The Trump administration is making it easier to deport immigrants protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. A new precedent decision published Friday by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) says being a DACA recipient is not enough reason to provide relief from deportation. 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.
What changed
The order in the case involving Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago came from the Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative court within the Justice Department. The new precedent decision published Friday by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) says being a DACA recipient is not enough reason to provide relief from deportation.
Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026) (Interim Decision #4186) — decided April 24, 2026 — is a precedential Board of Immigration Appeals ruling on the limits of DACA protections in active removal proceedings. In a nutshell: DACA is relevant but not dispositive. Immigration Judges have discretion to terminate proceedings for deferred action recipients, but this is not automatic. Judges must explicitly consider “the reason termination is sought and the basis for any opposition to termination” (per the regulation). The original immigration judge erred by terminating based solely on the respondent’s DACA status without addressing DHS’s opposition or balancing factors.
The BIA sent the case back to a different immigration judge for review.
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. This ruling has significant strategic and substantive consequences for practitioners representing DACA recipients in removal proceedings.
Termination motions are now harder to win. Previously, an immigration judge could grant termination based on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(C), which lists deferred action beneficiaries as eligible for discretionary termination. Under Santiago-Santiago, that regulation is still available, but DACA status is no longer a shortcut. The Board cited prior precedents emphasizing the strong public interest in the finality of proceedings and DHS’s interest in adjudicating cases on the merits.
The precedent is binding nationwide. 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. Every immigration judge in the country must now apply this standard.
DHS is appealing more aggressively. Over the last year, attorneys with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, who represent DHS in immigration court, have increasingly appealed more decisions to the BIA. According to a recent NPR analysis, BIA decisions backed government lawyers in 97% of publicly posted cases last year; that’s at least 30 percentage points higher than the average over the past 16 years.
Way forward
-
Reframe your motion. Do not rely on DACA status as your primary reason for termination. Instead, articulate a full discretionary analysis: hardship to U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family members, length of residence, community ties, rehabilitation, and any other positive equitable factors under Matter of Monreal-Aguilar or the relevant circuit’s standard.
-
Preempt DHS opposition. Anticipate that DHS will argue finality and prosecutorial discretion. Develop affidavits, police records, employer letters, and other evidence showing why termination is warranted despite DHS’s interest in the merits.
-
Consider alternative relief. For DACA recipients in removal proceedings, explore whether the client has eligibility for cancellation of removal, adjustment of status (if married to a USC or LPR), prosecutorial discretion requests, or other defenses to removability.
-
Document DACA renewal status. Ensure your client’s DACA is current and that you have evidence of timely renewal. While DACA status is no longer dispositive on termination, a lapsed or expired status weakens all arguments and strengthens government enforcement.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Fola Editorial is a software and content platform, not a law firm. Immigration policy changes rapidly and without notice. You must verify all information against the primary source and current regulations, and consult a licensed immigration attorney before advising a client on removal proceedings or DACA-related strategy. The precedent described here was current as of the source publication date but may be superseded by subsequent Board decisions, legislation, or executive action.