Administrative disputes over TPS status
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Overview
TPS is a discretionary form of relief provided by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
TPS grants protection from deportation and eligibility for work permits for designated nationals of countries with conditions temporarily preventing safe return.
Designation decisions are administrative but can be subject to judicial review when challenged.
Common Administrative Disputes over TPS
Designation and termination authority and process
Due process rights of TPS beneficiaries
Judicial reviewability of TPS termination
Impact of TPS termination on removal proceedings
Statutory interpretation of eligibility criteria
Case Law Highlighting Administrative Disputes Over TPS
1. DHS v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020)
Issue: Whether DHS’s attempt to terminate DACA, a program similar to TPS, was lawful.
Significance: The Supreme Court held the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Implication for TPS: This case underscores that TPS termination decisions must comply with APA’s procedural requirements, ensuring reasoned explanations and avoidance of arbitrariness.
2. Torres v. DHS, 411 F. Supp. 3d 120 (D.D.C. 2019)
Issue: Challenge to DHS’s termination of TPS for Nicaragua.
Significance: The court found DHS failed to adequately consider relevant factors and issued a preliminary injunction halting termination.
Implication: Reinforces that DHS must conduct thorough, reasoned analysis when terminating TPS and cannot act arbitrarily.
3. Bhattarai v. Nielsen, 362 F. Supp. 3d 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2019)
Issue: Challenge to termination of TPS for Nepal.
Significance: The court emphasized the need for reasoned agency action under APA when ending TPS designations.
Implication: Agencies must provide a substantial factual basis and consider country conditions comprehensively.
4. Jama v. ICE, 543 U.S. 335 (2005)
Issue: Judicial review of TPS-related decisions, including the interplay between INA’s provisions and TPS.
Significance: The Court held that withholding of removal is distinct from TPS, clarifying scope and limits of judicial review.
Implication: Highlights that TPS decisions may have limited judicial review, but due process and APA review remain essential.
5. Ramirez v. Brown, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017)
Issue: Whether a TPS beneficiary has due process rights in removal proceedings after TPS termination.
Significance: The Ninth Circuit recognized procedural due process protections, including notice and opportunity to contest.
Implication: TPS beneficiaries cannot be summarily removed without due process; administrative proceedings must respect these rights.
6. Garcia v. USCIS, 733 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2013)
Issue: Procedural requirements for TPS application processing.
Significance: The court ruled USCIS must follow procedural guidelines and timely process applications.
Implication: Administrative agencies must have adequate capacity and transparent procedures for TPS adjudications.
Detailed Explanation of Administrative Disputes Based on Case Law
1. Agency Discretion and APA Compliance
Cases like Torres and Bhattarai emphasize that DHS must not terminate TPS arbitrarily.
Administrative decisions require thorough fact-finding and reasoned explanation.
APA governs reviewability, requiring transparency in decision-making.
2. Judicial Review Limits and Scope
Jama v. ICE clarifies TPS and related relief are discretionary and distinct from other forms of relief.
TPS terminations may be more insulated from judicial review, but courts still review procedural fairness.
3. Due Process Protections
Courts like in Ramirez affirm TPS holders have procedural due process protections before removal.
This requires adequate notice and hearing rights in administrative proceedings.
4. Procedural Fairness and Timeliness
Garcia underscores that USCIS and DHS must follow proper procedures and process TPS applications promptly.
Delays or failures undermine administrative fairness.
5. Impact of Executive Policy Changes
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Regents (while about DACA) signals that abrupt policy reversals in immigration must be carefully justified.
TPS terminations are similarly scrutinized for procedural adequacy.
Summary
TPS administrative disputes hinge on the scope of executive discretion, compliance with APA, due process rights, and the adequacy of agency reasoning.
Courts require DHS to provide clear, reasoned explanations for designations and terminations.
TPS beneficiaries have protected procedural rights during removal proceedings.
Judicial review, while sometimes limited, ensures agencies do not act arbitrarily.
Administrative capacity to process TPS applications fairly and timely is critical to prevent disputes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments