Having DACA status is no longer an automatic blockade on being deported, the Board of Immigration Appeals has ruled, tossing hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant “Dreamers” into a new and more complicated situation. If you represent DACA recipients in removal proceedings, this April 24 BIA decision reshapes your filing strategy.
What changed
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. The decision came in the precedent case of Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, a DACA recipient since 2012.
The BIA overturned a lower judge’s ruling that had considered DACA dispositive. “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.
The panel did not overrule the original immigration judge’s finding that Santiago had DACA, nor did they mandate her immediate deportation. Instead, they held that judges must write decisions that explicitly address the government’s prosecutorial interests and grounds for seeking removal—not just cite DACA status as a single reason to close the case.
Why it matters
BIA’s public decisions set the precedent and tone for how immigration judges nationwide should make decisions and how the general public should interpret immigration law and policy. This decision immediately affects your strategy in two ways:
-
Motion practice: If you have filed or plan to file a motion to terminate removal proceedings based on DACA, you now must affirmatively address the government’s prosecutorial interests in writing—not simply rest on DACA status. Silence on the government’s position creates appellable error.
-
Case complexity: 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. Because of this, it could be harder for them to get their case closed just because they have DACA.
Critically, the BIA’s decision does not take away any protections that DACA provides right now. It does not give the government more power to place someone in removal proceedings, and it does not allow the Department of Homeland Security to actually deport someone with valid deferred action status. The change is procedural: judges must now articulate why they are terminating the case despite the government’s stated grounds.
Way forward
-
Review open DACA-based termination motions immediately. If you have pending motions to terminate, consider supplemental briefing that directly engages and rebuts the government’s prosecutorial interests. Do not allow a record to stand that shows the government opposed termination without a written response.
-
Counsel clients on case closures. If your DACA-holder client is in removal proceedings and hopes to exit via termination, discuss in writing with the immigration judge why, even accounting for government concerns, termination is appropriate. Address alternative grounds for relief if DACA alone appears insufficient.
-
Document factual context. Evidence of community ties, employment, clean record, family hardship, and length of presence become more important now that judges must consider factors beyond DACA status. Build a record proactively.
-
Monitor circuit splits. The BIA decision binds immigration judges, but federal courts may still review the underlying legal framework. Consult recent circuit authority on DACA and removal-proceeding finality before filing in a specific jurisdiction.
Disclaimer
Fola does not offer legal advice. This article synthesizes publicly available reporting about an April 24, 2026 BIA precedent decision. Immigration law changes frequently, and BIA precedent can be challenged or distinguished. Always verify the current status of case law against the primary BIA decision and the most recent circuit authority before relying on any interpretation in this article. Consult a licensed immigration attorney to apply these principles to your specific client situation.