The Board of Immigration Appeals overturned a 14-year-old precedent, ruling that temporary travel abroad under advance parole constitutes a “departure” under federal immigration law. In the precedential decision Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, issued August 13, 2026, the BIA reversed its 2012 ruling in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, exposing DACA recipients and other immigrants to unlawful presence bars they previously avoided when using advance parole to travel internationally.
What changed
The Board of Immigration Appeals overturned its 2012 ruling that protected immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children from triggering unlawful presence bars when traveling abroad with advance parole. Under the new decision, leaving the United States on Advance Parole is now a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful presence bar under INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
For over a decade, Arrabally and Yerrabelly generally protected adjustment of status applicants who traveled internationally with a valid Advance Parole document, even if they had accrued unlawful presence in the United States. That protection is now gone. The board held that a trip outside the United States using advance parole could still trigger the three- and 10-year bars from the U.S.
The BIA did not apply the new interpretation retroactively to the underlying case; the Board did not apply the new interpretation to Delcarmen-Lara’s 2024 trip because the rule is prospective. However, practitioners should expect USCIS and DOJ to apply this standard to all future advance parole departures.
Why it matters
This decision fundamentally narrows one of DACA’s most valuable tools for pursuing permanent residency. For most DACA holders, who entered without inspection or overstayed a visa, advance parole is the only lawful way to leave the country and return. The real value is not the trip itself—when you re-enter on advance parole, you are paroled into the country. That parole constitutes a lawful admission, and a lawful admission is the key that unlocks adjustment of status.
By converting advance parole travel into a triggering “departure,” the BIA has forced DACA holders into a new calculus:
- Waiver dependency. DACA recipients who have accrued any unlawful presence and use advance parole will now almost certainly need to file an I-601A (provisional waiver for unlawful presence) before leaving the country. Many will not be eligible.
- Family-based adjustment blocked. Even if a DACA holder has a qualifying family petition, the advance parole trip that was supposed to secure a lawful entry for adjustment purposes now exposes them to three- or ten-year bars.
- Timing collapse. The advance parole strategy depended on sequential timing: travel, re-entry, adjustment. That sequence no longer works as advertised.
Immigration advocacy groups have characterized this as “piece-by-piece” dismantling of DACA without legislative action, noting that advance parole has historically enabled tens of thousands of DACA holders to reunite with family and maintain employment while adjusting status.
Way forward
Before filing or using advance parole, you must:
- Consult immediately with an immigration attorney if you hold DACA and had planned to use advance parole for family reunion, work, or education purposes. Do not travel on advance parole without understanding the new unlawful presence risk.
- Assess waiver eligibility. If you have accrued any unlawful presence and need to adjust status through a family or employment petition, determine whether you qualify for an I-601A waiver and whether the extreme hardship threshold can be met for a qualifying relative.
- Explore alternative strategies. Some DACA holders with qualifying immediate-relative sponsors may still be able to adjust if they entered with a valid visa (no advance parole needed). Employment-based petitioners should review visa bulletin priority dates and consular processing options, even though those carry their own bars.
- Preserve documentation. If you have already traveled on approved advance parole before August 13, 2026, keep all documentation (approval notices, passports, boarding passes, re-entry stamps) in case future USCIS adjudications attempt to apply the new rule retroactively.
Disclaimer
Fola.Form is a software platform, not a law firm. This article is not legal advice. The Board of Immigration Appeals decision in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara is binding on all USCIS and immigration court adjudications, but its application to specific fact patterns (including retroactivity questions) remains unsettled. Policy decisions can change without notice, and federal litigation on DACA continues. Consult a licensed immigration attorney licensed in your state before making any filing or travel decisions. Verify all information against the primary source linked above and seek individualized legal counsel for your case.