, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Nepal, affecting approximately 7,500 Nepali immigrants in the United States. The designation will end at 11:59 p.m. on August 5, 2025, giving beneficiaries a mere 60-day window to either leave the U.S. or secure alternative legal status.
TPS is a humanitarian program that allows nationals of designated countries to live and work legally in the U.S. when returning to their home country is unsafe due to conditions like armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary circumstances. Nepal was granted TPS on June 24, 2015, by then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, following a catastrophic earthquake on April 25, 2015, which caused significant loss of life and infrastructure damage. The disaster left Nepal temporarily unable to safely manage the return of its citizens, justifying TPS for approximately 15,000 Nepalis in the U.S. at the time.
Over the years, the number of Nepali TPS beneficiaries has decreased significantly. By March 2023, the figure stood at 8,525, dropping to 8,100 by September 2023. By March 2024, it further declined to 7,875, and the most recent report from December 2024 indicates 7,505 approved TPS holders. This reduction reflects many Nepalis transitioning to other immigration statuses, such as work visas or permanent residency, or leaving the program voluntarily.
Under TPS regulations, if the DHS Secretary does not announce a decision to extend or terminate a country’s TPS designation at least 60 days before its expiration, the designation automatically extends for six months. Nepal’s TPS would likely extend automatically to December 24, 2025, as no final decision had been made. However, DHS has now opted to terminate the program with only a 60-day wind-down period, a significant departure from the standard six-month extension.
The termination of Nepal’s TPS is not the first attempt to end the program. In 2017 and 2018, the Trump administration sought to terminate TPS for Nepal, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Sudan. These efforts faced legal challenges, notably in the Ramos v. Nielsen case, where TPS beneficiaries, including Nepali plaintiffs Keshav Bhattarai and Sajjan Pandey, secured a preliminary injunction in 2018. This injunction preserved TPS for affected countries for nearly five years. The advocacy group Adhikaar played a pivotal role in supporting the case.
In 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the injunction, paving the way for potential terminations. However, the Biden administration later reversed the Trump-era termination decisions, extending Nepal’s TPS until June 24, 2025, and fulfilling the plaintiffs’ demands. On December 28, 2023, a federal district court dismissed the Ramos case, deeming it moot after the Biden administration’s extensions.
Support NepYork – Your Nonprofit News Media for the Nepali Community
NepYork, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, is the Showcase of Nepalis in New York, delivering timely local news and vital resources on immigration, housing, taxes, health, business, and more. Our mission is to safeguard community journalism, amplify the voices of Nepali immigrants in NYC, and foster understanding, solidarity, and empowerment.
By donating to NepYork, you help us enhance participation in democracy, improve access to essential resources, and share authentic stories that reflect the vibrant, diverse experiences of Nepali New Yorkers. Together, we can connect, inform, and empower our community. Every contribution ensures these voices are heard and valued.
Donate today to keep Nepali stories alive and thriving in New York!
Kishor Panthi
View More PostsKishor Panthi is the founder and editor-in-chief of Khasokhas and NepYork. He is the author of three books, “Kampan,” "UNTRANSLATABLE" and “Zero Mile.” He writes about social issues, immigration, and politics.
