Board of Immigration Appeals Decision Raises Concerns for Bay Area DACA Recipients
Last Friday, the Board of Immigration Appeals, a federal appellate court within the Department of Justice, issued a ruling that impacts approximately 11,270 immigrants in the Bay Area enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The decision may complicate their legal standing and increase the risk of deportation.
In a four-page ruling dated April 24, Senior Immigration Judge Gary D. Malfras supported federal prosecutors by asserting that a prior immigration judge had made an error in halting a deportation process solely based on the individual’s DACA status. This case has now been referred to a new immigration judge for further review, establishing a new precedent that DACA status alone cannot provide automatic protections in deportation proceedings.
The National Immigration Law Center has reiterated that while DACA protections remain in effect, judges must now weigh the prosecutorial interests of the Department of Homeland Security when making decisions. This shift could lead judges to scrutinize cases involving DACA recipients more closely, potentially complicating the path to resolution in deportation cases.
DACA beneficiaries, often referred to as Dreamers, are individuals who entered the United States as children and have received authorization to live, work, and study here. This status, renewable every two years, has safeguarded them from removal since the program’s inception in 2012. However, the implications of the recent ruling may jeopardize these protections.
This decision originates from the case of Catalina Xochitl Santiago, a DACA recipient who was detained by the Department of Homeland Security in 2025 and faced deportation to Mexico. An immigration judge previously blocked her deportation, but federal prosecutors challenged that ruling before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Amanda Maya, director of the Immigration Justice Program at the Bay Area Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, expressed her alarm over the ruling, stating that it undermines the foundational principles of DACA. Maya described the situation as creating immediate fears for Dreamers regarding the future of their protections.
DACA was introduced during the Obama administration to shield children brought to the U.S. from deportation while enabling them to gain work authorization. While recipients must undergo reviews every two years, the program does not pave a way to citizenship. Under the Trump administration, DACA recipients have faced targeted measures aimed at restricting their opportunities, including exclusion from health insurance programs and even encouragement to self-deport. These regulations have resulted in significant repercussions, with reports detailing the detention and deportation of numerous Dreamers.
Political Climate Intensifies Challenges for Immigrants
The recent ruling is part of a broader trend in which the Board of Immigration Appeals has increasingly aligned with Trump administration policies that limit relief options for immigrants and asylum seekers. An NPR analysis revealed that in the past year, the Board sided with Homeland Security attorneys in 97 percent of the cases it reviewed, marking a notable increase in such outcomes compared to prior years.
Victor Nieblas Pradis, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, remarked on the perception that immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals have been leveraged as instruments to implement the political agenda of the Trump administration. This environment has created significant hurdles for clients facing due process challenges, as judges often look to Board decisions as binding precedents.
Jacqueline Brown, director of the Immigration and Defense Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco School of Law, emphasized that the Board appears committed to curtailing access to asylum and various forms of relief. In light of these developments, Maya recommends that immigration attorneys advocate for the consideration of Ninth Circuit law in San Francisco courts, rather than relying solely on the Board’s directives.
Despite these suggestions, many legal professionals report that judges in San Francisco frequently adhere to the Board’s rulings, creating an atmosphere in which attorneys feel constrained by the Board’s decisions. “My hands are tied, I’m tied to the BIA,” remarked Pladis, an immigration attorney grappling with the ramifications of these policy shifts.
