- The BIA ruled that travel under advance parole counts as a departure regarding unlawful-presence statutes.
- Travelers with over 180 days of unlawful presence risk triggering re-entry bars upon leaving.
- The decision applies prospectively to cases after August 13, 2026, leaving prior trips unaffected.
The Board of Immigration Appeals held on August 13, 2026, that leaving the United States under advance parole counts as a “departure” under the unlawful-presence statute. The decision changes how some DACA recipients must evaluate international travel.
In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), the Board overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012). The new interpretation applies prospectively.
The decision concerns people who accumulated unlawful presence before leaving the country. A trip after at least 180 days of unlawful presence may trigger the three- and 10-year bars under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
The risk may arise later. It can affect a person seeking admission or adjustment of status, including a possible need for a waiver.
The departure, not the return, creates the new legal issue
The Board’s ruling changes how the statute treats travel authorization. Under the earlier approach, Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly treated a departure with permission to return differently for purposes of the unlawful-presence bars.
Delcarmen-Lara rejected that treatment. The Board held that departure under the document remains a “departure” under the statute.
The reentry itself is not the legal trigger identified by the ruling. The departure is.
That distinction can affect people who plan to pursue a green card later. A traveler may leave with government permission and still face an inadmissibility issue when applying for admission or adjustment of status.
Prior unlawful presence separates travelers into different risk groups
Some people entered the United States without inspection and later accrued unlawful presence before receiving DACA. If they leave the country with travel authorization, the departure can create a new problem when they later seek admission or adjustment.
The trip does not produce the same result for everyone. A person with no unlawful presence before departure is in a different position under the decision.
The timeline matters. The relevant question is whether qualifying unlawful presence existed before the person left, not simply whether the government approved the travel document.
The length of that prior period also matters. At 180 days or more, the three-year bar may become relevant; the statute also provides for a 10-year bar in qualifying circumstances.
The former Arrabally framework no longer protects every traveler with prior unlawful presence.
Approval of travel permission and the later immigration consequences are separate issues. One does not automatically resolve the other.
The former Arrabally rule no longer controls future cases
Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly had supplied the earlier treatment of this type of travel. The Board’s August 13 decision expressly overruled it.
The ruling therefore reaches cases moving forward. The Board said it applies prospectively rather than undoing completed trips taken under the prior rule.
That approach matters to people whose immigration plans already depend on earlier travel. A completed trip is not automatically reclassified by the new decision, while a future trip must be assessed under the Board’s new interpretation.
The decision also narrows the assumption that travel authorization preserves eligibility for everyone with a history of unlawful presence. It does not make every trip unlawful, but it changes the legal question presented by departure.
Filing and travel plans need a fresh legal review
Before filing Form I-131 or traveling, applicants should examine the history that preceded the trip. The review should address whether unlawful presence accrued, how long it lasted, and what immigration benefit the person expects to seek later.
A waiver may be necessary in some cases. That possibility depends on whether the statutory bars apply and on the person’s later application for admission or adjustment of status.
Pending green-card strategies deserve particular scrutiny. A plan that relied on the former Arrabally rule may need a new assessment before the person leaves the United States.
The same travel authorization can therefore carry different consequences for different applicants. Entry history, prior unlawful presence, and the future immigration benefit all belong in the analysis.
The first question is no longer only whether permission to travel will be granted. It is whether leaving could activate an inadmissibility problem under the new rule.
The Board’s prospective application gives the ruling a clear forward-looking effect. Future cases must account for the August 13, 2026, decision, while completed travel remains governed by the framework applicable when it occurred.
