Justice Department’s Immigration Appeals Board Rules DACA Status Alone Cannot Block Deportation
Why It Matters
A new precedent-setting ruling from the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has significantly weakened protections for DACA recipients nationwide. The decision, which establishes how immigration judges across the country must handle similar cases, puts approximately half a million illegal immigrants who entered the country as children at greater risk of deportation proceedings.
The Trump administration has framed the move as a necessary clarification that DACA — a program created by executive action, not congressional law — does not confer legal status or an automatic right to remain in the United States indefinitely.
What Happened
On Friday, a three-judge panel of appellate immigration judges at the BIA issued an interim decision in the case of Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, an illegal immigrant with active DACA status who had been placed in removal proceedings. The panel ruled that immigration judge Michael Pleters had erred by terminating Santiago’s removal proceedings based solely on her DACA status.
The BIA sided with Department of Homeland Security lawyers, who had appealed Pleters’ earlier decision, and sent the case back to a different immigration judge for review. While the ruling does not mean Santiago will be immediately deported, the decision now sets a national precedent for how immigration judges must evaluate similar cases.
Santiago’s case drew national attention after she was detained by Customs and Border Protection officers while boarding a domestic flight at the El Paso airport in August. She was held in immigration detention until a federal judge ordered her release last October and has been fighting deportation through the immigration court system since.
The BIA is an administrative court housed within the Justice Department. Its published decisions set binding precedent for immigration judges nationwide and shape how immigration law and policy are interpreted across the country.
By the Numbers
~500,000 — Approximate number of DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers, currently protected by the program.
261 — Number of DACA recipients arrested between January and November of last year, according to a letter from then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to senators.
86 — Number of DACA recipients removed from the country during that same period, per Noem’s letter.
97% — Share of publicly posted BIA decisions last year that backed government lawyers, according to a recent NPR analysis — at least 30 percentage points higher than the 16-year average.
70 — Number of published BIA decisions issued over the past year, described as a record number of precedent-setting cases.
Zoom Out
DACA was created in 2012 by executive action to shield from deportation individuals who had entered the country illegally before 2007 as minors. Participants must renew their protection every two years and have no direct path to citizenship or a green card through the program. The Trump administration has consistently argued that DACA does not equate to legal status.
Since taking office, the administration has pursued a series of administrative actions to reduce DACA benefits short of formally ending the program by regulation. The Department of Health and Human Services moved to make DACA recipients ineligible for the federal health care marketplace, and the Education Department indicated it was reviewing universities that offer financial assistance to DACA participants.
The BIA has been increasingly active under the Trump administration, issuing a record number of precedent-setting decisions. Beyond the DACA ruling, the board has also made it harder for immigration courts to offer bond to illegal immigrants in lieu of detention and has eased the path to deport migrants to countries other than their own. A proposed regulation would further restrict immigrants’ ability to appeal immigration court decisions.
Immigration courts, including the BIA, operate within the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review and are not part of the independent federal judiciary — a structure that gives the executive branch direct influence over how immigration law is applied.
What’s Next
Santiago’s case will be returned to a different immigration judge for review under the new precedent. DHS did not respond to requests for comment on whether active DACA recipients more broadly face imminent removal risk under the ruling.
Advocacy groups and immigration attorneys are expected to challenge the decision in federal court. Congress has not passed legislation to codify DACA protections, leaving Dreamers reliant on ongoing executive and judicial actions. The administration has shown no indication it plans to reverse course on its broader immigration enforcement posture.