The Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a new precedent decision holding that being a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient does not protect against deportation. The April 24, 2026 decision in Matter of Santiago-Santiago establishes a binding rule that affects how immigration judges handle cases involving DACA recipients in removal proceedings.
What changed
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. The BIA said that “the Immigration Judge erred” by basing his decision to terminate removal proceedings solely on Santiago’s DACA status. They sent the case back to a different immigration judge for review.
The precedent-setting aspect is critical: DACA can still be the reason that an immigration judge terminates a case, but the BIA told the immigration judge to make sure to include other factors like the government’s point of view. Judges must now weigh all factors in removal proceedings rather than treating DACA status as dispositive.
Why it matters
Although the decision does not mean Santiago will be immediately deported, it potentially weakens DACA protections for hundreds of thousands of others. The decision potentially weakens DACA protections for roughly 506,000 individuals nationwide, including nearly 28% in California, or more than 141,000.
For your practice: The BIA decision changes the burden and structure of termination arguments. If you represent a DACA client in removal proceedings, you can no longer rely on DACA status as a single, standalone basis to terminate. You must now develop a fuller record on all factors the immigration judge must consider—including government reasons for seeking deportation. This requires earlier case investigation and more comprehensive briefing.
If someone with DACA gets arrested and detained by immigration or other law enforcement and ends up before an immigration judge, the judge may now look into their case more closely to comply with the BIA decision. Detention is a higher risk for DACA holders under the new precedent.
Way forward
-
Review any pending termination motions. If you filed a motion to terminate based primarily on DACA status before April 24, 2026, anticipate that the government will cite Santiago. Prepare supplemental briefing that addresses competing hardship factors, equities, and statutory grounds for relief independent of DACA.
-
Conduct early case assessment on detained clients. If a DACA client is detained, immediately explore whether there are independent legal grounds to release them (flight risk, community ties, family support). DACA alone is no longer protective at the detention or termination stage.
-
Document client circumstances comprehensively. Build a detailed record of employment, family ties, community presence, and length of U.S. residence. The BIA decision requires judges to weigh all circumstances; you must supply them.
-
Consider federal court review. Depending on facts and circuit, explore whether there are constitutional or Administrative Procedure Act challenges to the BIA precedent, especially if a judge applies Santiago in a fact-specific way that appears inconsistent with prior Ninth or Second Circuit authority.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes and is not legal advice. Folaform is a software company, not a law firm. Do not rely on this summary alone to advise clients. Consult a licensed immigration attorney for case-specific guidance. Verify all information against the primary BIA decision and current USCIS / DHS practice. Immigration policy and case law change without notice; practitioners must monitor developments independently.