A New DACA Ruling Exposes How Fragile Dreamer Protections Really Are

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Sun. May, 10, 2026: For more than 14 years, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, has been a shield and a safeguard to over 800,000 young immigrant DREAMERS, who were brought to the United States by their undocumented parents as children and found themselves undocumented as well.

In 2012, President Barack Obama by executive order, gave these immigrants a chance to live, work, and build their lives without fear of deportation. But a new decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals on Friday, April 24th, is forcing a harder truth into the open: DACA was never protection.

In a precedent-setting ruling, the Board of Immigration Appeals made clear that having active DACA status is no longer enough to prevent deportation.

The case centered on Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, a DACA recipient who was detained by federal agents and placed in removal proceedings. She argued – in both immigration court, which is part of the Justice Department, and in federal district court, which is part of the independent judiciary – that DACA was a bargain with the government that meant she wouldn’t be targeted for deportation as long as she complied with the program’s rules. An immigration judge initially halted her deportation, citing her active DACA status. But the Justice Department appealed.

And the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed – ruling that DACA alone does not provide sufficient grounds to terminate removal proceedings.

The decision does not immediately strip all DACA recipients of their status. But it does something arguably more consequential.

It weakens the foundation of the program itself, because for the roughly 800,000 plus Dreamers, currently protected under DACA, the message is becoming clearer:

This status can be challenged; the protection can be bypassed, and safety is conditional and increasingly uncertain.

DACA was never a pathway to citizenship. Congress was supposed to make that happen, and in over 14 years, it has failed to deliver.

DACA always required renewal every two years, and it always existed at the discretion of the federal government.

But over time, something else happened. A generation grew up under it. They went to school here; they built careers here; they started families here; they became, in every meaningful way, part of America.

And yet, legally, they remained in limbo. The latest ruling exposes just how fragile that limbo has always been.

According to advocates, this is not a sudden shift – it is part of a broader pattern. A “quiet rollback,” as one immigration advocate described it, where protections are not eliminated outright, but gradually weakened through court decisions and policy changes.

At the same time, immigration courts are increasingly siding with government attorneys. A recent analysis found that the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled in favor of government lawyers in 97% of published cases last year, a dramatic increase from historical norms.

That trend matters because these decisions set precedent. They shape how immigration law is interpreted across the country, and they determine how much discretion judges have to offer relief.

Taken together, they signal a system that is becoming less flexible – and more final. And that leaves DACA recipients in an increasingly precarious position.

Even those who have followed every rule, even those who have renewed their status on time, even those who have lived in the United States for most of their lives.

Friday’s decision overturns the immigration judge’s ruling and sends the case back for another review. But the BIA took the additional step of assigning the case to a different immigration judge, suggesting the original jurist was tainted.

The question now is no longer just whether DACA will survive. It is whether it ever offered the kind of protection many believed it did.

Because when a program can be upheld publicly while being weakened quietly, it forces a deeper reckoning. Not just about immigration policy but about trust.

Trust in the system; trust in the government, trust in the idea that following the rules leads to stability.

For Dreamers, that trust is now being tested, because when something described as protection can no longer reliably protect, it raises a difficult but necessary question: what was it ever meant to guarantee?