A new Board of Immigration Appeals ruling has weakened protections for DACA recipients in removal proceedings, stripping immigration judges of the authority to dismiss cases based solely on DACA status. The decision, issued in Matter of Santiago-Santiago, sets binding precedent that will affect how you advise DACA recipients facing deportation and reshape your removal defense strategy.
What changed
The Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the Justice Department, issued the decision Friday (April 24, 2026). A three-judge panel of appellate immigration judges sided with Department of Homeland Security lawyers who appealed a decision from immigration judge Michael Pleters terminating removal proceedings for Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, citing Santiago’s active DACA status.
Immigration judges can no longer rely only on DACA status to prevent deportation. “If you are a DACA holder and you are placed in removal proceedings for whatever reason you end up in removal proceedings, the judge will no longer have the authority to dismiss,” immigration attorney Wendoli Rodriguez said.
The ruling turns on a single but critical point: “The immigration judge erred in terminating removal proceedings based solely on the fact that the respondent has been accorded DACA protection and without considering the reasons for any opposition to termination,” wrote Roman Chaban, the appellate immigration judge who penned the BIA’s opinion in the case. Judges must now engage in a full discretionary analysis, not treat DACA status as an automatic bar to removal.
Why it matters
This BIA precedent reshapes how you advise and defend DACA recipients in immigration court:
-
Scope of impact: The decision potentially weakens DACA protections for roughly 506,000 individuals nationwide. If your client is a DACA recipient in or at risk of removal proceedings, this ruling directly affects their case strategy.
-
DACA no longer a standalone defense: Immigration judges cannot now dismiss removal proceedings on DACA status alone. You cannot rely on a simple “DACA = dismissal” argument. You must affirmatively develop other grounds for relief or dismissal (e.g., battery on a family or household member, prosecutorial discretion, equitable tolling, or an affirmative defense to the charges).
-
DHS will litigate harder: The ruling does not take away DACA’s protection from ICE executing a deportation order. DACA still protects against enforcement of a final deportation order—but it no longer shields a DACA recipient from being placed in proceedings. DHS can now pursue removal cases against DACA holders without fear that a judge will close the case on status alone.
-
Litigation window: If you have a DACA client in removal proceedings or a Notice to Appear pending, your options for swift dismissal have narrowed. You will need to develop other legal or discretionary arguments or risk a full hearing.
Way forward
If you represent a DACA recipient in removal proceedings or advise someone at risk of deportation:
-
Do NOT assume DACA closes the case. Immediately review your client’s Notice to Appear and any charging documents. Identify other potential grounds for dismissal or relief (stay application, prosecutorial discretion motion, affirmative defense, jurisdiction arguments, etc.). DACA is no longer a shortcut.
-
Explore green card pathways in parallel. Have a conversation with your client about whether an immediate family-based petition, employment-based sponsorship, or T/U visa application is available. The KRGV article quotes an advocate: “DACA is not enough. It has never been enough.” Build a longer-term strategy.
-
Monitor for BIA reconsideration or Congressional response. Congressional Democrats have objected to the ruling, noting that the Board acts in a manner inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit’s decision and Department of Justice regulation. Legislation or a future BIA reversal are possible; document your compliance with the current precedent while watching for changes.
-
Advise clients on renewal and compliance risk. Counsel your client to maintain perfect DACA renewal compliance and avoid any conduct that could trigger immigration enforcement review. The decision does not strip DACA’s protection from removal once a final order is issued, but it does expose your client to detention and prolonged litigation during proceedings.
Disclaimer
This article explains a Board of Immigration Appeals precedent decision and is not legal advice. Folaform is a software company, not a law firm. You should not rely on this article as a substitute for advice from a licensed immigration attorney in your state. Immigration law is complex and precedent changes. Verify this summary against the original BIA decision and consult with a qualified practitioner about your specific situation. Policy interpretations can evolve; check the Board of Immigration Appeals website for any clarifications or amendments.