RAICES Bulletin: Limits to EOIR Discretion in Terminating Proceedings for DACA Recipients
TL;DR The BIA’s recent decision in Matter of Santiago-Santiago will make it tougher to terminate removal proceedings for DACA recipients—requiring immigration judges to also weigh any government opposition to termination. This development shouldn't stop anyone from seeking to terminate proceedings, but does mean they will likely have to overcome DHS’ opposition.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: On April 24, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) ruled in Matter of Santiago-Santiago that immigration judges cannot terminate removal proceedings based solely on a respondent’s DACA status. The BIA clarified that being a deferred action beneficiary is not a dispositive factor; instead, judges must exercise discretion by weighing the reasons for termination against any arguments raised in opposition.
Rationale: Although 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(C) allows for the discretionary termination of cases involving DACA recipients, the BIA held that immigration judges must nonetheless evaluate any opposition to such motions. The BIA noted an "important public interest in the finality of immigration proceedings" as a reason for evaluating opposition to termination.
RAICES Impact: While this decision primarily instructs immigration judges on how to handle motions to terminate, this ruling should be included in legal strategies. The decision may encourage DHS to more aggressively pursue final removal orders against DACA recipients, a possibility RAICES must assess with future clients. Despite this, moving to terminate proceedings remains a viable strategy for DACA recipients. However, when filing such motions, representatives should anticipate DHS opposition and proactively build a record that rebuts the government’s arguments.
Community Impact: DACA recipients in removal proceedings now face greater uncertainty, as their status alone no longer guarantees the termination of their court cases. Recipients will likely encounter increased enforcement efforts and more difficulty ending removal proceedings when DHS opposes the request.
Related Legal Battles: The respondent in this case was also part of a separate habeas action, Santiago v. Noem, in the Western District of Texas, which barred her physical removal while her DACA protection remained valid. More broadly, DACA continues to face various ongoing legal challenges, and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) maintains a detailed timeline of these related court battles.
Broader Immigration Strategy: This BIA decision does not alter existing regulations or statutes, but it does open the door for future challenges to judges’ decisions regarding their discretionary analysis. Practitioners and advocates must remain vigilant against a potential rise in removal proceedings for DACA recipients. It is essential for legal professionals to build robust records in anticipation of further litigation on this issue.
