What the end of TPS means for Venezuelans in the U.S.: Key questions answered
The end of Temporary Protected Status in the United States represents a potentially devastating reality for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who sought refuge in the U.S., many of them living in South Florida after escaping the regime of Nicolás Maduro.
This situation is especially dire for those without a pending asylum case or family petitions that could allow them to remain legally in the U.S. for the time being. However, the Supreme Court's decision doesn't eliminate all legal options. It's essential for those affected to make informed decisions and seek legal counsel to fully understand their rights and what they can do next.
Here are some of the key questions and answers:
How does the revocation of TPS impact the Venezuelan community in the U.S.?
Revoking TPS affects hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who have built their lives in the U.S. Many have families, businesses, and homes in the country. Without legal status, they could face deportation, leading to a serious humanitarian crisis, especially for those who have lived in the U.S. for many years.
What happens when TPS for Venezuelans in the U.S. ends?
When TPS ends, those with pending asylum applications can legally remain in the U.S. while awaiting a decision. Many Venezuelans have been waiting for years for their asylum cases to be resolved. For them, the end of TPS will have little immediate effect, as they can continue to stay legally while their applications are processed.
What happens to work permits for those under TPS?
The Temporary Protection Status provides work permits for its beneficiaries. Once TPS ends, these work permits become invalid, meaning those individuals lose their legal ability to work in the U.S. unless they obtain another form of legal status.
What if someone traveled to Venezuela while under TPS?
If a TPS recipient traveled to Venezuela after having abandoned their asylum case, they may have a serious problem. Such travel could undermine their credibility in the asylum process, particularly when they are required to pass test that they have 'credible fear' of being sent back to their country — a key part of seeking asylum. 'This is the segment of the population that worries me the most,' said Elizabeth Amarán, a Miami-based immigration lawyer. 'There were many people who withdrew their asylum cases when they had their TPS, and they did this often times because they wanted to travel to Venezuela.'
What options do Venezuelans without asylum applications or family petitions have?
Venezuelans without an asylum case or family petition face a more complicated future. They will likely fall out of status once TPS ends, which could trigger deportation proceedings. However, the ongoing political and social crisis in Venezuela offers a strong basis for those who choose to apply for political asylum, as the country remains under a repressive dictatorship with widespread economic hardship.
What alternative options are there for TPS beneficiaries to stay in the U.S.?
Once TPS is revoked, beneficiaries may apply for political asylum, either based on the one-year rule – the requirement that asylum seekers file their Form I-589 within one year of their last arrival in the United States — or by seeking 'withholding of removal,' protection from deportation. Although they will need to present strong cases, those who genuinely fear returning to Venezuela may have a legitimate basis to stay in the U.S. legally.
What are the risks of filing an asylum case without proper grounds?
It's crucial to understand that asylum applications should not be filed lightly. Immigration authorities may reject frivolous or unsubstantiated cases. Fraudulent asylum claims can have severe consequences. However, individuals who genuinely fear returning to Venezuela due to political persecution or violence have a solid basis for seeking asylum.
How much time does the TPS recipient have to leave the country after the loss of status?
If a TPS recipient loses their status and must leave the U.S., the government is unlikely to grant an extension to get their affairs in order. The only option may be to return to Venezuela, but doing so presents significant challenges, especially for those who have established lives, businesses, or families in the U.S.
Can TPS holders apply for asylum if they're at risk of deportation?
Yes, TPS holders facing TPS termination can apply for asylum without the immediate fear of detention. A pending asylum application allows them to stay in the U.S. while their case is decided.
How should someone proceed if they wish to file an asylum application?
It's important for anyone considering asylum to ensure they have a legitimate fear of returning to their home country. Asylum should not be used as a delay tactic. The application must be grounded in real fears of persecution or danger, as frivolous applications can lead to long-term negative immigration consequences.
What should someone consider before filing an asylum application?
Before applying for asylum, individuals should ensure they have strong and valid reasons for doing so. Genuine fears of returning to Venezuela — due to political repression or violence — could provide a valid basis for asylum. However, it's essential to avoid submitting unfounded claims, as this could jeopardize future immigration opportunities.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Thanks, Supreme Court! It's now my right to prevent my kid from learning about Trump.
Any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my child under the moral tenets of my faith. I have a deeply held religious conviction that, by divine precept, lying, bullying and paying $130,000 in hush money to an adult film star are all immoral acts. So it is with great thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent ruling allowing Maryland parents to opt their children out of any lessons that involve LGBTQ+ material that I announce the following: Attempts to teach my children anything about Donald Trump, including the unfortunate fact that he is president of the United States, place an unconstitutional burden on my First Amendment right to freely exercise my religion. In its June 27 ruling, the high court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and noted, 'The Court recognized that parents have a right 'to direct the religious upbringing of their children' and that this right can be infringed by laws that pose 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill in their children.' Supreme Court shows I can fight to keep kids from learning about Trump Well, I wish to instill in my children the belief that suggesting some Americans are 'radical left thugs that live like vermin' and describing a female vice president of the United States as 'mentally impaired' and 'a weak and foolish woman' are bad things unworthy of anyone, much less a commander in chief. So any attempt to teach my children that Trump exists and is president might suggest such behavior is acceptable, and that would infringe on my right to raise my children under the moral tenets of my faith. (My faith, in this case, has a relatively simple core belief that being a complete jerk virtually all the time is bad.) Opinion: I can't wait to get a Trump Mobile gold phone to pay respect to my MAGA king Alito clearly doesn't want schools teaching kids that Trump exists As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his opinion regarding the use of LGBTQ+ books in schools, some 'Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children. And their ability to present that message is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.' Exactly. I wish to present a moral message to my children that when a man is found liable for sexual abuse and has been heard saying things like 'I moved on her like a bitch' and 'she's now got the big phony tits and everything' and 'Grab 'em by the pussy,' that man is deemed loathsome by civil society and not voted into the office of the presidency. That wish is undermined by any book or teacher exposing my student to the fact that Trump is president. Supreme Court is protecting children from the tyranny of love Alito cited several books that were at issue in Maryland schools, including one called 'Love Violet,' which 'follows a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira. Mira makes Violet's 'heart skip' and 'thunde[r] like a hundred galloping horses.' Although Violet is initially too afraid to interact with Mira, the two end up exchanging gifts on Valentine's Day. Afterwards, the two girls are seen holding hands and 'galloping over snowy drifts to see what they might find. Together.'' While my religion would define such a story as 'sweet' and 'loving,' Alito and his fellow conservatives on the Supreme Court find it 'hostile' to parents' religious beliefs. Tell us: Is America's billionaire boom good for government, democracy? | Opinion Forum As Alito wrote, 'Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' OK. By that same logic, any class discussion or history lesson involving Trump and his status as president has the potential to teach my children that it's normal to have a president who lies incessantly, demeans transgender people and routinely demonizes migrants. Any in-class acknowledgement of Trump as president would, in Alito's words, be "clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.' I will now object to any book or classroom mention of Donald Trump I simply will not stand idly by while a taxpayer-funded school indoctrinates my children into believing a fundamentally dishonest and unkind person like Trump has the moral character to be president of the United States. My faith has led me to teach them otherwise, and any suggestion that Trump's behavior is acceptable would undermine that faith. Opinion: As a teacher, Supreme Court siding with parents' religious freedom concerns me Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free-speech advocacy group PEN America, said in a statement following the Supreme Court ruling in the Maryland case: 'The decision will allow any parents to object to any subject, with the potential to sow chaos in schools, and impact students, parents, educators, authors, and publishers.' Amen to that. I object to the subject of Donald Trump. Let the chaos ensue. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
How the Supreme Court Dipped Its Toes in Trump 2.0
The Supreme Court, in its annual term that wrapped up Friday, gave states room to restrict transgender medical care for minors, bolstered parents' rights in objecting to LGBTQ themes in their children's classrooms and, in its biggest act, clipped the power of federal judges to block President Trump's policies nationwide. The justices also got an early look at the long line of Trump cases that lie ahead, giving the president a number of early, though temporary, victories. Here are some top takeaways as the court retreats for a summer break.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
From sports to birth certificates, Supreme Court to confront more anti-transgender policies
Just days after the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors in one of its most important cases of the year, the justices must now decide the fate of other anti-trans policies. As soon as Monday, the nine are set to confront six separate cases that have languished on their docket — some for over a year and a half — including several appeals that deal with whether transgender athletes can play on sports teams that align with their gender identity. The high court's 6-3 ruling this month in US v. Skrmetti delivered a significant legal setback for trans youth and their advocates, who have spent years litigating against health care bans that have been enacted in more than half the country. But the decision was ultimately limited to questions about health care and left other key legal issues for the trans community unresolved. 'The whole gamut of discrimination against trans folks really is at the place where it was before Skrmetti,' said Josh Block, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who represents plaintiffs in some of the pending appeals. 'Skrmetti resolves a hugely important issue, but they resolve it in a way that is narrow and doesn't have an immediate fallout for other types of discrimination.' The court could agree this week to hear arguments in the backlog of cases dealing with trans issues — putting transgender rights front and center for a second year in a row. It could also dispose of the cases summarily, which would mean requiring lower courts to review their decisions in light of Skrmetti. In addition to the sports issue, the justices are juggling appeals that deal with health insurance plans that deny coverage for gender-affirming care and an executive order signed by the governor of Oklahoma that bars the state health department from allowing anyone to alter the sex or gender on their birth certificate. If the Supreme Court summarily sends those cases back to a lower court, it would likely wipe out decisions that were favorable to transgender advocates. Whether the justices take up any of the cases for their next session is no small thing: The court has been reluctant in recent years to consider the extent to which the Constitution or other federal laws provide protection to transgender Americans. Before the Tennessee case, the last time the high court decided a major dispute dealing specifically with trans rights was 2020, when the justices said that federal civil rights law protects transgender workers. But that decision was limited to the workplace, and the court declined in Skrmetti to decide whether the rationale in that case can be applied elsewhere. Attorneys for the states of Idaho and West Virginia, which both enacted anti-trans sports bans in recent years, wasted no time responding to the Skrmetti decision, filing rush briefs at the Supreme Court arguing that the justices should not close the door on the other pending cases. The lower courts had concluded the laws at issue in those cases violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at schools that receive federal aid. Because the court decided the Skrmetti case on the ground that Tennessee's gender-affirming care ban classified based on age and medical use, the states' lawyers argued, it doesn't help resolve challenges to the sports bans, which turn more directly on sex. 'While Skrmetti is a landmark decision, our specific question remains,' West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey said last week. Attorneys for Idaho also urged the justices to hear their case, arguing that simply sending it back down for a lower court to reconsider the challenge in light of the Skrmetti decision 'is unlikely to accomplish anything but more harm to women and girls.' 'Whether designating sports teams based on biological sex violates the Equal Protection Clause is a critically important issue that has been roiling the lower courts, frustrating female student athletes, and confounding every level of government for years,' they wrote in court papers. Research on trans people's athletic performance is scarce, and there have been no large-scale scientific studies on the topic or on how hormone therapies may affect their performance in specific sport categories. Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in Skrmetti made no mention of sports bans, which have been enacted in more than two dozen Republican-led states. But conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett made clear in a concurring opinion that she's against adding transgender status to the short list of personal identities like race and sex that receive special protection under the 14th Amendment. And she pointed to sports bans to argue that courts shouldn't be over-policing decisions made by elected lawmakers. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy — ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' she wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. 'But legislatures have many valid reasons to make policy in these areas, and so long as a statute is a rational means of pursuing a legitimate end, the equal protection clause is satisfied.' While bans on gender-affirming care for minors have become a political lightning rod in recent years, other restrictions on access to health care for trans Americans have garnered less attention, including ones impacting adults. Last year, North Carolina and West Virginia asked the high court to review an appeals court decision that deemed unlawful those states' exclusion of coverage for gender-affirming care in insurance plans they sponsor. The Richmond, Virginia-based court held that the exclusions in both state plans violated the Equal Protection Clause. When the states first asked the Supreme Court to step into the disputes, they pressed the court to take the cases up notwithstanding the justices' announcement that they would hear the Tennessee case, which presented similar legal questions. West Virginia, in particular, stressed the fact that the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals also decided that its plan violated various federal laws, making the need for further review more necessary because the Skrmetti case dealt only with an alleged constitutional violation. 'Skrmetti did not address the statutory questions that the Fourth Circuit resolved against West Virginia. As for the equal-protection analysis, the level of scrutiny, the importance of a state's interest, and the relative 'fit' between that interest and the state's solution are different in the Medicaid context. So lower courts and States will still need more help after Skrmetti,' they wrote. The court is also considering hearing an appeal over a challenge to a Kentucky law similar to the Tennessee ban. There's significant overlap between the two cases, but a key distinction lies in the fact that the challengers in the Kentucky case are asking the court to decide whether that state's ban also violates a parent's right to make medical decisions for their children. During oral arguments in the Tennessee case last December, Barrett appeared interested in whether a ruling in the state's favor would foreclose courts from considering any future challenge to the law based on the parental rights issue — signaling that there may be support on the bench for addressing that piece of the debate at a later time. Karen Loewy, an attorney with the LGBTQ rights group Lambda Legal, said that while the court's Skrmetti decision makes it harder for litigants to fight back against laws like Tennessee's, the conservative majority was careful to 'leave the door open' for other arguments to be considered by the justices in the remaining cases. She cited both the parental rights issue and the court's decision to not address whether the 2020 ruling had any application outside of the employment space. 'Those are all still tools and legal arguments that are very viable in challenging other kinds of discrimination,' Loewy said.
