- The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a prospective ruling on advance parole travel on August 13, 2026.
- Trips completed before the deadline remain protected under previous 2012 immigration precedents.
- Future travel with advance parole now activates inadmissibility bars for individuals with unlawful presence.
The Board of Immigration Appeals limited its new advance parole interpretation to future travel, leaving people who departed and returned before August 13, 2026, under the prior rule unaffected.
The board issued Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), on August 13. The precedential decision overruled the 2012 precedent Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.
The change concerns when a trip abroad counts as a departure for immigration law. A departure can activate the 3-year and 10-year bar after a person accumulates enough unlawful presence before leaving the United States.
Past trips remain governed by the earlier rule. The BIA made its holding prospective rather than retroactive.
The decision was written by Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge Gorman. Appellate Immigration Judges Montante and Gallow also sat on the panel.
“A departure from the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole is a 'departure' within the meaning of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We now clarify that the term 'departure' under this section of the INA does not include an exception for aliens who leave the country temporarily under a grant of advance parole.”
Travel before August 13 remains under the former protection
People who completed an advance parole trip before August 13, 2026, do not have that earlier journey reclassified as a departure that triggers a bar. The ruling applies to future travel.
That protection also reaches some people whose immigration cases depend on an earlier return. Applicants with pending Form I-485 cases can remain covered when their eligibility relies on advance parole travel completed before the decision.
Existing lawful permanent residents who obtained that status after entering with advance parole before the ruling are also outside the decision’s retroactive reach. Lawful permanent residents generally do not need advance parole to travel.
The earlier framework came from Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly. Decided in 2012, it treated a temporary trip abroad with government permission as different from a departure that activates the bars.
The BIA’s new case involved a Salvadoran national with a final removal order from 2006. The person remained in the United States, then traveled with advance parole in 2024. The board said it was correcting what it viewed as 14 years of interpreting the word “departure” too narrowly.
The time thresholds still determine who can face a bar
A person who had no unlawful presence before leaving has no accumulated time to trigger either bar. The same applies to someone with less than 180 days.
The three-year bar begins after more than 180 days. The 10-year bar applies after one year or more.
| Time accumulated before departure | Result under the bar rules |
|---|---|
| No unlawful presence | No threshold reached |
| Less than 180 days | No three-year bar threshold reached |
| More than 180 days | Three-year bar may apply after a qualifying departure |
| One year or more | 10-year bar may apply after a qualifying departure |
Those thresholds do not by themselves decide every case. The departure must also fall under the new interpretation, meaning travel on or after August 13, 2026, using advance parole can create the issue.
Statutory exceptions protect several groups from accruing the time
Some people do not accumulate the relevant time because immigration law excludes their circumstances. The protected categories include children under 18 and people with a bona fide asylum application pending.
Family Unity beneficiaries also fall within the listed protections. Certain VAWA self-petitioners and their dependents qualify as well.
A separate provision covers certain trafficking victims. Under INA 212(a)(9)(B)(iii)(V), a victim who can show that trafficking was a central reason for remaining in the United States does not accrue time toward the bars.
The same principle can affect some DACA recipients. People who received DACA before turning 18, or immediately upon aging out, may have zero accumulated days and therefore no time-based bar to activate.
The ruling changes the risk for future travelers
The Department of Homeland Security represented the government through Counsel Milor D. Perdomo. Idalis Perez of Miami, Florida, represented the respondent.
The USCIS alert issued August 14 states that a person leaving after receiving an advance parole document may face inadmissibility when returning. The agency wrote:
“As of Aug. 13, 2026, departing the United States after obtaining an Advance Parole Document is a departure for purposes of inadmissibility. Aliens considering a departure. should be aware they may be inadmissible. upon their return.”
That warning applies to people considering new trips, not to earlier travel that the BIA placed under the prior rule. People who have not accumulated the statutory time also remain outside the bars.
The groups facing the greatest exposure include DACA recipients, Temporary Protected Status holders and adjustment applicants who plan to travel after the effective date and have accumulated more than 180 days.
An estimate cited in the research puts the number of DACA recipients at 530,000+, alongside hundreds of thousands of TPS holders and adjustment applicants who have been advised to pause international travel plans until consulting counsel.
AILA says the reversal unsettles long-standing expectations
Jeff Joseph, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said August 14 that the ruling reversed a policy people had relied on for years.
“This ruling flip-flops on 14 years of well-settled law and policy. This decision punishes people for following the rules and jeopardizes people who have well-established lives in the U.S., including Dreamers protected by DACA.”
The board’s prospective approach creates a dividing date. A completed trip before August 13 remains tied to Arrabally and Yerrabelly, while a later departure must be assessed under Delcarmen-Lara and the statutory time limits.
The USCIS alert and the BIA decision now frame the same document differently depending on when its holder travels. The date of departure, the amount of time accumulated and any statutory exception can determine whether a return creates a new inadmissibility problem.
