BIA Ruling: DACA Status No Longer Shield Against Removal Proceedings

In a published decision issued on April 24, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that foreign nationals who have been granted deferred action like DACA and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) can still be ordered removed from the United States.

The case, Matter of Catalina SANTIAGO-SANTIAGO, 29 I&N Dec. 589, involved a high-profile activist and DACA recipient whose removal case was initially terminated by an Immigration Judge. The BIA reversed that decision, ruling that while judges have the authority to end cases for those with deferred action, they must weigh Department of Homeland Security (DHS) opposition and other discretionary factors.

No "Automatic" Termination Based on Deferred Action

The BIA’s logic hinges on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii), a regulation codified in 2024 that categorizes termination for deferred action beneficiaries as "discretionary." The Board held that DACA is an administrative "promise" not to deport, rather than a legal status that overrides the government’s right to pursue a final order of removal.

For DACA recipients, this means that they can now be forced to undergo a full trial and receive a deportation order that stays dormant until their DACA expires or is revoked.

Impact on DED and Hong Kong Residents

The ramifications of Santiago-Santiago extend directly to those under Deferred Enforced Departure (DED), including thousands of Hong Kong residents currently protected by presidential decree. Because DED is governed by the same regulatory framework as DACA, these individuals now face the same legal vulnerability.

If a Hong Kong resident is in removal proceedings, an Immigration Judge can no longer simply close the case based on their DED status. Instead, the government can move forward to secure a removal order, ensuring that the moment the humanitarian "safe haven" of DED lapses, the individual can be deported immediately without further litigation.

Other Relief from Deportation

This BIA decision means that administrative statuses such as DACA, DED, and TPS can no longer automatically pause removal proceedings. The Board emphasizes that DHS has a strong interest in bringing removal proceedings to a conclusion on the merits; the ruling represents a balance between the government’s interests and the foreign national’s legal rights. It is noteworthy that while Catalina is married to a U.S. citizen, they had not yet filed an immigrant visa petition at the time of the hearing. If she had an approved immigrant visa petition based on her marriage, she would have had a much stronger argument for termination in court.  

This ruling underscores a shift in 2026 toward treating administrative deferred action as a temporary pause, rather than a permanent legal shield against deportation.  DACA and other deferred action recipients should actively seek alternatives to legalize their stay in the United States.

(Immigration laws and policies change regularly.  If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)