On April 24, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued an opinion in Matter of Santiago-Santiago, concluding that an immigration judge had “erred in terminating removal proceedings based solely on the fact that the respondent has been accorded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and without considering the reasons” ICE offered in opposing termination. The ruling sets a binding standard for how immigration judges must handle termination motions filed by DACA recipients facing removal.
What changed
The BIA held that an immigration judge erred in terminating removal proceedings based solely on the respondent’s DACA status without considering ICE’s reasons for opposing termination. The BIA explained: “the fact that the respondent is the beneficiary of deferred action is not the sole, dispositive consideration for whether discretionary termination is warranted”.
Immigration judges must comply with the May 2024 Biden-era regulation and consider the government’s opposition first, and cannot terminate a pending removal case involving a DACA recipient without first considering DHS’s opposition. The BIA remanded the case back down to the immigration court for proper adjudication.
The case involved a DACA recipient with a documented immigration history, civil disobedience convictions, and prior removal proceedings that DHS opposed terminating. Despite what headlines may suggest, DACA recipients can still ask immigration judges to terminate their cases, even under the BIA’s opinion.
Why it matters
If you represent a DACA recipient in removal proceedings seeking case termination, this decision reshapes your motion strategy. DACA status alone—no matter how long the person has lived lawfully in the U.S. or accumulated ties—is no longer sufficient grounds for an immigration judge to grant termination.
Under the prior ad-hoc approach some judges used, DACA recipients filing termination motions sometimes prevailed based on humanitarian factors: family ties, employment, community integration, and the severe consequences of deportation. The BIA now requires judges to apply the formal May 2024 regulatory framework and genuinely grapple with DHS’s objections before granting relief.
This matters because:
- Procedural rigor increased: You must anticipate and address DHS’s specific arguments. Generic “termination is in the interests of justice” motions will not work.
- Timing considerations shift: Expect longer briefing cycles as judges now must weigh competing interests systematically.
- DACA is no longer a silver bullet: Practitioners and clients must understand that deferred action status, while protective of employment and deportation avoidance in the short term, does not guarantee a favorable outcome in removal court.
Way forward
- Before filing a termination motion, obtain DHS’s position in writing if possible, or prepare robust responses to the anticipated arguments they will raise (e.g., nature of conviction, length of stay, family separation risks, employment contributions).
- Develop a fact-intensive record beyond DACA eligibility: client’s equities (marriage, children, employment, community service), remorse if applicable, rehabilitation, and countervailing public-interest factors supporting termination.
- Cite the May 2024 regulation directly in your motion and distinguish your client’s circumstances from those where termination would be inappropriate.
- Escalate if necessary: If the immigration judge signals reliance on outdated case law permitting termination on DACA status alone, flag the Santiago-Santiago precedent immediately and request a continuance to brief the new standard.
Disclaimer
Fola is a software company, not a law firm. This article is not legal advice. Immigration law is complex and evolving; the BIA may issue further guidance, and courts may interpret this precedent differently. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney regarding your specific situation and verify all claims against the primary source linked above. Policy and interpretation can change without notice.