The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)The administrative body within the Department of Justice that hears appeals from immigration judges and certain USCIS decisions.See it in the glossary has overturned a fourteen-year-old rule that let immigrants with accrued Unlawful presenceTime spent in the United States without admission or after an authorized stay has ended, which can count toward a reentry bar. Under INA 212(a)(9)(B), more than 180 days but less than a year, followed by departure, can lead to a 3-year bar, and one year or more can lead to a 10-year bar, if the person seeks admission again within that period. Some periods, such as time spent under age 18, do not count.See it in the glossary travel abroad on Advance parolePermission, issued by USCIS on Form I-131, that lets certain applicants with a pending case travel abroad and return without abandoning the application.See it in the glossary without risking a return ban. In a precedential decision issued August 13, the Board held that a trip taken under a grant of advance parole is a “departure” under the Immigration and Nationality Act, exposing some travelers to the three-year or ten-year bar on reentry.
The ruling, Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), directly overrules Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, a 2012 decision that had shielded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)A policy begun in 2012 under which certain people who came to the United States as children could request deferred action, a discretionary decision not to pursue removal for a set period, along with work authorization. Deferred action does not provide lawful status. Under current court orders, USCIS continues to process renewals but is not approving initial requests.See it in the glossary recipients, Temporary Protected Status (TPS)A designation that lets nationals of certain countries facing conflict or disaster stay and work in the United States temporarily.See it in the glossary holders, and pending Adjustment of statusThe process of applying for a green card from within the United States, rather than through a consulate abroad. Filed on Form I-485.See it in the glossary applicants who traveled on advance parole. That 2012 rule treated an advance parole trip as something short of a legal departure, so returning travelers were not deemed to have triggered the unlawful presence bars found in section 212(a)(9)(B) of the INA.
What the Board Changed
The case reached the Board after a respondent sought to reopen Removal proceedingsThe formal court process, formerly called deportation, in which the government seeks to remove a noncitizen from the United States.See it in the glossary. The Board wrote that nothing in the statute’s text carves out an exception for travel authorized through advance parole, and concluded that the ordinary meaning of “depart” covers any trip outside the United States, however it is authorized. Under that reading, a person who accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence before leaving on advance parole can now face the three-year bar, and a person who accrued a year or more can face the ten-year bar, once they attempt to reenter.
Who the Ruling Reaches
The decision reaches anyone who relied on advance parole while carrying unlawful presence from before their current status, a group that has long included some DACA recipients, TPS holders adjusting status, and applicants for adjustment of status who fell out of status earlier in their time in the United States. It does not touch ParoleDiscretionary, temporary permission for a person who may be inadmissible to enter or remain in the United States for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, set out in INA 212(d)(5). Parole is not an admission, and a paroled person is still treated as an applicant for admission.See it in the glossary in place, and it does not disturb the separate rule that time spent in valid nonimmigrant or TPS status does not itself count as unlawful presence.
No Retroactive Effect
The Board limited the ruling to future conduct. It found that noncitizens had reasonably relied on Arrabally for more than a decade, so trips completed before August 13 keep the protection that decision provided. Practitioners have noted that the Board did not resolve every edge case, including someone who left the country before August 13 but was still abroad, or still processing reentry, after that date.
What This Means for Travel Decisions
Anyone weighing a trip on advance parole while carrying unlawful presence from an earlier period now faces a materially different calculation than they did in July. Travel during a pending case already carries risks specific to the applicant’s situation, and this ruling adds a new one for a specific group of travelers. The safer course for someone in this position is to work through the unlawful presence history with a qualified professional before booking a trip, rather than relying on the old assumption that advance parole travel was automatically safe.
This does not change how adjustment of status without leaving the United States works for applicants who do not travel, and it does not reopen or reverse any past reentry that already relied on the earlier rule.