Tweet
Case Background
Catalina Santiago-Santiago, a DACA recipient married to a U.S. citizen, was placed in removal proceedings in August 2025 with a charge of being present without admission or parole. She moved to terminate the proceedings without prejudice, citing her active DACA status (valid through April 2026) and prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status. DHS opposed the motion, arguing that DACA does not create any legal right to remain in the U.S. or bar removal proceedings, and noting no pending immigrant visa petition from her spouse. The Immigration Judge granted termination, relying primarily on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(C), which lists deferred action beneficiaries as eligible for discretionary termination. DHS appealed.
BIA’s Key Holding
The BIA sustained DHS’s appeal and remanded the case.
In a nutshell:
- DACA is relevant but not dispositive. Immigration Judges have discretion to terminate proceedings for deferred action recipients, but this is not automatic. Judges must explicitly consider “the reason termination is sought and the basis for any opposition to termination” (per the regulation).
- The original IJ erred by terminating based solely on the respondent’s DACA status without addressing DHS’s opposition or balancing factors, such as the strong public interest in the finality of proceedings and DHS’s interest in adjudicating cases on the merits.
Additional Procedural Note
Due to concerns about the appearance of bias (involving the original IJ’s spouse, a member of Congress, who had publicly advocated for the respondent), the BIA ordered the case reassigned to a different Immigration Judge.
Practical Implications for Immigration Practitioners and DACA Recipients
This decision clarifies that DACA does not shield recipients from having their removal cases fully litigated when DHS wants to proceed. It does not terminate DACA itself or affect work authorization outside of court, nor does it prevent other forms of relief. However, it raises the bar for terminating proceedings over government opposition and applies nationwide as precedent.
The case was remanded for further proceedings (with both sides able to submit additional evidence), and the Board expressed no view on the ultimate outcome. Note that the respondent remained protected from actual removal during the proceedings due to her DACA status and related litigation. This ruling underscores that DACA provides temporary administrative relief but does not equate to lawful status or immunity from immigration enforcement in court. Attorneys should prepare strong arguments addressing all discretionary factors when seeking termination in similar cases.
