Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem (Unspecified, no date)
Legal Issues
BrynoDC Coverage 3 videos
TikTok The Facts
The Trump administration moved in early 2025 to terminate Temporary Protected Status designations for Venezuela, El Salvador, and other countries - protections that had shielded hundreds of thousands of nationals from deportation for years. Vanessa Vasquez Perdomo, a Venezuelan TPS holder, challenged the revocation as arbitrary and unlawful under the INA and APA. The case proceeded on an emergency track as individuals faced imminent deportation. The district court issued preliminary relief.
The Application
DHS's statutory authority to terminate TPS designations is broad under 8 USC § 1254a, but Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee constrains judicial review only of individual removal decisions, not agency rulemaking affecting an entire class. Vasquez Perdomo's challenge contends that revoking a long-standing designation was arbitrary and capricious because DHS provided no reasoned explanation for changed country conditions in Venezuela and denied affected individuals notice and opportunity to be heard before termination. The district court's grant of preliminary relief signaled that Vasquez Perdomo likely established a likelihood of success that the revocation violated APA procedural and substantive requirements despite the government's broad discretion over immigration status.
The Conclusion
Part of ongoing TPS/immigration parole litigation. The case is related to Noem v. Al Otro Lado and Mullin v. Doe, which the Supreme Court decided in June 2025. The TPS revocation cases collectively determine whether the administration can unilaterally end humanitarian immigration protections for millions of long-term U.S. residents.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem (25A169) was an emergency application to the Supreme Court challenging the Trump administration's revocation of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelan nationals and the subsequent termination of parole-in-place status for certain individuals. The case is part of a cluster of emergency immigration applications testing the administration's authority to revoke humanitarian immigration protections by executive action.
Facts
The Trump administration moved in early 2025 to terminate Temporary Protected Status designations for Venezuela, El Salvador, and other countries. Protections that had shielded hundreds of thousands of nationals from deportation for years. Vanessa Vasquez Perdomo, a Venezuelan TPS holder, challenged the revocation as arbitrary and unlawful under the INA and APA. The case proceeded on an emergency track as individuals faced imminent deportation. The district court issued preliminary relief.
Issue
Whether the Trump administration's revocation of Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelan nationals was arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and whether affected individuals have a due process right to notice and hearing before their status is terminated.
Rule
8 U.S.C. § 1254a grants the Secretary of Homeland Security authority to designate TPS for nationals of countries experiencing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or other extraordinary conditions. And to terminate designations. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999) limits judicial review of discretionary removal decisions but does not bar APA review of agency rulemaking. DHS's revocation of a long-standing TPS designation may be subject to arbitrary-and-capricious review.
Conclusion
Part of ongoing TPS/immigration parole litigation. The case is related to Noem v. Al Otro Lado and Mullin v. Doe, which the Supreme Court decided in June 2025. The TPS revocation cases collectively determine whether the administration can unilaterally end humanitarian immigration protections for millions of long-term U.S. residents.
Analysis
DHS's statutory authority to terminate TPS designations is broad under 8 USC § 1254a, but Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee constrains judicial review only of individual removal decisions, not agency rulemaking affecting an entire class. Vasquez Perdomo's challenge contends that revoking a long-standing designation was arbitrary and capricious because DHS provided no reasoned explanation for changed country conditions in Venezuela and denied affected individuals notice and opportunity to be heard before termination. The district court's grant of preliminary relief signaled that Vasquez Perdomo likely established a likelihood of success that the revocation violated APA procedural and substantive requirements despite the government's broad discretion over immigration status.
Conclusion
Part of ongoing TPS/immigration parole litigation. The case is related to Noem v. Al Otro Lado and Mullin v. Doe, which the Supreme Court decided in June 2025. The TPS revocation cases collectively determine whether the administration can unilaterally end humanitarian immigration protections for millions of long-term U.S. residents.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support