On 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. If you represent DACA recipients in removal proceedings, this decision changes how immigration judges will now evaluate termination motions.
What changed
The BIA issued a decision establishing that being a DACA recipient, by itself, is not enough to terminate removal (deportation) proceedings. The case was brought to the BIA by the Department of Homeland Security because Immigration Judge Michael Pleters ordered removal proceedings terminated for a DACA recipient; a BIA panel of three appellate judges sided with the DHS and sent the case back to immigration court for review.
The core holding: An 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. An immigration judge may not base their decision to terminate proceedings solely on DACA protection; the judge must also consider and address DHS’s stated reasons when it opposes termination.
Prior practice allowed judges to terminate removal cases for DACA recipients by simply citing the respondent’s deferred action status. This is something immigration judges have regularly done for years, and the BIA has not questioned their decisions—until now.
Why it matters
Having active DACA alone will no longer be sufficient grounds to request termination of a case before the immigration court. When you move to terminate for a DACA client, expect the immigration judge to demand a written analysis addressing all discretionary factors: the government’s stated grounds for removal, your client’s humanitarian ties, alternative forms of relief, and the “strong public interest in the finality of proceedings” that DHS will cite.
This ruling raises the bar for terminating proceedings over government opposition and applies nationwide as precedent. It does not, however, strip away DACA’s underlying protections. The BIA’s decision does not take away any protections that DACA provides; it does not give the government more power to place someone in removal proceedings, and it does not allow DHS to actually deport someone with valid deferred action status. If someone with DACA gets arrested and ends up before an immigration judge, the judge may now look into their case more closely to comply with the BIA decision.
The practical effect: DACA remains a valid factor in a termination motion, but no longer a conclusive one.
Way forward
-
Strengthen termination motions: When you move to terminate for a DACA recipient, explicitly address the government’s stated reasons for removal and explain why termination is warranted on balance. Do not rely on DACA status as your sole argument.
-
Document all favorable discretionary factors: Gather evidence of U.S. citizen relatives, marriage to a USC (prima facie adjustment eligibility), long residence in the U.S., employment, community ties, and humanitarian considerations. The judge will now expect to see these.
-
Anticipate DHS opposition in writing: If DHS files a written opposition, prepare a detailed rebuttal that engages with each argument point-by-point, rather than resting on DACA as a trump card.
-
Preserve record for appeal: If the judge denies your termination motion, ensure the record is clear about what evidence you presented and what the judge failed to address, so appellate review is possible.
Disclaimer
This is general information, not legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm, and does not provide legal advice. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney for advice on your specific situation. Immigration policy and BIA precedent can change without notice, and adjudicators may interpret precedent differently. Verify the current state of the law and the BIA decision itself against the primary source linked above before relying on this information in any filing or motion.