By Richard T. Herman, Esq.
Published: August 13, 2026 | Updated: August 13, 2026
Yes. As of August 13, 2026, travel on advance parole can trigger the advance parole 10 year bar.
In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that leaving the United States pursuant to advance parole is a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful-presence bar in INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
The BIA expressly overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), the precedent immigration lawyers had relied on for approximately 14 years.
If a person:
the advance-parole trip can now trigger the 10-year inadmissibility bar.
The implications of the advance parole 10 year bar are significant for many immigrants.
The decision does not mean every person with advance parole is subject to the 10-year bar. The critical question is whether the traveler accumulated sufficient unlawful presence before leaving the United States.
Anyone with DACA, TPS, a pending I-485, or another basis for advance parole who has a possible history of unlawful presence should obtain individualized immigration advice before traveling internationally.
Matter of Delcarmen-Lara is a precedential decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals on August 13, 2026.
The official BIA holding states:
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.
The Board then expressly overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.
You can read the official BIA decision and the EOIR index of Volume 29 precedential decisions.
This is one of the most consequential immigration travel decisions in years because it changes the legal consequences of a form of international travel used by many immigrants, including some DACA recipients, TPS beneficiaries and adjustment-of-status applicants.
The easiest way to understand Delcarmen-Lara is to compare the old rule with the new one.
For approximately 14 years, the governing BIA precedent was Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.
Under Arrabally, leaving the United States pursuant to advance parole was not treated as the type of “departure” that triggered the three- or 10-year unlawful-presence bars.
That rule was enormously important for immigrants who had accumulated unlawful presence but later qualified for advance parole.
The BIA has now rejected that interpretation.
An advance-parole trip can constitute a departure under INA §212(a)(9)(B).
That means an immigrant can possess a valid government-issued advance parole document and still face serious immigration consequences because of the act of leaving the United States.
The underlying statute is INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
Generally, a person who has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more and then departs may become inadmissible for 10 years.
USCIS provides a general explanation of the rules on its official Unlawful Presence and Inadmissibility page.
For years, Arrabally created an important distinction: departure under advance parole did not trigger that particular bar.
The BIA has now eliminated that distinction for future application of the rule.
An approved advance parole document may look like government permission to travel.
Legally, however, it is not a guarantee that leaving the United States will have no immigration consequences.
That distinction is now critical.
Advance parole authorization does not necessarily mean that:
Think of advance parole as permission to seek parole upon return, not as an immigration-law clearance certificate declaring that international travel is risk-free.
After Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, anyone with a complicated immigration history should separate two questions:
Question 1: Can USCIS issue me advance parole?
and
Question 2: What legal consequences could occur if I actually use it?
Those are no longer the same question.
The ruling is particularly important for immigrants who may have accumulated unlawful presence before receiving another immigration benefit or protection.
Some Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients obtain advance parole for humanitarian, educational or employment-related travel.
DACA itself presents complicated unlawful-presence issues because age, the date DACA was granted, gaps in deferred action and other periods can affect the calculation.
USCIS explains in its DACA Frequently Asked Questions that DACA and unlawful presence are distinct legal concepts.
HLG also maintains a detailed resource explaining DACA and TPS options and travel considerations.
A DACA recipient should not assume that an approved Form I-131 means an international trip is safe under the new BIA precedent.
Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries may also have complex immigration histories predating TPS.
A person may have entered without inspection, overstayed, accumulated unlawful presence, been placed into removal proceedings, or experienced periods when different protections applied.
The interaction between TPS, travel authorization, parole, unlawful presence and adjustment of status can be highly fact-specific.
That makes TPS travel another area where Delcarmen-Lara requires careful pre-travel analysis.
Many applicants with a pending Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, obtain advance parole while waiting for USCIS to decide their green card application.
But an advance parole document should not be interpreted as a USCIS finding that departure poses no other immigration risk.
HLG’s guide to family-based adjustment of status explains the broader I-485 process.
In 2026, adjustment applicants already face increased scrutiny under evolving USCIS policy. HLG maintains a separate resource center covering the new USCIS I-485 policy.
Now Delcarmen-Lara adds another travel-related issue that adjustment applicants must evaluate.
For some immigrants who originally entered the United States without inspection, advance-parole travel has historically played a significant role in future adjustment-of-status strategies.
But Delcarmen-Lara means lawyers and immigrants must analyze two separate legal questions:
A favorable answer to one does not automatically resolve the other.
This distinction is extremely important after August 13, 2026.
People who have previously been placed into immigration court proceedings or ordered removed require even more careful analysis.
The unlawful-presence bar may be only one issue.
Other provisions of immigration law can impose separate consequences for prior removal, departure, attempted reentry or unlawful reentry.
If you have ever had an immigration court case, do not evaluate advance-parole travel by looking only at your Form I-131 approval.
The BIA declined to apply its new interpretation retroactively in Delcarmen-Lara itself and stated that the new rule applies prospectively.
That is a crucial part of the decision.
The Board recognized that Arrabally had been controlling precedent for many years and that immigrants had relied upon it when deciding whether to travel.
The BIA described overruling Arrabally as a significant change in the law concerning departure and potential eligibility for adjustment of status.
Therefore, someone who previously traveled on advance parole under the old rule should not automatically assume that the old trip now triggers a 10-year bar.
At the same time, prior travel histories can involve other immigration consequences. Anyone relying on a previous advance-parole entry as part of an adjustment or waiver strategy should have the complete history reviewed.
“Unlawful presence” is a technical term under U.S. immigration law.
It is not always the same thing as:
USCIS maintains official guidance on unlawful presence and inadmissibility.
The calculation can depend on factors including:
Do not calculate unlawful presence merely by counting the number of years you have lived in the United States.
Under INA §212(a)(9)(B), unlawful presence can create different consequences depending on its duration.
Generally:
More than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence can trigger a three-year bar after departure.
One year or more of unlawful presence can trigger a 10-year bar after departure.
There are exceptions, exclusions and waiver provisions.
Matter of Delcarmen-Lara is especially important because it addresses whether leaving under advance parole counts as the departure necessary to trigger §212(a)(9)(B).
The BIA now says that it does.
Consider a hypothetical DACA recipient.
She came to the United States as a child. At some point after turning 18, she accumulated more than one year of unlawful presence before receiving DACA.
Years later, USCIS approves advance parole so she can visit an ill family member abroad.
Under the old Arrabally framework, the advance-parole trip generally was not treated as a departure triggering §212(a)(9)(B).
After Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, that assumption is no longer valid for future travel.
Her departure may trigger the 10-year unlawful-presence bar.
Whether it actually does will depend upon her precise dates, age, immigration history and any applicable exceptions.
That is why individualized analysis before departure is essential.
Possibly.
U.S. immigration law provides waivers for certain unlawful-presence grounds when statutory requirements are met.
USCIS maintains official information about provisional unlawful-presence waivers.
Herman Legal Group also has detailed resources explaining:
But waiver eligibility is not automatic.
Depending on the waiver, applicants may need to demonstrate extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent, along with other statutory and discretionary requirements.
The better strategy is to identify a potential inadmissibility problem before leaving the United States, rather than discovering it after departure.
Do not panic, and do not assume either that travel is forbidden or that travel is safe.
Instead, have an immigration lawyer conduct a pre-travel review.
At minimum, the review should examine:
HLG also explains broader international travel risks in its guide, Can I Travel Abroad While My Green Card or Visa Case Is Pending?.
Because that article predates Delcarmen-Lara, travelers should treat this August 13, 2026 update as controlling for the new advance-parole/unlawful-presence issue.
| Issue | Before August 13, 2026 | After Delcarmen-Lara |
|---|---|---|
| Does advance-parole travel count as a departure under §212(a)(9)(B)? | Generally no under Arrabally | Yes |
| Is Arrabally and Yerrabelly still controlling? | Yes | No — expressly overruled |
| Can prior unlawful presence become important when using advance parole? | Yes, but Arrabally protected against this departure trigger | Yes — critically important |
| Does advance parole itself create unlawful presence? | No | No |
| Does every advance-parole traveler trigger a 10-year bar? | No | No |
| Should travelers with possible unlawful presence obtain legal review before departure? | Advisable | Strongly advisable |
Yes. On August 13, 2026, the BIA held in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara that departure under advance parole is a “departure” for purposes of INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). If a traveler previously accumulated one year or more of unlawful presence, the trip may trigger the 10-year bar.
Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026). The Board of Immigration Appeals issued the precedential decision on August 13, 2026.
Yes. Delcarmen-Lara expressly overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012).
No. A traveler must first have accumulated the amount of unlawful presence required by INA §212(a)(9)(B). Advance parole does not itself create unlawful presence.
DACA recipients may still have a basis to request advance parole under applicable USCIS rules, but whether actually using advance parole is safe requires separate analysis. A DACA recipient who accumulated unlawful presence before departure may face a new §212(a)(9)(B) issue under Delcarmen-Lara.
No. Advance parole generally allows a traveler to present at a port of entry and request parole. It does not guarantee parole, admission or freedom from all grounds of inadmissibility.
The BIA determined that its change should apply prospectively and declined to impose the new interpretation retroactively in the case before it. People with previous advance-parole travel should nevertheless have their individual immigration histories reviewed before relying upon that travel in a current immigration case.
Approval does not necessarily mean using it is safe. If you have possible unlawful presence, a prior removal order or another complicated immigration history, obtain an individualized legal assessment before departing.
Some immigrants may qualify for an unlawful-presence waiver, depending on the specific ground of inadmissibility, immigration process, qualifying relatives, hardship evidence and other requirements. Waiver eligibility must be analyzed individually.
It can. If travel triggers inadmissibility under §212(a)(9)(B), that inadmissibility may affect eligibility to adjust status unless an exception or waiver applies.
No. They are related but legally distinct concepts. An immigrant can, in some circumstances, lack lawful immigration status without accruing unlawful presence during the same period.
Not automatically. The correct answer depends on your individual history. Do not depart solely on the assumption that an approved advance parole document makes travel safe.
1. The law changed on August 13, 2026.
The BIA issued Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830.
2. Advance-parole travel can now count as a departure for the unlawful-presence bars.
3. Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly has been expressly overruled.
4. Advance parole does not itself create unlawful presence.
The risk depends on unlawful presence accumulated before departure.
5. Not everyone with advance parole will trigger a bar.
6. DACA recipients, TPS beneficiaries and adjustment applicants with complicated histories should pay particular attention.
7. The BIA applied the new rule prospectively.
8. An approved advance parole document does not mean DHS has determined that international travel is safe for every immigration purpose.
For more than three decades, I have advised immigrants that international travel can change an immigration case in ways that are difficult—or sometimes impossible—to reverse after the person leaves the United States.
Matter of Delcarmen-Lara makes that warning much more important.
The danger is the intuitive meaning of the words “advance parole.”
A person receives a government document authorizing travel and naturally thinks: The government gave me permission to leave, so leaving must be safe.
That is no longer a safe assumption.
After August 13, 2026, an immigrant can potentially possess a valid advance parole document and simultaneously have an immigration history that makes using that document legally dangerous.
The correct question is therefore no longer merely:
“Do I have permission to travel?”
It is:
“What happens to my immigration case the moment I leave the United States?”
Answer that question before boarding the plane—not at the airport on the way home.
If you have DACA, TPS, a pending I-485, advance parole, prior unlawful presence, a prior removal order or a complicated immigration history, Herman Legal Group can review the potential consequences of international travel before you depart.
Richard T. Herman has practiced U.S. immigration law for more than 30 years and is the founder of Herman Legal Group, The Law Firm for Immigrants.
Schedule an immigration consultation with Herman Legal Group.
Board of Immigration Appeals: Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026)
EOIR: Volume 29 Precedent Decisions
USCIS: Unlawful Presence and Inadmissibility
USCIS: Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers
USCIS: DACA Frequently Asked Questions
