Immigration Appeals Board Decision on April 24th and Key Changes for Dreamer Families to Know
A woman living in El Paso, Texas, received notice that her deportation proceedings had been stopped by an immigration court after she married a U.S. citizen. The decision to halt deportation proceedings is called termination. It is a process where an immigration judge determines that “this person does not need to be deported” and closes the case. Her name is Catalina “Xochitl” Santiago. She came to the United States from Mexico with her parents at a young age and grew up in a family of indigenous Zapotec migrant workers. She lived as a "Dreamer" after obtaining DACA eligibility in 2012. "Dreamers" is a nickname for young men and women who came to the U.S. with their parents as children, and the government has operated the DACA program, which postpones deportation for a certain period for them. However, the period of relief was not long. On April 24, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overturned that termination decision and sent the case back to immigration court. The decision that day was named Matter of Santiago-Santiago and is cited as 29 I&N Dec. 589 in the official BIA case reporters. It wasn't just one person's fate that changed. From that day on, the long-held belief that DACA was an automatic shield was also shaken. This column calmly examines what that decision overturned and what practical changes follow for Korean families.
DACA is a shield, but it doesn't automatically deploy.
Termination is not a right, but a result of weighing the interests of both parties.
The facts of this case were not simple. Catalina Santiago was arrested by Border Patrol and entered deportation proceedings on August 3, 2025, just before boarding a domestic flight at El Paso International Airport. At that time, she was already married to her U.S. citizen spouse, Desirée Miller, having married on January 8 of that year in El Paso. Her attorney filed a brief with the immigration court. The request was to terminate removal proceedings, arguing that her DACA was valid, she was married, and she was eligible to apply for lawful permanent residency. The immigration judge agreed with the request and closed the case. However, the government, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), appealed. The core of the appeal was that DACA is not a status that permanently prevents removal, and furthermore, her U.S. citizen spouse had not yet filed a family petition. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) sided with the government. The BIA's decision can be summarized in one sentence: the immigration judge should not have closed the case based solely on the existence of DACA, and both sides' interests needed to be considered. In past practice, it was common to close cases if DACA was valid and there was eligibility for lawful permanent residency. It was like an umbrella automatically opening whenever it rained. Effective April 24, that automatic umbrella stopped working. Now, the handle must be grasped again and the umbrella must be opened by human hands. This decision is, in essence, a small earthquake in immigration court practice. Previously, it was common for attorneys to file one-line motions to close cases, and immigration judges would grant those motions without much review. However, with the second Trump administration, the government began to actively oppose termination motions, and this decision on April 24 officially formalized that policy change at the BIA level.
2. Two things an immigration judge must consider, and beyond
An obligation called discretion has been newly recorded.
The most practical aspect of this decision is that the immigration judge was explicitly told not to base a termination decision solely on DACA. The immigration court procedural rule, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d), already specified two items a judge should consider when receiving a termination request. First, why is termination being requested? It requires specific reasons such as family circumstances, ongoing permanent residency proceedings, or personal safety, not just having DACA. Second, why does the government oppose termination? This means the judge must examine whether the government's reasons for opposition are reasonable. The committee noted that in the Santiago case, the initial judge only looked at the first item and effectively did not consider the second item, the government's reasons for opposition. The Board of Immigration Appeals, in addition to these two points, clarified other factors a judge should consider when weighing the interests of both parties. These include the government's interest in concluding the case on its merits, whether the applicant actually qualifies for relief such as permanent residency on the merits, and what procedural outcome the termination decision leads to. The term prosecutorial discretion also emerged. Prosecutorial discretion refers to the authority of prosecutors to decide whether to actively pursue a case or postpone it, and its scope narrowed during the second Trump administration. Now, instead of a one-line statement in a termination request saying "I have DACA," attorneys must organize and write down answers to all these items. To put it simply for the reader, on one side are the circumstances of the person requesting termination, and on the other side are the government's position and public safety; in the middle is a scale that weighs the merits of the underlying eligibility. The era of viewing termination as a right has ended, and the era of viewing termination as a result of weighted considerations has begun.
3. The person who was put on a plane the day after they were summoned
It took about six weeks to reverse the wrongful deportation.
The law is not just words on paper, but time that falls into a person's daily life. The story of Maria De Jesus Estrada Juarez, who lived in Natomas, Sacramento, California, is one example. On February 18, 2026, she appeared at an immigration office for a green card interview through her U.S. citizen daughter, Damaris Bello, who is 22 years old. However, by the end of the interview, she was arrested by agents inside the office and deported outside the United States less than 24 hours later, on February 19. She was given little opportunity to have legal counsel or a hearing. She had children born in the U.S. and had lived in the country for approximately 27 years, having arrived at the age of fifteen in December 1998. On March 23, Federal District Court Judge Deni D. K. Cowgin overturned the deportation with a temporary restraining order. In her ruling, Judge Cowgin clearly stated that Maria's deportation was a decision that clearly violated both the procedural protections under DACA regulations and the due process of the Fifth Amendment. The court ordered the government to cooperate with her return within seven days and added that Maria's DACA eligibility should be restored to its pre-deportation status. Maria returned to the United States on March 30, approximately six weeks after being deported, through the San Ysidro border. The Board of Immigration Appeals' decision on April 24 and Maria's case occurred in the same spring. On one hand, procedural protections were weakened, and on the other, the court's voice insisted that those protections must be upheld to the end. Maria's return was a small relief for one family, but for other families in similar circumstances, the unresolved reality remained.
4. 5,000 Young Dreamers, But Invisible Families
The shadow of Korean dreamers who were eligible but underapplied
As of June 2021, there were approximately 5,600 Korean DACA recipients, making them the fifth-largest group after Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans. However, a 2023 analysis by the Migration Policy Institute reported that only about 16% of eligible Korean youth have actually applied, a significantly lower rate compared to 63% for Mexicans. Scholars have attributed this disparity to factors such as families' reluctance to expose their immigration status, difficulty accessing information, and a sense of shame. The practical message from this decision for Korean families is clear. First, if you are married, do not delay filing Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, with your U.S. citizen spouse. The I-130 is a petition filed by a U.S. citizen spouse on behalf of their foreign spouse, and it must be received before you can clearly state that a green card process is pending on your application for adjustment of status. Failure to file the I-130 was one of the weaknesses the committee pointed out in the Matter of Santiago case. Second, ensure you have a lawful entry record. If you entered through an airport via a visa or ESTA, you may be eligible for adjustment of status within the U.S. Otherwise, you should consult with an attorney to determine if you qualify for protection under the old provision known as 245(i). Section 245(i) allowed individuals who had a petition filed on their behalf by a family member or employer by April 30, 2001, to adjust their status to that of a lawful permanent resident within the U.S. Third, always be accompanied by an attorney before appearing before USCIS. As Maria's case demonstrates, destiny can change within 24 hours of an appearance. Fourth, there is one more thing to prepare within the family. Organize your identification documents, passports, marriage certificates, children's birth certificates, copies of tax returns, and rental agreements into one envelope. Fifth, never miss renewal deadlines. The recommended application period for DACA renewals is 4 to 5 months prior to expiration, meaning 120 to 150 days in advance, as delays can immediately affect your work authorization and driver's license.
Closing remarks
DACA has not disappeared. Renewals are still possible, and work permits remain valid. However, once someone is in deportation proceedings, the automatic shield no longer works. The April 24th decision is less of a family tragedy and more of a signal that the safety net we've taken for granted is no longer automatic. For Korean families to navigate this change without faltering, they must meticulously examine four aspects: marriage, entry records, petitions, and preparedness for court appearances. The items on the closing application are now the responsibility of the lawyer, while the family's task is to accurately document how these items pertain to their individual circumstances. Time is not on anyone's side, but it is on the side of those who are prepared.
Disclaimer: This column is for general information purposes only and is not legal advice for your specific case. You should always consult with an attorney who specializes in immigration law for your individual case.
Law Offices of Jin D. Cho
NEW YORK OFFICE (Flushing) 35-24 154th Street, Flushing, NY 11354
(t) 718-353-2699 (f) 718-353-8132
NEW JERSEY OFFICE 560 Sylvan Avenue, 3Fl., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
(t) 201-449-0009