FALLS CHURCH, Va., April 27, 2026: On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) released an interim decision in the case of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient, Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago. DACA was established on June 15, 2012, by the Obama administration via a presidential memorandum to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It allows immigrants who were brought to the United States as minors to remain in the U.S. through two-year renewable authorizations that allow the immigrant to avoid deportation and work in the U.S. DACA, however, does not convey full legal immigration status on the immigrant but it protects them from being deported. There is no current pathway to legal immigration status currently under DACA because Congress has refused to act on legislation for DACA recipients.
Santiago was detained at the El Paso International Airport on August 3rd, 2025, as she attempted to board a flight to Dallas. She was put in immigration detention pending removal proceedings. Santiago was released from immigration detention on October 1, 2025, after U.S. District Judge, Kathleen Cardone ruled that her detention “deprives her of her constitutional right” to due process.
At the time of her arrest immigration officials said that Santiago was detained due to her “criminal history” that includes, according to DHS, “trespassing, possession of narcotics and drug paraphernalia.”
According to court documents, “Santiago pled guilty to disorderly conduct for her participation in a civil disobedience action” in 2015. In 2017, she was again charged with civil disobedience but was not convicted. In 2020, she was arrested in Arizona on charges of possessing “drug and paraphernalia possession.” No charges were filed in that case against her. Since her arrests and guilty plea in the first civil disobedience case, Santiago renewed her DACA status “at least twice,” according to the court records. DACA status limits an immigrant’s ability to travel abroad. However, immigration officials can issue an “advance parole” to a DACA recipient that allows them to leave the country and return for a specific purpose.
In the case of Santiago, immigration officials allowed her to leave the country sometime after May 1, 2022, requiring her to return by July 1, 2022. When she returned on June 12, 2022, U.S. immigration officials allowed her to reenter the U.S. even though they could have denied her reentry based on the civil disobedience guilty plea and arrests. DHS officials have cited her guilty plea and arrests as the reason to deport her.
On January 8, 2025, Santiago married a U.S. citizen. The marriage allows her to apply for permanent resident status (Green Card).
When Santiago was detained at the airport, immigration officials charged her with not being legally present in the U.S. because she was “not then admitted or paroled” by on immigration official when she first entered the U.S. in 2005. However, immigration officials conceded to the court that the charge filed against her was “not the proper charge” because she was paroled when she was approved as a DACA recipient in 2022.
On September 8, 2025, Immigration Judge Michael Pleters ruled that immigration officials could not deport Santiago because she “had been accorded DACA.” Pleters’ ruling added that her DACA status had “not been terminated” at the time of her detention by immigration officials.
On September 2, 2025, a lawsuit filed on behalf of Santiago by El Paso immigration attorney, Christopher Benoit, demanding (Writ of Habeas Corpus) her release from immigration detention because her DACA allows her to be in the country.
Cardone ordered that DHS release Santiago from immigration detention by 4:00pm on October 2nd, 2025 because of her DACA status. She was released the day before the deadline.
Cardone’s ruling only addressed her immigration detention but did not rule on whether she could be deported.
Friday’s Immigration Appeals Court Ruling
On Friday, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reviewed Pleters’ ruling terminating deportation proceedings against Santiago on September 8, 2025. On Friday, the BIA published its ruling on the matter.
A BIA ruling that is published updates the guidance for immigration judges to follow when ruling on cases. They are designed to standardize the judges’ rulings on immigration matters and usually set precedent on how immigration laws are to be interpreted. After a ruling, the case is remanded back to the original judge for further action. However, in the case of Santiago, the BIA ordered that the case be remanded “to a new Immigration Judge and for further proceedings consistent” with the BIA’s ruling. It added that the original judge in the case, “erred in terminating removal proceedings.”
The BIA ruling says that DACA is not sufficient to stop deportation proceedings against a DACA recipient. According to the court documents in the immigration court case, DHS argued that DACA could not be used to prevent Santiago from being deported. DHS attorneys also said that “there is no evidence” that Santiago’s spouse had filed an application for a marriage visa for Santiago at the time of her detention.
After Pleters terminated Santiago’s deportation on September 8th, 2025, immigration official asked for a reconsideration of the court’s ruling as well as Pleters removal as the judge in the case “based on a purported email from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the Immigration Judge’s spouse, a member of the United States House of Representatives, that discussed” Santiago.
Pleters is married to U.S. Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (D-TX16).
It is not known what the email to Escobar contains because it is not part of the court record.
The judge denied both the reconsideration of his ruling and his recusal on September 10th, 2025.
In its ruling, the BIA agrees with Pleters that terminating deportation proceedings against Santiago is the at the judge’s discretion, but it adds that the discretion against deporting a DACA recipient “is not the sole” reason to end a deportation action. The BIA added that Pleters did not consider DHS’ reasons for removing Santiago from the country. The BIA remanded the ruling back to the immigration courts “for further consideration.”
But instead of remanding the case back to Pleters, as is BIA’s normal process, the BIA instead had the Santiago case “transferred to a different Immigration Judge, which is warranted in an abundance of caution under the specific circumstances in this case.”
According to the BIA’s ruling, “DHS alleged that during the pendency of” Santiago’s removal case, Escobar “made a public statement on social media specifically discussing and advocating” for Santiago. The BIA concluded that because of the social media post, having a different judge review the case “is the best course of action to avoid the appearance of partiality or bias and to ensure the integrity” of the case against Santiago.
It is not clear whether Escobar’s social media post was part of the email court records show that was sent by DHS to Escobar or whether the DHS email and Escobar’s post are related. Nonetheless, BIA felt it was necessary to remove Pleters from the case and have another immigration judge decide whether Santiago will be allowed to remain in the country.
In its ruling, the BIA noted that the immigration appeals court expresses “no opinion as to the ultimate outcome” of the case seeking her removal from the country. The Court also noted that Santiago “cannot be removed from the United States while she has DACA protection.”
Court documents show that her most recent DACA status was set to expire this month.
It is unknown what the status of her spouse’s application for Santiago’s Green Card is under the marriage to a U.S. citizen immigration relief or whether Santiago’s DACA was renewed before it was set to expire. No date for her next immigration has been made public.
Like Us and Follow Us On Our Social Media!
Cover photograph credit: Picture of Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, via GoFundMe account.
Visited 33 times, 33 visit(s) today