USCIS confirms no valid TPS-based work authorization.
On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed a lower court decision from a federal court in California that had vacated the termination of Temporary Protected Status for nationals of Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua.
As a result of the Ninth Circuit stay, the termination decisions of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security are currently in effect while the government’s appeal proceeds. It is important to note that this is not a final determination on the merits of the dispute over termination of TPS for these countries.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has updated its country-specific TPS webpages to reflect that TPS for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua has terminated, and that TPS-based employment authorization is no longer valid.
In granting the stay, the Ninth Circuit found that the government had made a sufficient showing, at this preliminary stage, that it is likely to succeed on appeal – either by establishing that the TPS statute limits judicial review of termination decisions, or by prevailing on the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act claims.
As a result, the DHS termination decisions for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua are now back in effect pending a final decision on the merits from the Ninth Circuit or until further relief is granted, including possible review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The stay order applies only to the California district court ruling involving Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua. It does not affect separate court orders involving TPS for Haiti. In particular, the recent district court order staying DHS’s termination of Haiti’s TPS designation remains in effect, meaning that TPS protections and related employment authorization for Haitian TPS beneficiaries will continue during that litigation unless the DHS appeals the stay decision (as we expect) and prevails on appeal.
Implications for employers
For employers, this means that TPS-based employment authorizations for Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua cannot be assumed to remain valid.
However, employers should proceed carefully and avoid reverification or adverse action without reviewing current employee documentation and applicable regulatory guidance. Work authorization may still exist under alternative immigration categories or other means. As always, employment eligibility verification must be based on valid documentation presented by the employee, not assumptions about country designation status alone.
And, again, this is not a final decision on the merits of TPS termination for these countries. The appeal is ongoing, and further review is possible.
We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as the litigation proceeds.
