- The BIA ruled that advance parole travel triggers departure bars starting August thirteenth, twenty twenty-six.
- The new decision overrules fourteen years of protection previously established by Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.
- Completed trips before the ruling date remain unaffected by the new bars due to prospective application.
The Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, applied Matter of Delcarmen-Lara prospectively on August 13, 2026, holding that travel on advance parole counts as a departure under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). The ruling appears at 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026). Past trips were not reopened.
The board said it was overruling Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly after 14 years of protection for travelers and kept the new rule forward-looking because reliance on the older precedent mattered more than immediate enforcement. It used the five-factor retroactivity test from Matter of Cordero-Garcia, 27 I&N Dec. 652 (BIA 2019). The old rule is gone.
That leaves completed trips before August 13 outside the new holding. Future travel after that date can still trigger the bars in qualifying cases. The date now drives risk.
The board also declined to decide whether Milagro Delcarmen-Lara’s own 2024 trip counted as a departure. Her travel came years before the ruling, and the board denied her motion to reopen on separate procedural grounds. It said the case served only as a vehicle for the Board's ruling on the legal question.
USCIS warned on August 14, 2026 that some travelers who leave after unlawful presence may now face a 3-year or 10-year bar. As of August 17, 2026, the agency had not issued formal guidance on pending adjustment cases. Guidance is still pending.
The board said fairness outweighed immediate retroactivity
The decision turned on retroactivity law, not just immigration policy. The board pointed to the five-factor test and wrote:
"We determine that the first three factors in the test. support applying our holding prospectively because we are explicitly overruling Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, a longstanding Board precedent. The Board’s interest in applying the newly articulated rule does not outweigh past expectations based on the prior rule. In consideration of the foregoing, we will apply this new holding prospectively."
The first three factors tipped the scale. Past expectations won out.
The 3-year and 10-year bars now follow the trip
Two thresholds control the bars.
| Unlawful presence before departure | Possible bar after departure |
|---|---|
| More than 180 days | 3-year bar |
| One year or more | 10-year bar |
The bar turns on the trip itself.
Three buckets stand out.
- DACA recipients seeking adjustment through a U.S. citizen spouse.
- TPS beneficiaries traveling for humanitarian reasons.
- People who entered without inspection.
Novo Legal Group and Lal Legal are advising clients to avoid international travel. The advice is blunt.
Advocates said the decision broke with settled practice
Jeff Joseph, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said on August 14, 2026:
"This ruling flipflops 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. This Administration keeps pulling the rug out from under families and workers trying to do the right thing."
Todd Schulte, president of FWD.us, said on August 14, 2026:
"This flawed decision by the BIA will impose harsh inadmissibility bars on DACA recipients. Advance Parole has allowed tens of thousands of people to travel with the government’s explicit permission. This decision does nothing to make our country safer or more prosperous."
The departure date is still the hard edge
The date of departure is the disputed fact. Cases near August 13 remain unsettled.
