- The three-judge tribunal ruled that an immigration judge erred by failing to consider the reasons behind the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to initiate removal proceedings against Santiago. Santiago’s wife has stated that DHS deems Santiago a “criminal illegal alien” whose criminal history includes charges for trespassing, and possession of narcotics and drug paraphernalia.
- The tribunal sent the case to a different judge to avoid the appearance of bias because Judge Michael Pleters, who was originally assigned to the case, is married to U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), who has made public statements in support of DACA in general and social media posts specifically advocating for Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, the detainee at the center of the case.
The bigger picture:
Santiago’s case will shine light on just how much protection DACA affords — or not — to its recipients. Against the backdrop of dozens of international students and faculty who have been detained after expressing political views, Santiago’s case adds to ongoing concerns about the extent to which people who lack legal status in the U.S. are being targeted for their activism versus legitimate public safety reasons.
The Board of Immigration decision comes at a time when the administration continues to make it more difficult for international students to obtain the visas they need to study in the U.S. by imposing travel restrictions and taking other enforcement actions.
Advocates say the decision could make it easier for the Trump administration to deport DACA recipients, also known as “Dreamers,” and represents the latest attempt to curtail and ultimately destroy the program.
DACA — an acronym for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — was established in 2012 under President Obama to provide children who arrived in the country prior to 2007 with temporary work authorization and relief from deportation. It has been a political football ever since. A coalition of nine-Republican-led states — led by Texas — has a pending lawsuit to end DACA. They argue, among other things, that DACA is unlawful because it was created procedurally and creates an undue financial burden on states with regard to the health care, education, and law enforcement costs.
Pursuant to a January 2025 decision in that lawsuit, DACA recipients can seek renewals for DACA status, but the Trump administration is not processing new requests for DACA status.
