Congressional Democrats, led by Senators Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin and Representatives Sylvia Garcia and Delia Ramirez, filed a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche objecting to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ recent decision to weaken legal protections for DACA recipients. The letter was signed by over 50 colleagues and raises significant concerns about how immigration judges must now handle removal cases involving DACA beneficiaries.
What changed
On April 24, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals instructed immigration judges to not terminate deportation proceedings against DACA recipients solely for having DACA. Instead, the immigration judge must consider Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s interest in prosecuting an individual’s case.
In their letter to Acting Attorney General Blanche, the lawmakers raise legal concerns with the decision, highlighting inconsistencies between BIA’s ruling and the forbearance protections provided by DACA and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The congressional letter, dated June 12, 2026, challenges what the BIA established in the precedent case involving Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, a DACA recipient detained in August 2025.
Why it matters
For practitioners advising DACA recipients in removal proceedings, this BIA ruling fundamentally shifts the calculus. Previously, immigration judges had broad discretion to terminate removal cases based solely on a client’s active DACA status, treating it as a strong basis for discretionary relief. Now, judges must engage in a more searching analysis that weighs DHS’s prosecutorial interests alongside the DACA holder’s equities—a much heavier lift.
The BIA’s decision only applies to DACA recipients in removal proceedings; if you do not have a pending deportation case, this decision does not apply to you. However, practitioners must now prepare clients for the reality that DACA alone is not a sword that will end removal proceedings; they will need to construct a stronger record of eligibility for termination, addressing government objections point-by-point.
The congressional objection signals bipartisan concern about the ruling’s practical effect and may create political pressure on the DOJ to reconsider or limit the decision’s scope, though it does not overturn the BIA’s holding.
Way forward
- Review removal cases in inventory: If you have DACA clients with pending deportation motions, reassess your termination strategy. DACA status is still a relevant factor, but no longer dispositive.
- Develop supplemental records: Build a factual record addressing why the government’s enforcement interest is outweighed by the client’s equities, ties to the community, family relationships, work history, and contributions.
- Explore alternative relief: Consider other avenues such as cancellation of removal, voluntary departure, or other forms of relief that may strengthen your client’s position.
- Stay alert to policy changes: The congressional letter reflects ongoing debate over DACA protections. Monitor for any DOJ guidance or further BIA decisions that may clarify or limit this ruling’s application.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software company, not a law firm. You should consult a licensed immigration attorney before relying on this information for any legal matter. The information in this article is accurate as of the publication date but immigration policy and BIA precedent can change without notice. Always verify against the primary source linked above and check for any subsequent guidance, amendments, or court decisions that may affect the analysis.