The recent decision by the Trump Administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Somalia has raised both legal and humanitarian issues, despite the fact that the total number of Somali TPS holders is relatively small—approximately 700 individuals across the nation. Although this figure may appear insignificant in comparison to other TPS groups, U.S. immigration law does not regard smaller populations as being less deserving of protection. Regardless of whether there are 700 or 200,000 beneficiaries, the government is obligated to adhere to the same stringent regulations and legal standards prior to the cessation of TPS. Given that Somalia continues to be one of the most unstable, perilous, and conflict-ridden nations globally, numerous experts and legal analysts contend that the Administration’s effort to revoke TPS for Somalia may not fulfill the legal criteria established by Congress.

TPS is a humanitarian safeguard established under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1254a. According to this statute, the government may designate a country for TPS when circumstances such as armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary and temporary situations render it unsafe for nationals to return. Somalia was granted TPS in 1991 due to civil war, governmental collapse, and widespread violence. Over the years, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under various administrations—both Republican and Democratic—has extended TPS because the original perilous conditions have not genuinely ceased. The law stipulates that TPS can only be revoked when the specific conditions that warranted the initial designation have fundamentally changed. DHS cannot merely assert that the country is progressing or select isolated instances of improvement. It must demonstrate that Somalia is now secure in the same regions where it was previously deemed unsafe.

Legally, the government is required to perform a thorough and good-faith assessment of the conditions in the country at least 60 days prior to the expiration of TPS. The law mandates that DHS ascertain whether the circumstances that led to the country’s designation still prevail. This wording is significant as it prevents the government from altering its own criteria or limiting the scope of the evaluation. For instance, Somalia’s TPS designation was not based on a singular incident but rather on a prolonged civil war, widespread violence, famine conditions, and the near-total lack of operational government institutions. To lawfully terminate TPS, DHS must demonstrate that these specific threats no longer endanger returning Somali nationals. This presents a considerable challenge, particularly since the majority of credible reports—from the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, and various international organizations—indicate that Somalia continues to experience these same conditions today.

Somalia remains exceedingly perilous. Al-Shabaab, recognized as one of the most violent terrorist organizations globally, persists in executing suicide bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, and large-scale assaults on civilians. A significant portion of the country’s territory remains contested. Millions are internally displaced as a result of violence and drought. Severe hunger and famine-level conditions endure in numerous regions. Healthcare, education, sanitation, and housing infrastructures are either failing or entirely absent in many areas of the country. This situation complicates DHS’s ability to legally substantiate that Somalia is now sufficiently safe to welcome returning nationals. The law does not inquire whether the country has made advancements; it inquires whether the threats have ceased to a degree that returning individuals would not be at risk.

In addition to the TPS statute itself, the government is also required to adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA is a federal statute mandating that all agencies—including DHS—make decisions that are reasonable, transparent, and grounded in evidence. According to the APA, a court has the authority to overturn a government decision if it is deemed “arbitrary,” “capricious,” or lacking factual support.

Several lawsuits during the Trump Administration contested the terminations of TPS for various countries, with courts determining that DHS occasionally employed a different, more restrictive method for assessing country conditions compared to previous years. Should DHS abruptly alter its interpretation of the law or its assessment of danger, the APA obligates the agency to provide a rationale for such changes. Failure to do so could render the decision unlawful.

This matter is significant because previous TPS lawsuits—such as Ramos v. Wolf, Saget v. Trump, and Centro Presente v. DHS—demonstrated that the Trump Administration sometimes overlooked or minimized substantial evidence of danger in nations like Haiti, El Salvador, and Sudan. Judges observed that DHS sometimes focused on minor improvements rather than considering the broader humanitarian context. If the termination for Somalia was executed using the same restricted approach, it could potentially contravene the APA. Courts have consistently asserted that DHS must apply a uniform evaluation method and cannot disregard critical evidence. If DHS treated Somalia differently from prior administrations without providing an explanation for the change, that alone could render the termination unlawful.

Another legal aspect pertains to “reliance interests”—a principle acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court. Numerous Somali TPS holders have resided in the United States for many years. Although TPS does not result in a green card, the government is required to take into account the duration for which individuals have been permitted to establish stable lives under TPS. In the case of DHS v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court determined that when the government terminates a long-standing protection, it must recognize the tangible effects on individuals who relied on that protection. This does not imply that TPS must be perpetuated indefinitely, but it does indicate that DHS cannot abruptly terminate it without acknowledging the profound impact on people’s lives. The announcement by the Trump Administration to end TPS for Somalia failed to consider any reliance interests. This oversight may represent an additional legal weakness.

Furthermore, courts have examined whether political motivations played a role in TPS decisions. While the law grants DHS considerable discretion, it prohibits decisions influenced by discrimination, bias, or political pressure that is not related to the factual circumstances. In various TPS lawsuits, plaintiffs have provided evidence indicating that the Trump Administration harbored negative perceptions regarding specific countries or regions, including those that are African and predominantly Muslim. Judges in these instances permitted the claims to proceed, identifying at least some evidence that bias may have swayed the decision-making process. Given that Somalia is both African and predominantly Muslim, any indication of similar bias could potentially become a factor in future legal disputes. Even if the government asserts that the decision was made solely based on security enhancements, courts may scrutinize whether all pertinent evidence was duly considered.

International humanitarian principles significantly influence the perception of TPS decisions, even though they do not directly dictate the law. The United States has consistently maintained that individuals should not be compelled to return to nations where they encounter grave threats. The repatriation of Somali TPS beneficiaries—many of whom arrived in the U.S. as minors or young adults—to a country still grappling with terrorism, famine, and displacement could pose serious humanitarian dilemmas. Courts that evaluate TPS decisions are unable to apply international law directly; however, they do interpret the TPS statute in a manner that is consistent with its humanitarian objectives. Should the government disregard significant humanitarian risks, it would contradict the fundamental purpose of TPS.

Ultimately, the Trump Administration’s decision to terminate TPS for Somalia presents critical legal challenges. The fact that only 700 Somalis currently hold TPS does not diminish the government’s obligation to adhere to the law. The statute mandates clear proof that Somalia is safe; the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) necessitates rational and consistent decision-making; and courts require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to assess the implications for long-term TPS holders. Somalia continues to be one of the most perilous nations globally, and previous court decisions indicate that any termination of TPS must be substantiated by robust, transparent evidence. The ability of the Somali termination to withstand legal scrutiny will hinge on whether DHS complied with all aspects of the law—not merely those that favor the desired outcome.

By: Karim Jivani

Karim Jivani is an Associate Attorney at Reddy Neumann Brown PC who focuses on employment-based non-immigrant visas. Karim’s practice covers all phases of the EB-1A and EB-2 NIW visa process including filing petitions, responding to Requests for Evidence (RFE), and drafting motions and appeals. Karim has also worked on all aspects of H-1B, L-1, I-140, and VAWA petitions.