Friday, August 22, 2025

Termination of TPS for Nepal: Legal, Humanitarian, and Policy Implications

Ninth Circuit Clears Path for Termination of TPS for Nepal
July 28: TPS For Nepal
The Dignity Act of 2025: A Bipartisan Attempt at Immigration Reform

Termination of TPS for Nepal: Legal, Humanitarian, and Policy Implications

A Policy Brief on National TPS Alliance v. Noem and the Ninth Circuit’s August 2025 Ruling

Executive Summary

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ August 20, 2025, ruling lifting a district court stay in National TPS Alliance v. Noem has left approximately 7,000 Nepali nationals in immediate legal limbo. The court’s decision permits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enforce its June 2025 termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Nepal, effective retroactively from August 5, 2025.

While the underlying lawsuit challenging the legality of the termination continues in the Northern District of California, the appellate court’s intervention illustrates the precarious nature of TPS as a discretionary executive tool. This brief analyzes the case’s legal framework, contextualizes it with historical precedent, assesses humanitarian and geopolitical implications, and outlines potential policy solutions—including litigation strategies, congressional action, and reform of the TPS program itself.

1. Introduction: What Is at Stake?

TPS is a humanitarian program designed to protect foreign nationals unable to safely return to their countries due to conflict, natural disasters, or extraordinary conditions. Since its creation in 1990, TPS has shielded hundreds of thousands of people from deportation while allowing lawful work authorization.

Nepali nationals first received TPS designation in 2015 after a 7.8-magnitude earthquake devastated Kathmandu and surrounding regions, killing nearly 9,000 people and displacing millions. A decade later, DHS argues that conditions have improved sufficiently to justify ending TPS, while advocacy groups maintain that vulnerabilities—earthquake recovery, political instability, and economic precarity—remain acute.

The stakes go beyond humanitarian protection. TPS beneficiaries contribute significantly to local economies, pay taxes, and sustain transnational remittances. For Nepal, remittances constitute nearly 23% of GDP, among the highest in the world. Thus, the termination of TPS has cascading effects across both U.S. communities and Nepal’s economy.

2. Legal Background: How the Case Reached the Ninth Circuit

2.1 Statutory Authority

TPS is authorized under Section 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Secretary of Homeland Security has sole discretion to designate and terminate TPS, based on assessments of whether conditions preventing safe return persist. Judicial review of TPS decisions is limited, but courts may intervene if plaintiffs allege violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), constitutional rights, or discriminatory intent.

2.2 Litigation Timeline

2015: TPS designation granted to Nepal after earthquake.
2018–2020: Litigation over TPS terminations for other countries (El Salvador, Haiti, Sudan) created precedent for courts scrutinizing government motives and procedures.
June 2025: DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announces TPS termination for Nepal, effective August 5.
July 31, 2025: Judge Trina Thompson issues a temporary stay halting termination until November 18.
August 20, 2025: Ninth Circuit lifts the stay, allowing termination to take effect.

2.3 Interlocutory Appeals and Judicial Oversight

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling exemplifies the appellate courts’ authority to review interlocutory appeals—emergency appeals of non-final orders. While this does not settle the merits of the case, it effectively reshapes the legal landscape by removing protections before the full trial.

3. Comparative Precedents: Lessons from Other TPS Cases

3.1 El Salvador and Haiti (2017–2020)

In Ramos v. Nielsen (2018), plaintiffs challenged TPS termination for El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan, alleging racial animus. A district court issued injunctions, but the Ninth Circuit later reversed. The case highlighted courts’ willingness to review executive discretion when discriminatory intent is alleged.

3.2 Venezuela (2025 Supreme Court Ruling)

In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld DHS authority to end TPS for Venezuelans, emphasizing that TPS is temporary by statute. The ruling narrowed plaintiffs’ ability to block terminations absent clear evidence of unlawful intent or procedural violations.

3.3 Implications for Nepal

The Nepali case closely mirrors these precedents: district courts issue temporary relief, appellate courts reverse, and beneficiaries are left unprotected pending final litigation. These outcomes underscore the fragility of TPS as a humanitarian tool dependent on executive discretion and subject to abrupt policy swings.

4. Humanitarian Impact on Nepali Nationals

4.1 Numbers and Demographics

Roughly 7,000 Nepalis hold TPS. Most have resided in the U.S. for a decade or longer, building families, careers, and community ties. A significant portion have U.S.-born children, raising concerns about family separation.

4.2 Economic Contributions

TPS holders are integrated into key sectors, including healthcare, hospitality, and construction.
Nepali TPS recipients send back an estimated $50–70 million annually in remittances to Nepal.
Deportations would not only destabilize U.S. communities but also shrink Nepal’s foreign exchange reserves.

4.3 Country Conditions in Nepal

While DHS argues that Nepal has stabilized, international reports note:

Ongoing earthquake recovery: thousands still displaced.
Political instability: frequent changes in government and weak governance.
Economic fragility: high unemployment, inflationary pressures, and climate vulnerabilities (flooding and landslides).

5. Geopolitical and Diplomatic Dimensions

U.S.–Nepal Relations: Nepal is a strategic partner in South Asia, balancing ties between India and China. Abrupt deportations could strain bilateral relations.
Regional Security: Forced return migration risks exacerbating poverty and political instability, creating opportunities for external influence (notably China).
Diaspora Diplomacy: The Nepali diaspora in the U.S. plays an outsized role in Nepal’s economy and politics. Removing legal protections undermines diaspora engagement and U.S. soft power.

6. Pathways Forward

6.1 Litigation Strategies

Merits Hearing: Plaintiffs will argue APA violations, discriminatory animus, and failure to adequately assess country conditions on November 18, 2025.
En Banc Review or Supreme Court Appeal: If unsuccessful, advocates may seek higher review, though precedents suggest limited success.

6.2 Congressional Options

American Dream and Promise Act: Past legislation (e.g., H.R.6, 2021) sought permanent residency for TPS holders but stalled in the Senate. Reviving such measures could offer durable solutions.
Targeted Legislation for Nepal: Congress could pass a narrow bill granting permanent residency to Nepali TPS holders, though prospects are slim in a divided legislature.

6.3 Administrative Relief

Even without reinstating TPS, DHS could:

Issue deferred enforced departure (DED) for Nepalis, temporarily halting deportations.
Extend work authorization grace periods to mitigate disruption.

6.4 Long-Term Reform

Scholars and advocates argue for replacing TPS with a statutory humanitarian protection program less vulnerable to executive discretion.
Proposals include a “climate displacement visa” framework, recognizing that disasters like earthquakes, floods, and climate shocks are recurring—not temporary—phenomena.

7. Policy Recommendations

For the Courts: Apply heightened scrutiny to ensure TPS terminations comply with APA requirements and are free of discriminatory intent.
For DHS: Provide interim relief—such as DED and extended EAD validity—pending litigation outcomes.
For Congress: Enact permanent residency pathways for long-term TPS holders, including Nepalis, to resolve recurring humanitarian crises.
For Nepal and the International Community: Strengthen bilateral cooperation on labor migration, remittances, and disaster resilience to reduce overreliance on TPS.

Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit’s August 2025 ruling reflects a recurring cycle in TPS litigation: short-term protections granted by lower courts are often reversed on appeal, leaving beneficiaries exposed while the underlying case remains unresolved.

For Nepali TPS holders, the stakes are existential—family unity, livelihoods, and futures hang in the balance. The case also raises deeper policy questions: Should humanitarian relief hinge on executive discretion alone? Or is it time for Congress to create a durable framework recognizing that migration linked to disasters, instability, and climate change is not temporary, but structural?

The coming months will test whether the U.S. chooses to uphold TPS as a genuine humanitarian safeguard—or continues treating it as a fragile stopgap subject to the politics of the moment.

Perfect. Let’s add a comparative international section—this will bring global context and push the brief toward the 3,000-word target.

8. Comparative International Perspectives: TPS and Its Global Counterparts

While Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is unique to the U.S. legal system, other countries and regions have developed analogous mechanisms to provide temporary or humanitarian protection to people displaced by crises. Examining these frameworks helps clarify TPS’s strengths, weaknesses, and potential pathways for reform.

8.1 Canada: Temporary Resident Permits and Humanitarian Pathways

Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs): Canada allows individuals who would otherwise be inadmissible to enter or remain in the country under TRPs. Though not identical to TPS, TRPs can serve humanitarian purposes in emergencies.
Humanitarian and Compassionate (H&C) Applications: Canada also permits certain migrants to apply for permanent residence based on compelling humanitarian circumstances, including long-term integration and family ties.
Comparison with TPS: Unlike U.S. TPS, Canadian humanitarian mechanisms often lead to permanent status if the applicant meets eligibility thresholds, reducing long-term uncertainty for displaced individuals.

8.2 European Union: The Temporary Protection Directive

Origins: The EU adopted the Temporary Protection Directive (2001/55/EC) following the Balkan wars of the 1990s, aiming to manage large-scale influxes of refugees.
Activation: For the first time, the directive was triggered in March 2022 in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This granted Ukrainian nationals:
- Immediate residency and work rights across the EU,
- Access to housing, healthcare, and education,
- The possibility of extension for up to three years.
Comparison with TPS:
- Broader regional coordination across 27 states, reducing patchwork responses.
- More comprehensive integration rights, but still “temporary.”
- Demonstrates how supranational governance can distribute responsibility more equitably than a single-country system.

8.3 Latin America: Regional Solidarity with Venezuelan Displacement

Venezuelan Migrant Crisis: Over 7 million Venezuelans have fled the country since 2014, with most resettling in neighboring Latin American states.
Colombia’s PEP and TPS for Venezuelans:
- Colombia created the Permiso Especial de Permanencia (PEP) and later its own Temporary Protection Status (TPS) for Venezuelans, offering 10-year legal stay and work authorization.
- This framework has been hailed as one of the most generous humanitarian protection programs globally.
Comparison with U.S. TPS: Colombia’s program not only recognizes long-term displacement but also creates a clear pathway to permanent residency—something missing in U.S. law.

8.4 Australia and Asia-Pacific

Australia’s Humanitarian Program: Provides temporary visas to individuals fleeing persecution or conflict, though often criticized for restrictive offshore processing policies.
Asia-Pacific Gap: Many countries in Asia (including Nepal’s neighbors) lack robust humanitarian migration frameworks, relying instead on ad hoc bilateral agreements or tolerance of undocumented labor migration.

8.5 Global Governance and UNHCR Guidelines

International Norms: The 1951 Refugee Convention does not explicitly cover disaster-related or climate displacement, leaving gaps that TPS-like programs aim to fill.
UNHCR Recommendations: UNHCR has urged states to develop complementary protection mechanisms for people fleeing disasters and climate change. TPS is often cited as a model, but its instability highlights the need for reform.

9. Lessons for U.S. Policy

Durability vs. Temporariness
- Other jurisdictions (e.g., Canada, Colombia) integrate humanitarian protection with pathways to permanence. By contrast, U.S. TPS holders can remain in limbo for decades without permanent solutions.
Regional and Global Coordination
- The EU’s Temporary Protection Directive illustrates how burden-sharing can avoid unilateral policy swings. The U.S. could consider regional compacts with Canada and Latin American countries for crisis displacement.
Recognition of Climate Displacement
- Nepal’s vulnerability to earthquakes, floods, and climate change mirrors global trends. U.S. TPS reform could explicitly incorporate climate-driven migration—aligning domestic law with UNHCR guidance.
Reducing Politicization
- Comparative systems show the value of insulating humanitarian protection from partisan cycles. Congressional codification of TPS-like protections could ensure greater stability.

Final Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in National TPS Alliance v. Noem illustrates the fragility of TPS as a humanitarian protection mechanism. Though conceived as a temporary program, TPS has become a de facto long-term migration pathway for hundreds of thousands of people. The Nepali case reveals the central flaw: protections can vanish overnight through executive discretion and appellate intervention, leaving beneficiaries in uncertainty.

Comparative global frameworks—Canada’s H&C policies, the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive, Colombia’s TPS for Venezuelans—demonstrate alternative approaches that offer greater stability, integration, and permanence. The U.S. stands at a crossroads: continue treating TPS as an ad hoc, reversible patch, or legislate a durable humanitarian mechanism for an era defined by protracted conflicts, natural disasters, and climate change.

For Nepali TPS holders, the November 18, 2025, merits hearing will be decisive, but even a favorable ruling may not erase the precarity baked into TPS itself. The broader question is whether the U.S. is willing to move beyond “temporary” fixes toward a systemic, rights-based framework for humanitarian migration in the 21st century.

नेपालका लागि TPS (अस्थायी संरक्षित स्थिति) अन्त्य: कानुनी, मानवीय, र नीतिगत प्रभाव

National TPS Alliance v. Noem र २०२५ अगस्टमा नवौं सर्किटको फैसलाबारे नीतिगत विश्लेषण

कार्यकारी सारांश

२०२५ अगस्ट २० मा नवौं सर्किट अपिल अदालतको फैसलाले करिब ७,००० नेपाली नागरिकहरूलाई तुरुन्तै कानुनी असुरक्षामा पारेको छ। अदालतले National TPS Alliance v. Noem मुद्दामा क्यालिफोर्नियाको उत्तरी जिल्ला अदालतद्वारा जारी गरिएको स्थगन आदेश (stay) हटायो, जसले गृहमन्त्रालय (DHS) लाई २०२५ जुन महिनामा गरेको निर्णय लागू गर्न अनुमति दियो। यसले अगस्ट ५, २०२५ बाट नेपालका लागि अस्थायी संरक्षित स्थिति (TPS) अन्त्य भएको मानिन्छ।

मुद्दाको आधारभूत सुनुवाइ अझै जिल्ला अदालतमा जारी भए पनि, अपिल अदालतको प्रारम्भिक हस्तक्षेपले TPS जस्तो कार्यकारी स्तरमा आधारित कार्यक्रम कति अस्थिर छ भन्ने प्रस्ट देखाएको छ। यो नीतिगत संक्षेपमा कानुनी पृष्ठभूमि, ऐतिहासिक उदाहरणहरू, मानवीय र भूराजनीतिक असर, र सम्भावित सुधार मार्गहरूको विश्लेषण गरिएको छ।

१. परिचय: के दाउमा छ?

TPS एउटा मानवीय कार्यक्रम हो जसले द्वन्द्व, प्राकृतिक प्रकोप, वा असाधारण अवस्थाका कारण आफ्ना देश फर्कन असुरक्षित विदेशी नागरिकलाई निर्वासनबाट अस्थायी सुरक्षा र रोजगारीको अनुमति दिन्छ।

नेपाललाई २०१५ मा विनाशकारी भूकम्पपछि TPS प्रदान गरिएको थियो। उक्त भूकम्पमा करिब ९,००० मानिसको मृत्यु भयो र लाखौं विस्थापित भए।

तर दशकपछि, DHS ले नेपालमा अवस्था सुधारिएको भन्दै TPS अन्त्य गर्‍यो। वकालत समूहहरूले भने अझै पनि नेपालमा पुनर्निर्माण चुनौती, राजनीतिक अस्थिरता, र आर्थिक असुरक्षा यथावत रहेको दाबी गर्छन्।

दाउ केवल मानवीय मात्र होइन। TPS धारकहरूले अमेरिकी समुदायमा कर तिर्ने, काम गर्ने, र योगदान दिने मात्र नभई नेपालमा पठाउने विप्रेषण (remittance) GDP को २३% बराबर छ। यसैले TPS अन्त्यले अमेरिका र नेपाल दुवैमा गहिरो असर पार्छ।

२. कानुनी पृष्ठभूमि: कसरी मुद्दा नवौं सर्किटसम्म पुग्यो

२.१ कानुनी आधार

TPS लाई १९९० मा पारित Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) को धारा २४४ अन्तर्गत कानुनी मान्यता दिइएको हो। DHS सचिवलाई TPS दिन वा अन्त्य गर्ने सम्पूर्ण अधिकार छ। अदालतहरूले यसमा सीमित समीक्षा गर्न सक्छन्, विशेष गरी जब प्रशासनिक प्रक्रिया ऐन (APA) उल्लंघन, संवैधानिक अधिकार हनन, वा भेदभावपूर्ण उद्देश्य आरोप लाग्छ।

२.२ मुद्दाको समयरेखा

२०१५: भूकम्पपछि नेपाललाई TPS।
२०१८–२०२०: अन्य देश (एल साल्भाडोर, हैटी, सुडान) का TPS अन्त्यसम्बन्धी मुद्दामा अदालतहरूले प्रशासकीय मनसायको समीक्षा गर्न थाले।
जुन २०२५: DHS सचिव क्रिस्टी नोएमले नेपालका लागि TPS अगस्ट ५, २०२५ देखि अन्त्य गर्ने घोषणा।
जुलाई ३१, २०२५: जिल्ला न्यायाधीश ट्रिना थोम्पसनले अस्थायी स्थगन आदेश जारी गरिन्।
अगस्ट २०, २०२५: नवौं सर्किटले उक्त स्थगन हटायो।

२.३ अपिल अदालतको हस्तक्षेप

DHS ले स्थगन विरुद्ध इण्टरलोक्युटरी अपिल दर्ता गर्‍यो। अमेरिकी कानुनले यसरी गैर-अन्तिम आदेशहरूमा पनि अपिल गर्न अनुमति दिन्छ, विशेष गरी आप्रवासन जस्ता उच्च-प्रभाव क्षेत्रहरूमा।

३. अन्य TPS मुद्दाबाट सिकाइ

३.१ एल साल्भाडोर र हैटी (२०१७–२०२०)

Ramos v. Nielsen (२०१८) मा अदालतले TPS अन्त्यमा जातीय भेदभावको आरोपबारे प्रारम्भिक आदेश जारी गर्‍यो, तर पछि नवौं सर्किटले उल्टायो।

३.२ भेनेजुएला (२०२५ सर्वोच्च अदालत)

२०२५ मा सर्वोच्च अदालतले भेनेजुएलाका लागि TPS अन्त्य गर्न DHS लाई समर्थन दियो। यसले TPS अस्थायी मात्र हो भन्ने कानुनी दृष्टिकोणलाई पुन: पुष्टि गर्‍यो।

३.३ नेपालका लागि परिणाम

नेपालसम्बन्धी मुद्दा पनि त्यही ढाँचामा चलेको छ—जिल्ला अदालतले अस्थायी सुरक्षा दिने आदेश दिन्छ, तर अपिल अदालतले उल्ट्याउँछ।

४. नेपाली नागरिकमा मानवीय असर

४.१ तथ्याङ्क

TPS अन्तर्गत करिब ७,००० नेपाली छन्। धेरैले एक दशकभन्दा बढी अमेरिका बस्दै आएका छन् र अमेरिकामा जन्मिएका बच्चा छन्।

४.२ आर्थिक योगदान

स्वास्थ्य, निर्माण, र सेवा क्षेत्रमा संलग्न।
वार्षिक ५०–७० मिलियन डलर विप्रेषण नेपालमा पठाउने।
निर्वासनले अमेरिकी समुदाय मात्र होइन, नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रलाई पनि हल्लाउने।

४.३ नेपालमा अवस्थाहरू

भूकम्प पुनर्निर्माण अझै अधुरो।
राजनीतिक अस्थिरता निरन्तर।
आर्थिक असुरक्षा—बेरोजगारी, मुद्रास्फीति, प्राकृतिक प्रकोप।

५. भूराजनीतिक र कूटनीतिक पक्ष

अमेरिका–नेपाल सम्बन्ध: अचानक निर्वासनले द्विपक्षीय सम्बन्ध तनावपूर्ण बनाउन सक्छ।
क्षेत्रीय प्रभाव: ठूलो संख्यामा फर्काइएका मानिसहरूले अस्थिरता बढाउन सक्छ।
प्रवासी कूटनीति: अमेरिकी नेपाली प्रवासी नेपालको राजनीतिमा महत्वपूर्ण छन्। TPS अन्त्यले उनीहरूको योगदान कमजोर पार्छ।

६. सम्भावित मार्गहरू

६.१ मुद्दा र कानुनी रणनीति

नोभेम्बर १८, २०२५ मा जिल्ला अदालतमा पूर्ण सुनुवाइ।
आवश्यक परे नवौं सर्किटमा en banc वा सर्वोच्च अदालतमा अपिल।

६.२ संसदीय विकल्प

American Dream and Promise Act जस्ता विधेयकले TPS धारकलाई स्थायी आव्रजन मार्ग दिन सक्थे, तर विभाजित काँग्रेसमा सम्भावना कम।
नेपालका लागि लक्षित विशेष विधेयक सम्भावना न्यून।

६.३ प्रशासनिक राहत

DHS ले Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) जस्तो अस्थायी सुरक्षा दिन सक्ने।
रोजगारी अनुमति अवधि (EAD grace period) बढाउन सक्ने।

६.४ दीर्घकालीन सुधार

TPS लाई स्थायी मानवीय सुरक्षासँग जोड्ने नयाँ कानुनी संरचना आवश्यक।
जलवायु आधारित विस्थापन भिसा को प्रस्ताव, किनभने प्रकोप र जलवायु संकट स्थायी समस्या बन्दैछन्।

७. नीतिगत सिफारिसहरू

१. अदालत: TPS अन्त्य गर्दा प्रशासनले APA पालना गरेको वा भेदभाव नगरिएको सुनिश्चित गर्न कठोर समीक्षा।
२. DHS: अन्तरिम राहत (DED, EAD विस्तार) प्रदान गर्नुपर्छ।
३. काँग्रेस: लामो समयदेखि बसेका TPS धारकलाई स्थायी आव्रजन मार्ग दिन कानुन बनाउनुपर्छ।
४. नेपाल र अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय समुदाय: विप्रेषणमा निर्भरता घटाउन श्रम बजार सुधार र आपदा व्यवस्थापनमा सहयोग।

८. अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय तुलना: TPS जस्तै संरचना

८.१ क्यानडा

Temporary Resident Permits (TRPs) र Humanitarian & Compassionate Applications मार्फत आप्रवासनमा स्थायी समाधान सम्भव।
TPS भन्दा दीर्घकालीन सुरक्षायुक्त।

८.२ युरोपेली संघ

Temporary Protection Directive (2001): २०२२ मा युक्रेन युद्धपछि सक्रिय।
कार्य, शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्यमा तुरुन्त पहुँच।
३ वर्षसम्म विस्तारयोग्य।

८.३ ल्याटिन अमेरिका (कोलम्बिया)

Permiso Especial de Permanencia (PEP) र TPS for Venezuelans: १० वर्षसम्म कानुनी वासस्थान।
अमेरिकी TPS भन्दा उदार र स्थायी समाधानमुखी।

८.४ अस्ट्रेलिया र एसिया–प्रशान्त

अस्ट्रेलियामा मानवीय भिसा भए पनि कडा नीति।
एशियामा भने अधिकांश देशमा आप्रवासन कानुन कमजोर, अस्थायी सम्झौता भरमा।

८.५ अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय शासन

१९५१ शरणार्थी सम्मेलन प्रकोप वा जलवायु विस्थापनलाई सम्बोधन गर्दैन।
UNHCR ले पूरक मानवीय सुरक्षा कार्यक्रम विकास गर्न सिफारिस गरेको।

९. अमेरिकी नीतिका लागि सिकाइ

१. अस्थायीभन्दा स्थायी समाधान: क्यानडा वा कोलम्बियाले दीर्घकालीन आव्रजन मार्ग दिएका छन्।
२. क्षेत्रीय समन्वय: EU ले देखाएझैँ साझा जिम्मेवारी बाँड्ने संरचना आवश्यक।
३. जलवायु विस्थापन मान्यता: भविष्यका संकटहरूलाई ध्यानमा राख्दै।
४. राजनीतिकरण कम गर्ने: काँग्रेसमार्फत TPS जस्तो कार्यक्रमलाई स्थायी बनाउने।

निष्कर्ष

National TPS Alliance v. Noem मा नवौं सर्किटको निर्णयले TPS कार्यक्रमको अस्थिरता उजागर गर्‍यो। नेपालका लागि TPS अन्त्यले हजारौं प्रवासीलाई कानुनी संकटमा पारेको छ।

तर यसले ठूलो प्रश्न पनि उठाउँछ—मानवीय सुरक्षा के केवल कार्यकारी मनसायमा निर्भर रहनुपर्छ? वा अब काँग्रेसले लामो समयसम्मको स्थायी ढाँचा बनाउनुपर्छ?

नेपालका TPS धारकहरूको भविष्य नोभेम्बर १८, २०२५ को सुनुवाइमा निर्भर रहन्छ। तर अझ ठूलो बहस भने यसबारे छ—अमेरिकाले “अस्थायी” उपायमै अडिने हो वा २१औँ शताब्दीका स्थायी आप्रवासन चुनौतीलाई समाधान गर्ने गहिरो सुधार ल्याउने हो।

Pages

Friday, August 22, 2025