The case behind the ruling

The decision came out of the case of Catalina "Xóchitl" Santiago, a 28-year-old DACA recipient and immigration rights advocate from Texas. She was detained by Customs and Border Protection officers in August 2025 while boarding a domestic flight in El Paso. She was held in an immigration detention center for approximately two months before a federal judge ordered her release.

Immigration Judge Michael Pleters had terminated her removal proceedings because she held valid DACA status — exactly what judges had been doing for years. DHS appealed that termination to the BIA, and the Board sided with the government. Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Garry D. Malphrus wrote that Judge Pleters had "erred" in terminating proceedings based solely on DACA status, and sent the case to a different judge for fresh review.

What this ruling actually means — and what it doesn't

This ruling has been widely mischaracterized in both directions. Some headlines suggested it means DACA is effectively over. That's not accurate. Others dismissed it as a minor procedural adjustment. That's also not right. Here is what the ruling actually does and doesn't do:

"This is a quiet rollback of protections, and our communities are paying the price in real time. For over a decade, DACA has endured relentless, politically motivated attacks. This decision is yet another step in dismantling the program without the government taking responsibility for ending it outright."

— Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, United We Dream

The February 2026 Interim Final Rule — what they tried to change

The DACA ruling wasn't the only seismic BIA development of 2026. On February 6, the Department of Justice published an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that, if fully implemented, would have dramatically restructured how immigration appeals work — in ways that critics argued would effectively eliminate meaningful appellate review for most immigrants.

The rule was framed by the government as a necessary step to address the BIA's enormous backlog. That backlog is real — the Board receives tens of thousands of appeals each year and has struggled for years to keep pace. But the proposed solution alarmed immigration attorneys, civil liberties organizations, and federal judges alike.

What the February IFR proposed

• Shortening the standard appeal deadline from 30 days to just 10 days
• Making merits review discretionary — meaning the BIA could dismiss an appeal without ever reviewing the substance
• Treating any issue not raised in the Notice of Appeal as permanently waived
• Permitting dismissal before transcripts were created or the record transmitted
• Essentially converting the appeal into a rapid screening event rather than a substantive review

As written, the rule would have transformed the Notice of Appeal from a routine jurisdictional filing into a critical legal brief — one that had to identify reversible error with precision and preserve all arguments within 10 days of an immigration judge's decision, often before the applicant even had access to a transcript.

The March 8 court order — what was blocked and what survived

The rule was immediately challenged in federal court by a coalition of immigrant rights organizations including Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, and the National Immigrant Justice Center. The lawsuit argued the IFR violated due process and exceeded the agency's authority.

On March 8, 2026 — the day before the rule was set to take effect — U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss issued an order in Amica Center v. EOIR that blocked several of the most sweeping provisions while allowing others to go forward. The ruling was widely seen as a significant, if partial, victory for immigrants' rights.