After TPS: The Hard Truth Facing Venezuelans in the U.S.

In my recent interview on Unión Radio, with Eduardo Rodríguez and Saúl Noriega, I spoke about the complex reality that many Venezuelans are facing today after the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for their community.

This is not only a legal matter but also a deeply human one. Each person’s story is different, and each case requires individual attention. Yet there are certain common threads among all: uncertainty, fear of losing protection, and the pressure to make difficult decisions amid changing immigration policies and false expectations.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

The Human Impact Behind the Numbers

When people hear that “250,000 Venezuelans will be affected”, it sounds abstract — but behind that number are families, jobs, and futures built over years of hard work. Some Venezuelans have found legal pathways through marriage to U.S. citizens or residents, others through their U.S.-born or recently naturalized children who can now file petitions on their behalf.

For these individuals, there are solutions available through family-based petitions and adjustment of status.

However, many others remain in more fragile circumstances. Some have pending asylum cases, others have received denials, and others never filed any petition at all. The latter are now in what I would call an “immigration limbo” — a vulnerable space where there is no protection and no immediate path forward.

Those who still have an asylum application pending can continue with their process and maintain their work permit through asylum. But as I explained in the interview, asylum is one of the most difficult protections to win in U.S. immigration law. It requires extensive evidence, time, and preparation. When denied, the person can be referred to Immigration Court and placed in removal proceedings. This means that while asylum provides temporary protection, it is an unstable safeguard.

The Responsibility of Staying Without Legal Status

One question I was asked was whether it is “responsible” for someone without papers to remain in the U.S., waiting for a potential change in administration or court decision that could reverse the end of TPS.

As an attorney, I must say: staying in the country without status is not responsible from a legal standpoint. It places the individual — and their family — in a constant state of risk. Detention or deportation can occur at any moment, and without prior preparation, it can leave loved ones unprotected.

If someone decides to remain despite the risks, it is essential to make contingency plans: designate guardianship for children, clarify financial and property management, and ensure that family members are informed and prepared. These are difficult conversations, but they are acts of responsibility toward one’s family.

I understand, however, that many people feel they cannot return. Venezuela’s political and humanitarian crisis has pushed countless families to make impossible choices. My role as an immigration attorney is not to judge these decisions but to provide honest guidance and realistic options.

A Historical Perspective: TPS Has Always Been Temporary

Many people believe that because TPS has been renewed in the past, it will always continue. Historically, it has indeed been extended multiple times. For example, TPS for Nicaragua and Honduras has lasted for over 27 years since 1998. Those beneficiaries built entire lives in the U.S. under that protection.

However, TPS — as its name says — is temporary. It can end when the government determines that conditions in the designated country have improved or for policy reasons.

In the current case of Venezuela, the government did not specifically claim that the conditions in the country had changed; rather, it based the termination on broader administrative arguments, including recent security concerns. Unfortunately, those isolated cases have overshadowed the reality that the vast majority of Venezuelans in the U.S. are law-abiding individuals who came seeking safety and opportunity.

As of now, there is at least one pending lawsuit in California challenging the termination of TPS, but until a court issues a new ruling, affected individuals must prepare for all possible outcomes.

The Rise of Misleading Visa Offers: The EB-2 “National Interest Waiver”

Another subject I addressed during the interview is the growing number of misleading offers surrounding the EB-2 National Interest Waiver — often referred to as “EB-2 NIW.”

This type of petition is legitimate and valuable for qualified individuals. It allows certain professionals with advanced degrees or exceptional abilities to apply for residency without employer sponsorship if they can show that their work benefits the national interest of the United States.

However, the problem lies in how this visa is being promoted. Recently, it has been heavily commercialized on social media and by unqualified agents as if it were available to anyone with a university degree and five years of experience. Some people are being charged $15,000 to $20,000 for these applications, with the false promise of guaranteed approval.

That is simply not true. The EB-2 NIW requires a strong academic, professional, and salary profile — not just a diploma. It demands detailed evidence of national impact, publications, achievements, or unique expertise. Unfortunately, I have seen many cases denied because individuals were misled into believing they qualified when they did not.

Before investing large amounts of money in any immigration process, always verify the attorney’s credentials, review the requirements with a licensed immigration lawyer, and ensure that the petition is legally sound.

The end of TPS for Venezuelans has caused understandable concern and confusion. Yet, despite the uncertainty, there are still lawful paths available for those who qualify. It’s essential to act wisely, avoid misinformation, and stay informed through credible sources and licensed professionals.

If you or someone you know is affected by the end of TPS or has been approached with offers that sound “too good to be true,” seek proper legal advice before taking any step.

You may contact my office at 305-671-0018 or follow me on social media for updates and educational content. Staying informed and guided by reliable information is the best protection you can have in uncertain times.

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

HOST:
Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, gran colaboradora de este espacio, está en Miami, Estados Unidos, y la tenemos vía telefónica. Martha, como siempre, muy gentil, un gusto tenerte por acá.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Buenos días, Eduardo y Saúl. Un saludo para ustedes, muchísimas gracias por invitarme. Es un placer para mí estar con ustedes.

HOST:
¡Caramba! Pero qué bella eres, qué buena energía, qué educación. Con esa entrada, imagínate tú, Martha, eso no lo hace todo el mundo. Gracias, gracias, gracias en la distancia.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Gracias, gracias a ustedes. Eres una dama.

HOST:
Mira, Martha, primero: ¿son realmente 250.000 las personas que están afectadas directamente por esta decisión del TPS? Y un poco de manera redundante, pero para ir al detalle posible, ¿cuál es la perspectiva para ellos en medio de lo que está pasando?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, es un poco complicada la perspectiva para la mayoría. Y digo la mayoría porque, como usted podrá entender, muchos van a tener una suerte distinta. Cada uno va a tener su propia suerte.
Aquellas personas que se casaron con ciudadanos americanos —que yo tengo varios de ellos, incluso con residentes— pueden tener una forma de resolver su estatus migratorio. También tengo venezolanos que tenían el TPS y cuyos hijos son ciudadanos americanos o se hicieron recientemente ciudadanos americanos. Ellos también pueden hacer un ajuste de estatus y pedir su residencia.

Pero hay otras personas que tienen el asilo, todavía con una solicitud pendiente. Esas personas deben continuar con su petición de asilo y el permiso de trabajo a través del mismo. Obviamente, es una situación muy inestable, porque el asilo —como usted bien sabrá— es una aplicación que se presenta, hay que probar demasiado, y es muy difícil ganarlo. Si se lo niegan, eventualmente pueden ser enviados a una corte de inmigración para una posible deportación. Entonces, esos que tienen el asilo están protegidos, pero de una forma inestable, diría yo.

Y finalmente, están los que ya no tienen nada que hacer: los que no presentaron petición de asilo, no tienen asilo pendiente, no tienen familia que los pida… esos están prácticamente en un limbo migratorio. Esos son los que más nos preocupan.

HOST:
Ahora, doctora, fíjese: el tema político que tanto influye en este tipo de decisiones —pendiente también de lo que veníamos conversando— el tema de la perspectiva y del futuro, sobre todo para los que dicen “yo no tengo papeles, pero si sale una decisión del tribunal tal o incluso la administración Trump cambia esto, yo me quedo y me aguanto”. ¿Es una decisión responsable, sobre todo para quien piensa así con su familia al lado?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, yo pienso que obviamente responsable no es, porque uno, pues, está en los Estados Unidos en violación de la ley; y dos, vive en una incertidumbre total, en la que en cualquier momento lo pueden detener, arrestar, llevar a detención, y su familia, sus bienes, sus pertenencias, quedan sometidos a un drama o a una situación complicada.

Las personas deben prepararse si van a quedarse en esas circunstancias: cómo manejar la tutela o la potestad de sus hijos, cómo sus bienes van a ser administrados. Todo esto, porque sería muy complicado que una persona sea arrestada, no tenga papeles y, de un momento a otro, no pueda responder por su familia.

Lo otro que considero es que, sí, hay personas que se juegan ese chance —vamos a llamarlo así— o toman ese riesgo, y en el futuro resuelven de alguna manera. Claro que hay muchas personas que lo hacen así, pero desde el punto de vista legal, obviamente, como abogada, no puedo decir que es responsable. Sin embargo, entiendo a muchas personas que no quieren regresar o que definitivamente no pueden regresar a su país y tienen que jugarse esta carta de esa manera.

HOST:
Amigos, estamos conversando con Martha Arias desde Miami, vía telefónica, abogada de inmigración. Tomando en cuenta tu especialidad y conocimiento histórico, una situación así —vista más allá del TPS para venezolanos, observando el todo del tema migratorio en Estados Unidos— ¿tiene precedentes? Porque, al final, uno se pregunta: si decido quedarme en ese limbo, ¿hasta qué punto puedo sobrevivir en medio de ese laberinto?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Desde el punto de vista histórico, el TPS siempre se ha extendido, se ha vuelto a otorgar. De hecho, sabemos que el TPS de Nicaragua y Honduras estaba vigente desde 1998 y duró prácticamente 27 años siendo extendido. Las personas tenían derecho al permiso de trabajo y vivían aquí por casi tres décadas.

Pero sí, bajo la ley, el TPS, como lo dice su propio nombre, es una protección temporal. Puede ser eliminado si hay cambios en las condiciones del país o ciertas circunstancias. En este caso, el gobierno no adujo realmente cambios en las condiciones del país; más bien, argumentó una situación de protección y sostuvo que muchas de las personas que habían entrado recientemente y aplicaron para el TPS pertenecían al “Tren de Aragua”.

Obviamente, todos sabemos que esas son pocas personas, y la gran mayoría son trabajadores honestos, incluso muchos que entraron con visa. Pero, aun así, el gobierno ha terminado el TPS en otras ocasiones. En este caso, las demandas que se presentaron ganaron ciertas batallas, pero no la guerra. Llegaron hasta la Corte Suprema, donde la Corte claramente apoyó al Ejecutivo en la terminación del TPS.

Aparentemente, tengo conocimiento de que hay una demanda pendiente en California sobre esto, pero no tengo mucha información porque aún no se ha hecho pública. En su debido momento, cuando ya se anuncie y tengamos claridad de lo que están pidiendo las partes demandantes, podremos conversar al respecto.

Por ahora, las personas deben protegerse: o salir del país, o continuar con su asilo, o tomar sus riesgos.

HOST:
Doctora, ya nos queda un minuto y medio. En su práctica cotidiana, ¿qué tipo de peticiones predominan entre los venezolanos que acuden a su oficina? ¿Le piden ayuda para quedarse o para mantener sus papeles en regla y poder viajar hacia otro país?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Mire, sinceramente, la mayoría —yo diría un 40 o 45 por ciento— se están inclinando por peticiones laborales a través de empleadores, lo cual es correcto; hay ciertas peticiones que se pueden hacer. Pero la mayoría debe salir del país, no pueden ajustar estatus ni recibir su residencia aquí con esas peticiones de empleo.

Sin embargo, hay mucha desinformación, porque a veces la gente no entiende que debe salir del país. Inician estos procesos costosos sin saber que deberán salir a recibir la residencia fuera de Estados Unidos. Me da mucha pena por ellos, porque invierten dinero y tiempo para luego enterarse de eso.

Otros están aplicando para lo que se ha promocionado —o mercadeado, porque realmente es mercadeo— como la “EB-2 National Interest Waiver”, o EB-2 con interés nacional. Es una petición de residencia para personas con habilidades extraordinarias, que pueden demostrar estar en el top de su profesión o carrera. Pero se requiere probar bastante.

Últimamente la están comercializando, como digo yo, como pan diario. Y eso no es así. No es una visa para todo el mundo. Requiere calificaciones, un perfil profesional, académico, laboral y de salario muy alto. Pero se la venden por 15 o 20 mil dólares. Es costosa. Le hacen creer que con tener un título universitario y cinco años de experiencia ya califican, y no es cierto. Me da mucha pena ver personas con esas visas denegadas después de invertir tanto dinero.

Así que, sí, mucha gente está recurriendo a la EB-2 de Interés Nacional con esperanza, gastando dinero, y no siempre es la opción adecuada. El resto de las personas —la mayoría— siguen afianzadas en el asilo. Yo diría otro 40 por ciento. Y un pequeño grupo ha decidido hacer su petición a través del matrimonio, obviamente de buena fe, con intención genuina de vida en pareja. Algunos no se habían casado por ser jóvenes o por esperar alguna situación familiar, pero ante las circunstancias, han decidido hacerlo.

HOST:
Muchísimas gracias, Martha. Qué gentil y qué interesante aporte en medio de este tema tan delicado para tantos venezolanos. Un gran abrazo.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Muchísimas gracias. Un abrazo para ustedes y feliz resto de semana.

HOST:
Igualmente, Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración. Qué buena vocera, qué respuestas tan técnicas. Muchos están aprovechando la preocupación de los venezolanos y les están vendiendo cosas que no son. Y ese es otro punto al que hay que prestarle atención.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

HOST:
Martha Arias, immigration attorney and great collaborator of this program, is in Miami, United States, and we have her on the phone line. Martha, as always, very kind—such a pleasure to have you with us.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Good morning, Eduardo and Saúl. A greeting to both of you, and thank you very much for inviting me. It’s a pleasure for me to be with you.

HOST:
Goodness! You are so lovely, what good energy, what manners. With that introduction—imagine! Martha, not everyone does that. Thank you, thank you, thank you, from afar.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you, thank you to you. You are very kind.

HOST:
Look, Martha, first—are there really 250,000 people directly affected by this TPS decision? And, to be a little redundant but go into detail if possible—what is the outlook for them in the midst of what is happening?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, the outlook is a little complicated for the majority. And I say “the majority” because, as you can understand, many will have a different fate. Each one will have their own fate.
Those who married U.S. citizens — and I have several of them, even with residents — may have a way to resolve their immigration status. I also have Venezuelans who had TPS and whose children are U.S. citizens or recently became citizens. They too can adjust status and apply for residency.

But there are other people who have asylum, still with a pending application. Those individuals must continue with their asylum case and their work permit through asylum. Obviously, it is also a very unstable situation because, as you well know, asylum is an application that must be proven extensively. It is very difficult to win, and if denied, they can eventually be sent to immigration court for possible deportation. So those who have asylum are protected, but in an unstable way, I would say.

And finally, there are those who have nothing left to do — those who did not file for asylum, do not have a pending case, and do not have family members to petition for them. Those are practically in an immigration limbo. They are the ones we worry about the most.

HOST:
Now, attorney, consider this—the political factor that so strongly influences these types of decisions. Regarding what we were talking about—the outlook and the future—especially for those who say, “I don’t have papers, but if a certain court decision comes out, or if the Trump administration changes this, I’ll stay and hold on.” Is that a responsible decision, especially for someone thinking that way with their family beside them?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, I think that, obviously, it is not responsible because, first, one is in the United States in violation of the law; and second, one is living in complete uncertainty, where at any moment they can be detained, arrested, taken into custody, and their family, their belongings, their possessions are left facing a drama or a complicated situation.

People must prepare themselves if they plan to remain under such circumstances: how to handle guardianship or custody of their children, how their assets will be managed. All of this, because it would be very difficult for a person to be arrested, have no documents, and from one moment to the next be unable to respond for their family.

Another thing I consider is that, yes, there are people who take that chance — let’s call it that — or take that risk, and in the future, they somehow manage to resolve. Of course, many people do that. But from a legal standpoint, obviously, as an attorney, I cannot say it’s responsible. However, I understand many who do not want to return or who simply cannot return to their country and must play this card this way.

HOST:
Friends, we’re speaking with Martha Arias from Miami, by phone, immigration attorney. Considering your specialty and even historical knowledge, a situation like this — not only from the perspective of the temporary protection system for Venezuelans but from the broader historical view of immigration in the United States — does it have precedent? Because, as Saúl was suggesting, in the end one wonders: if I decide to remain in that limbo, to what extent can I survive in that maze?

Attorney Martha Arias:
From a historical point of view, TPS has always been extended; it has always been renewed. In fact, we know that the TPS for Nicaragua and Honduras began in 1998 and lasted practically 27 years being extended. Those people had the right to work permits and lived here for almost three decades.

But yes, under the TPS law, as its name says, is temporary protection. It can be terminated if conditions in the country change or under certain circumstances. In this case, the government did not really claim that the conditions in Venezuela had changed; rather, it argued a situation of national protection, stating that many of the people who had recently entered and applied for TPS were members of the “Tren de Aragua.”

Obviously, we all know those are very few individuals, and the great majority are honest workers — many of them even entered with visas. But still, the government has terminated TPS in other cases. In this case, the lawsuits that were filed won some battles but not the war. They reached the Supreme Court, which clearly supported the executive branch in the termination of TPS.

Apparently, I have knowledge of a pending lawsuit in California on this issue, but I don’t have much information because it hasn’t yet been made public. At the right time, when it’s announced and we have clarity about what the plaintiffs are demanding and what arguments are being made, we can talk about it.

For now, people must protect themselves—either leave the country, continue with asylum, or take their risks.

HOST:
Attorney, we have about a minute and a half left. In your day-to-day legal practice, what trend are you seeing among Venezuelan clients? Do they ask you for help to stay in the U.S., or to maintain their papers properly to perhaps travel to another country?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, I’ll tell you honestly, the majority — I would say around 40 or 45 percent — are leaning toward employment-based petitions through employers, which is valid; there are certain petitions that can be done. But most of them must leave the country; they cannot adjust status or obtain residency here through those petitions.

However, there is a lot of misinformation about this because people often don’t understand they must leave the country. They begin these processes, which are very costly, without realizing that they’ll have to depart to obtain the residency abroad. I feel bad for them because they invest money only to later learn that they’ll need to leave anyway.

Others are applying for what has been promoted — or marketed, because it really is marketing — as the “EB-2 National Interest Waiver.” It’s a residence petition for people with extraordinary abilities who can show that they are at the top of their profession or occupation. But that requires significant proof.

Lately, it’s being commercialized, as I say, like daily bread. And it shouldn’t be. It is not a visa for everyone. It requires qualifications and a very high professional, academic, employment, and salary profile. Yet it’s being sold for $15,000 to $20,000. It’s extremely expensive. They tell people that if you have a university degree and more than five years of experience, you qualify. No—that’s not true. I feel sorry to see people with those visas denied after investing so much money.

So yes, many are turning to the EB-2 National Interest Waiver with hope, spending a lot of money, and it’s not always the right option. The rest — most — are still relying on asylum. I’d say another 40 percent. And a smaller group has decided to file petitions through marriage, obviously real marriages made in good faith. Some hadn’t married yet because they were young or waiting for family situations, but seeing the current circumstances, they’ve decided to take that step.

HOST:
Thank you very much, Martha. How kind, and what an insightful contribution amid this distressing issue for so many Venezuelans. A big hug.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you very much. A hug to all of you, and have a wonderful rest of the week.

HOST:
Likewise, Martha Arias, immigration attorney. What a fine spokesperson—such direct, technical answers. As Eduardo was saying, many are taking advantage of Venezuelans’ worry, selling them things that aren’t true. And that’s another point we must pay attention to.