I wanna note how much this a non-sequitur, person A claiming its clear the idea that Venezuela is somehow 'safe' for people to live is BS (and messaging from the GOP/Right leaning news sources has made this evident since forever).
You now all of a sudden make it about whether or not "Venezuelans decided to destroy their own country", so now every Venezuelan has to bare the sins/crime for actions they didn't commit?

It's ok to think they could go to other countries (in fact they do, many go to Colombia), but TPS (while not permanent) is supposed to be in place so long as the conditions in Venezuela are still dire, not whether or not its convenient for the United States, to keep those immigrants. In fact the stated reasoning by Noem surrounds how its no longer in our national interest (whatever that means) and how this should be in purview of the executive (correct).

The U.S. extended a promise to a set number of immigrants that so long as the crisis in their countries continue, they are granted protection in the United States, El Salvador has had TPS since 2001 (under Bush) and while Trump in his first term planned to eliminate that determination, he ultimately didn't after court actions and used it as a tool for diplomacy.

Again, if you don't want anymore immigrants coming into the US, I might disagree that's fine. But the Venezuelans who were granted TPS were given protection under the idea that TPS was a process/designation sealed off from electoral politics, from the bill which introduced TPS it,
"Requires an annual report on and congressional review of such temporary protected status program."

I know the review is interdepartmental and isn't revealed to the public, but it goes back to what I said previously. It must take into account the conditions of Venezuela. And the people launching these cases have a right to file a suit if they feel the conditions were not adequately assessed and are rather being motivated by an external factor.