On April 24, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued an important decision establishing that being a DACA recipient, by itself, is not enough to terminate removal (deportation) proceedings.

What does this mean?

The Court determined that an immigration judge may not base their decision to terminate proceedings solely on the fact that the individual has valid DACA protection. As the Board itself stated:

“The Immigration Judge erred in terminating removal proceedings based solely on the fact that the respondent had been accorded DACA protection, without considering the reasons for any opposition to termination.”

This means that the judge must also consider and address the reasons presented by the Department of Homeland Security when it opposes the termination of proceedings.

In other words, the judge must specifically and thoroughly explain the reasons for exercising favorable discretion to terminate the proceedings, rather than simply concluding that the immigrant’s DACA status alone is a sufficient basis.

The BIA further explained that this reasoning is necessary so that a higher court, upon review, is in a better position to determine whether the decision should be upheld or reversed.

In Matter of Santiago-Santiago, the BIA concluded that the immigration judge did not reference or appear to consider the arguments presented by DHS. Instead, the judge limited the analysis solely to the fact that the respondent had valid DACA protection, without evaluating any other relevant factors. For that reason, the Board reversed the termination and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Why is this concerning?

This is concerning because, when DACA was created, it was established as a form of deferred action, meaning a government decision to temporarily protect the individual from being removed for the authorized period.

However, it is important to clarify a legal point: DACA has never granted lawful permanent immigration status, nor has it completely prevented DHS from initiating or continuing removal proceedings. In this decision, the BIA reiterated that deferred action does not confer an absolute right or guarantee to remain in the United States, and that DHS retains the authority to proceed with removal.

That said, DACA does provide important temporary protection, and to obtain (when initial applications were processed) or renew it, USCIS conducts a thorough review of criminal and public safety background records.

If USCIS determines that the individual has been convicted of:

• a felony,
• a significant misdemeanor, or
• three or more separate misdemeanors that did not occur on the same day and did not arise from the same act, omission, or course of conduct,

or if USCIS considers the individual to pose a threat to national security or public safety, the application will be denied.

This means that individuals with this type of criminal history generally do not qualify for DACA, or, if they previously had it, may lose the ability to renew it. In those cases, DHS may initiate or continue removal proceedings.

The most important takeaway from this new decision is that having active DACA alone will no longer be sufficient grounds to request termination of a case before the immigration court. It will now be even more important to present other favorable factors, such as:

• Eligibility for adjustment of status through marriage,
• Approval of a family-based petition,
• Clean criminal record,
• Strong family ties,
• Length of residence in the United States,
• U.S. citizen children, and
• Humanitarian factors, among others.