Venezuelans with Temporary Protected Status sue to stop deportations

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• Venezuelan TPS protections for 350,000 individuals face termination on April 7, 2025, prompting a lawsuit filed February 20, 2025.
• Plaintiffs argue termination violates the Administrative Procedure Act and allege racial bias by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
• Decision to end TPS for Venezuelans may influence policy for 17 TPS-designated countries, signaling broader administrative reviews.

Venezuelans protected under Temporary Protected Status (TPS) have taken legal action against the Trump administration, challenging the termination of their immigration protections and work authorization. The lawsuit, filed on February 20, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks to halt the deportation of approximately 350,000 Venezuelans. These individuals face the expiration of TPS protections on April 7, 2025.

The legal challenge was initiated by the National TPS Alliance alongside eight individual plaintiffs, all of whom accuse Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of unlawfully revoking an 18-month extension of TPS granted during the final days of President Biden’s administration. Plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration’s decision to end this extension violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal law that governs the way U.S. government agencies make and enforce policies.

Venezuelans with Temporary Protected Status sue to stop deportations

At the heart of the lawsuit is the claim that cancelling the extension was not conducted in accordance with the APA. Under the law, any such termination must go through a structured review process to ensure legal compliance. The plaintiffs further allege that the decision to end TPS for Venezuelans was influenced by racial bias. Key to this argument is Secretary Noem’s widely publicized statement on Fox News in which she reportedly referred to certain Venezuelans as “dirtbags,” claiming the American public expects their removal for community safety reasons. The legal teams representing the plaintiffs assert such language indicates racial prejudice, potentially rendering the termination legally invalid.

One of the individuals most affected by this policy shift is plaintiff Hendrina Vivas Castillo, a 49-year-old resident of Culver City, California. Like many others with TPS, she entered the country legally on a tourist visa and has lived in the United States for years under the protections provided by the TPS program. Currently employed as a food delivery driver, Castillo faces the expiration of her work authorization in just a few weeks, which will render her unable to legally maintain her job. This uncertainty has placed significant pressure on her and others who depend on TPS for their livelihood and stability.

Temporary Protected Status, a program established by U.S. immigration law, grants temporary residency and work permits to individuals from countries facing extraordinary conditions like ongoing armed conflict or natural disasters. TPS for Venezuelans was originally introduced during the Biden administration due to the severe humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, which President Trump himself had acknowledged in 2021 as “the worst humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere in recent memory.” At the time, Trump’s statement emphasized the dangers faced by Venezuelan nationals, leading to broader protections. However, the recent decision to end TPS alters that stance.

In the Federal Register notice announcing the termination, Secretary Noem argued that conditions in Venezuela had significantly improved, particularly in areas such as the economy, public health, and safety. She cited the presence of individuals linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, claiming that some Venezuelan entrants to the United States posed risks to public safety. Despite these assertions, critics, including the plaintiffs, dispute the claim that Venezuela’s conditions have changed enough to justify terminating TPS.

The implications of this decision extend beyond Venezuelans. The Trump administration has launched a comprehensive review of TPS for all 17 designated countries. Immigration law experts suggest that the rationale used to justify the termination of TPS for Venezuelans—such as citing improved conditions—could soon be applied to nationals from other TPS-designated countries. This policy direction aligns with the Trump administration’s broader immigration agenda, which has included reducing pathways for legal residency and protections.

Notably, the decision to terminate TPS for Venezuelans has caused internal divisions among Republicans. For example, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida urged Secretary Noem to ensure that non-criminal Venezuelan nationals are not returned to what he described as “one of the most repressive dictatorships in the world.” These tensions highlight the challenges of balancing political priorities with humanitarian concerns within the party’s policy framework.

Historically, President Trump has been embroiled in legal battles over TPS. During his first term in office, his administration attempted to end TPS for individuals from several countries, including Haiti, El Salvador, and Honduras, affecting tens of thousands of people. These terminations were blocked by ongoing court cases, which allowed these protections to remain in place. In contrast, the Biden administration expanded TPS eligibility, adding new designations to the list, including Venezuela. Now, with the lawsuits piling up, the Trump administration is again at the center of legal scrutiny.

Attorneys from the ACLU Foundations of Northern and Southern California, as well as other notable organizations like the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, are representing the Venezuelan plaintiffs in this case. Their combined legal expertise brings significant weight to the challenge, suggesting the courts will closely examine the case’s merits.

Beyond the Venezuelan TPS issue, the Trump administration’s broader approach to immigration has also drawn criticism. Just days before the Venezuelan lawsuit was filed, the administration faced another lawsuit regarding the detention of immigrants transferred to Guantánamo Bay under a new presidential order. This legal action, led by the American Civil Liberties Union as well as other groups, seeks information about these detainees, including details on their detention conditions and the legal basis for their confinement. Commenting on these developments, Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, criticized the administration’s actions, stating that sending immigrants to remote detention facilities like Guantánamo cuts them off from legal counsel and isolates them from their families.

The legal battles triggered by these policy choices highlight the wider debates surrounding immigration in the United States. Critics argue these measures undermine the rule of law and erode protections for vulnerable populations. Meanwhile, the administration defends its actions as necessary for national security and public safety.

The outcome of the lawsuit challenging the termination of Venezuelan TPS has the potential to reshape immigration policy, not just for Venezuelans but for other nationals currently covered by TPS. The courts will weigh the Trump administration’s authority to end programs like TPS against the legal arguments raised by the plaintiffs, specifically whether these actions were conducted lawfully and free from bias.

For those affected, the stakes are monumental. If TPS protections are revoked, hundreds of thousands of individuals may face deportation to countries still grappling with severe instability. The legal uncertainty leaves those who depend on TPS—both individuals and their families—in a precarious position.

As this lawsuit unfolds, it underscores the evolving debate over immigration policy and executive branch authority. The case will examine whether actions like the cancellation of TPS align with the legal framework established by Congress. Its resolution will likely set a precedent for future decisions on Temporary Protected Status and similar programs.

For more updates on TPS regulations and guidelines, individuals can refer to resources like this official USCIS TPS page for further information. As always, those affected are strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice tailored to their circumstances.

Learn Today

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) → A U.S. immigration program granting temporary residency and work permits to individuals from countries facing extraordinary conditions.
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) → A federal law requiring government agencies to follow structured processes when creating or enforcing policies.
Federal Register → An official U.S. government publication containing rules, notices, and legal documents from federal agencies.
National TPS Alliance → An advocacy group supporting individuals with Temporary Protected Status and addressing related legal and policy issues.
Tren de Aragua → A criminal gang allegedly linked to certain Venezuelan entrants, cited in debates over immigration policy and public safety.

This Article in a Nutshell

Venezuelans under Temporary Protected Status (TPS) are suing the Trump administration over TPS termination, impacting 350,000 individuals. Plaintiffs allege racial bias and unlawful revocation of extensions, defying the Administrative Procedure Act. This lawsuit may reshape U.S. immigration policies, challenging executive authority and safeguarding protections amid ongoing humanitarian crises. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
— By VisaVerge.com