The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a decision that could affect some 11,270 Bay Area immigrants who are recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and make it easier to deport them. On Friday, April 24, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) published a new precedent holding that relief from deportation cannot be granted simply because an individual is a DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipient.
What changed
In an April 24 four-page decision, Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Garry D. Malphrus sided with federal attorneys and wrote that a previous immigration judge had “erred” in terminating the removal proceedings of a person just because they were a DACA recipient. The decision sets a precedent that DACA status is no longer enough to automatically protect immigrants within removal proceedings, which can lead to deportation.
The decision stemmed from the case of Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, a 28-year-old DACA recipient who was detained in August by Customs and Border Protection officers while boarding a domestic flight out of El Paso, Texas. Santiago’s case was brought to the BIA by the Department of Homeland Security because Immigration Judge Michael Pleters ordered her removal proceedings terminated, as she holds DACA status.
The BIA, a part of the Justice Department, ordered immigration judges to weigh all the factors in a deportation case, going beyond the mere fact that a migrant had been granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. This reverses a prior framework under which immigration judges could treat active DACA as dispositive grounds to terminate removal proceedings.
Why it matters
This precedent fundamentally shifts the ground beneath DACA as a deportation shield. DACA holders, also known as Dreamers, are those who arrived in the United States as children and currently have permission to work and study here. The status, which is renewable every two years, has protected them from deportation since DACA was passed in 2012.
Under the prior standard, immigration judges could stop removal proceedings simply by noting the respondent held valid DACA. Under the Santiago precedent, being a DACA recipient is not enough reason to provide relief from deportation. Immigration judges must now consider the specific facts of the case—grounds of removability, equitable factors, and other statutory criteria—even where DACA is active.
The real-world impact is immediate and severe. According to federal authorities, ICE detained nearly 300 Dreamers in the first nine months of the second Trump administration, and deported 176 who were in the process of renewal. The Board of Immigration Appeals takes cases from across the country and its decisions shape how immigration judges apply case law. Every immigration judge in the U.S. is now bound by this precedent.
Practitioners working with DACA clients in removal proceedings must immediately reassess cases where termination was previously expected. The burden of proof and the legal leverage have shifted against the respondent.
Way forward
- Audit your removal-proc portfolio: If you have DACA clients in active removal proceedings, review the file for non-DACA grounds to seek termination or cancellation—voluntary departure, family unity, hardship factors, or adjustment of status eligibility via sponsoring relatives.
- Timing and renewal: Do not let DACA lapse during removal proceedings. An expired DACA status removes any remaining discretionary argument. File timely renewals even while defending removal.
- Consult collateral-damage law: Explore parallel forums (federal habeas, federal APA review) and legislative advocacy if the immigration judge signals a negative decision post-Santiago. This is not the end of defense, but the easier path is now closed.
- Client counseling: Advise DACA clients to avoid triggering removability grounds (criminal conduct, fraud, unauthorized re-entry after prior departure). Santiago does not eliminate DACA as a matter of law; it removes DACA as an automatic procedural shield in removal court.
Disclaimer
This article summarizes a public court decision and is for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific; the Santiago precedent interacts with multiple statutory provisions, regulations, and individual circumstances. You must consult a licensed immigration attorney to assess your specific case. The Board of Immigration Appeals decision is binding on immigration judges and appellate immigration judges nationwide, but policy and precedent can change. Verify all guidance against the primary source and current USCIS / EOIR procedures.