I'll be honest with you — when I read the BIA's decision in Matter of Santiago-Santiago on Friday, April 24, 2026, my stomach dropped a little. Not because it was surprising. It wasn't. But because it confirmed what I've been telling people in consultations for the past year: DACA is not the shield it used to be. And the government is testing every weak point in this system to see how far they can push.
If you're a DACA recipient, or you love someone who is, you need to understand what just happened — and what it means when you walk through an airport, drive through a checkpoint, or sit in immigration court hoping a judge will exercise discretion in your favor.
What Actually Happened in Santiago-Santiago
Catalina Santiago is a DACA recipient married to a U.S. citizen. Last year she tried to board a domestic flight, got detained, and ended up in removal proceedings. She had to file a habeas petition just to get out of detention. Once back home with her family, her immigration judge terminated her removal case on September 8, 2025, citing her DACA status as a discretionary basis to end the proceedings.
DHS appealed. And on April 24, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals — in a published, precedent decision (29 I&N Dec. 589) — held that the immigration judge erred in terminating proceedings based solely on the fact that the respondent has DACA, without weighing the government's reasons for opposing termination. The case is being remanded, and a new judge will be assigned (the original judge's spouse had email communications with ICE about the case, which DHS used to argue recusal).
Read that holding again slowly. The BIA didn't say judges can't terminate cases for DACA holders. It said DACA alone isn't enough — judges have to balance it against whatever DHS throws on the other side of the scale. In an administration that is throwing everything it can find onto that scale, this is a meaningful tilt.
Why I Think This Decision Is Bigger Than One Case
Here's my take: this is the slow, deliberate chipping away of what "deferred action" was supposed to mean. DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — the whole premise is that the government has affirmatively decided not to remove you during the period of deferred action. So how did we get to a place where a DACA recipient gets detained at a domestic airport, fights a habeas, and now has to litigate her removal case all over again with a new judge?
Because the administration figured out something important: deferred action is a policy, not a statute. It's discretionary on their end too. They can grant it with one hand and initiate proceedings with the other, betting that immigration judges — who answer to the Attorney General — will fall in line. And with this BIA decision, the message to every IJ in the country is clear: don't get cute terminating DACA cases on us, or we'll appeal and you'll get reversed.
What this means for the roughly 530,000 active DACA recipients is straightforward and uncomfortable: your status protects your work permit and (for now) gives you a defense against deportation, but it does not stop ICE from detaining you, does not stop DHS from filing an NTA, and — as of last Friday — does not by itself get you out of immigration court. You need more. A pending I-130 from a U.S. citizen spouse. Cancellation of removal eligibility. Asylum. Something with legal teeth.
Catalina Santiago is married to a U.S. citizen. DHS's brief specifically pointed out there was no I-130 on file. That detail matters. If you're DACA and married to a USC or LPR and you haven't started the marriage-based green card process — what are you waiting for? I wrote about this in detail in my piece on marriage green card trends in 2026, and the short version is: the layered protection of a pending I-130 is no longer optional in this climate.
The Denaturalization Wave Is Not a Coincidence
While we're talking about the chipping-away pattern, let's connect this to the other big news: the Department of Justice is going hard on denaturalization. The June 11, 2025 memo from Assistant AG Brett Shumate to the Civil Division made denaturalization a top enforcement priority, instructing U.S. Attorney's Offices across roughly 39 regional offices to flag cases "in all cases permitted by law."
Here's the context that should chill you: historically, denaturalization was rare — roughly 11 cases per year, reserved for war criminals, Nazis, terrorists, people who lied about extreme criminal histories. Now we're looking at hundreds of cases being teed up, handled not by the small specialized unit of veteran attorneys who used to do this work, but distributed broadly across the Civil Division and U.S. Attorney's offices nationwide. AILA and ILRC have both raised alarms that the memo is so broad it could pull in vague or unsubstantiated allegations.
And remember — civil denaturalization has no statute of limitations. The government can come after a citizenship grant from 30 years ago. Criminal denaturalization has a 10-year window, but the civil track is open-ended.
What I'm Telling Clients Right Now
If you have DACA: you can still travel domestically. I'm not changing that advice. But carry your EAD and your DACA approval notice. Know an immigration attorney's number by heart. And if there is any path to a more permanent status — marriage-based, U visa, asylum, cancellation — start it now. Don't wait for the policy to get worse, because in my view it's going to.
If you're a naturalized citizen: pull your A-file. Make sure your N-400 was clean. If you have any concerns about how questions were answered or what was disclosed, talk to an attorney before the government talks to you. The denaturalization push is not theoretical anymore.
If you're an asylum seeker reading this and wondering what it has to do with you — everything. The same administration squeezing DACA holders and naturalized citizens is the one running your asylum clock, your EAD adjudication, your court dates. This is one ecosystem. You can read more about the broader pattern in my breakdown of recent US immigration changes affecting detention, visas, and the DHS database.
The Bottom Line
Santiago-Santiago isn't the end of DACA. But it's a flashing yellow light. The BIA just told every immigration judge in the country that DACA is not a get-out-of-court-free card, and the DOJ just told every U.S. Attorney's office that denaturalization is open season. Both moves come from the same playbook: status is conditional, citizenship is contestable, and discretion runs in one direction — theirs.
Plan accordingly. Layer your protections. And don't assume the paper in your wallet today will mean the same thing tomorrow.
