On Friday, April 25, 2026,
a new precedent decision published by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) declared that being a DACA recipient is not enough reason to provide relief from deportation
. The ruling, issued as an interim decision in the Matter of Santiago-Santiago, represents one of the most consequential administrative actions targeting Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients in the program's 14-year history.
The Case: Matter of Santiago-Santiago
The case centers on Catalina "Xóchitl" Santiago, a DACA recipient and immigration rights advocate whose detention last year sparked national attention.
Santiago was detained at the El Paso International Airport on August 3, 2025, as she attempted to board a flight to Dallas
.
Originally from Mexico, Santiago has lived in the United States since she was 8 years old, and obtained DACA protection in 2012
.
On September 8, 2025, Immigration Judge Michael Pleters ruled that immigration officials could not deport Santiago because she "had been accorded DACA," and that her DACA status had "not been terminated" at the time of her detention
.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone separately ruled that ICE must release Santiago
, and she was freed from detention in October 2025.
DHS appealed Judge Pleters' decision to the BIA.
A three-judge panel of appellate immigration judges sided with Department of Homeland Security lawyers who appealed the decision from Immigration Judge Pleters terminating removal proceedings for Santiago, citing her active DACA status
.
They sent the case back to a different immigration judge for review
.
What the BIA Ruled
The BIA's core holding is narrow but carries sweeping implications.
The BIA found that the Immigration Judge's decision "makes no reference to and appears to give no consideration to DHS' interests in this case or any interests outside of the fact that the respondent has DACA protection," and that 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"
.
In a notable procedural move,
the BIA took the additional step of assigning the case to a different immigration judge, suggesting the original jurist was tainted
.
The BIA order notes that DHS argued Pleters should be recused from the case because he is married to Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas, who has been outspoken about DACA issues on Capitol Hill
.
Neither the judge nor Escobar are identified by name in the interim order
.
Importantly,
the court also noted that Santiago "cannot be removed from the United States while she has DACA protection"
.
Both parties may supplement the record with additional evidence and arguments on remand, and the BIA expressed "no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of these removal proceedings"
.
Why This Matters: A Precedent-Setting Decision
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 means the Santiago-Santiago ruling is not limited to one case — it establishes binding guidance for immigration courts across the country.
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
.
The practical effect is stark: immigration judges can no longer terminate removal proceedings based solely on a respondent's active DACA status. The government can now argue — and the BIA will support — that DACA alone is not dispositive in removal proceedings. This opens the door to deportation hearings proceeding against DACA holders even while their deferred action remains technically in effect.
A Pattern of Erosion
This decision does not exist in a vacuum.
Starting last year, DHS officials began urging DACA recipients to self-deport, arguing that the program itself does not equate to automatically providing legal status
.
This second Trump administration has tried to strip 505,000 DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers, of benefits, though no regulatory changes have been made to end the program
.
According to DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested 261 DACA recipients and 86 have been removed from the country between January 1, 2025, and November 19, 2025
.
The BIA itself has become an increasingly powerful tool in advancing the administration's immigration agenda.
According to a recent NPR analysis, BIA decisions backed government lawyers in 97% of publicly posted cases last year — at least 30 percentage points higher than the average over the past 16 years
.
All these actions over the last year came as the board pumped out 70 published decisions, a record number of precedent-setting cases
.
Political Reaction
U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and author of the Dream Act, released a statement regarding the BIA decision
.
"This decision could have profound consequences for the hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who rely on DACA to live and work in America without threat of deportation,"
Durbin said.
"In the face of this Administration's heartless actions, Congress must finally act to protect these young people who know no other home than here"
.
Immigration advocacy organizations were equally forceful.
"For over a decade, DACA has endured relentless, politically motivated attacks," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of Advocacy and Campaigns at United We Dream
.
"This decision is yet another step in dismantling the program without the government taking responsibility for ending it outright"
.
Practical Implications for DACA Recipients
For the roughly half a million current DACA recipients, this ruling raises urgent questions and demands immediate vigilance:
- Removal proceedings may not be terminated simply because of DACA status. Immigration judges must now weigh DHS's interests and arguments against termination, even when a respondent holds valid DACA protection.
- DACA remains in effect — for now.
- Renewal delays compound the risk.
- Consult with an immigration attorney immediately. DACA recipients facing any interaction with immigration authorities, or those with pending renewal applications, should seek legal counsel to understand their rights and options in light of this new precedent.
The Road Ahead
Santiago's most recent DACA status was set to expire this month, and it is unknown whether her DACA was renewed or what the status of her spouse's Green Card application is
—
Santiago married a U.S. citizen on January 8, 2025, which allows her to apply for permanent resident status
.
The Matter of Santiago-Santiago will now be reheard by a different immigration judge. But the precedent has been set.
DACA has always been legally tenuous, both in terms of its creation and the extent of its protections
. This ruling underscores that fragility and serves as a sobering reminder that DACA is not — and has never been — a permanent solution.
For Dreamers and their families, the message is clear: legal protections that once felt reliable are shifting beneath their feet. Proactive legal planning is no longer optional — it is essential.
---
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are a DACA recipient concerned about how this ruling may affect your case, please contact our firm for a confidential consultation.