August 13, 2026
The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) has issued a significant decision that changes the immigration consequences of international travel for certain individuals with pending adjustment of status applications.
In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), decided August 13, 2026, the BIA overruled its longstanding precedent in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012). The BIA held that a person’s departure from the United States pursuant to a grant of Advance Parole can constitute a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful-presence inadmissibility provision at INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
This is a major development for individuals with pending Adjustment of Status applications who are considering international travel.
What Is Advance Parole?
Advance Parole is a travel document that may permit certain individuals with pending applications for Adjustment of Status to temporarily leave the United States and seek parole back into the country.
Historically, Advance Parole has provided an important travel option for many adjustment applicants who otherwise could face significant immigration consequences from leaving the United States.
However, Advance Parole has never guaranteed admission to the United States, and travelers can remain subject to other grounds of inadmissibility or other immigration-related complications.
The new BIA decision adds another important consideration.
What Changed Under Matter of Delcarmen-Lara?
The issue before the BIA was whether leaving the United States pursuant to Advance Parole constitutes a “departure” under INA § 212(a)(9)(B).
That statute provides, in relevant part, that a person who has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more and then departs the United States may be inadmissible for 10 years following the departure.
In 2012, the BIA held in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly that a temporary departure pursuant to Advance Parole did not constitute a “departure” for purposes of this provision.
That meant that, under Arrabally, certain individuals with unlawful presence could travel internationally pursuant to Advance Parole without thereby triggering the § 212(a)(9)(B) unlawful-presence bar.
Matter of Delcarmen-Lara has now overturned that rule.
The BIA concluded that the ordinary meaning of “departure” includes leaving the United States pursuant to Advance Parole and that the statutory language does not create an exception for Advance Parole travel.
The BIA therefore held that a departure from the United States pursuant to a grant of Advance Parole is a “departure” within the meaning of INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). In doing so, the BIA expressly overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.
Who May Be Affected?
The decision is particularly important for individuals who:
- Have a pending Adjustment of Status application;
- Have accrued substantial unlawful presence in the United States;
- Are relying on Advance Parole to travel internationally; or
- May otherwise be subject to the unlawful-presence inadmissibility provisions of INA § 212(a)(9)(B).
For example, an individual who has accrued one year or more of unlawful presence and subsequently leaves the United States pursuant to Advance Parole may now potentially become subject to the 10-year unlawful-presence bar.
Importantly, this does not mean that every person who travels on Advance Parole will automatically be subject to a three- or ten-year bar. The applicability of INA § 212(a)(9)(B) depends on the individual’s particular immigration history, including the amount and nature of any unlawful presence and whether an exception or waiver applies.
Accordingly, Advance Parole travel should now be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
What About the Three-Year Bar?
INA § 212(a)(9)(B) also contains a three-year inadmissibility provision for certain individuals who accrue more than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence before departing the United States.
The BIA’s decision specifically addresses the definition of “departure” in the context of INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), which concerns one year or more of unlawful presence and the resulting 10-year bar.
Because the BIA has now determined that an Advance Parole departure constitutes a “departure” under § 212(a)(9)(B), however, individuals with shorter periods of unlawful presence should also have their circumstances carefully reviewed before international travel.
The precise application of the decision to a particular individual’s circumstances will depend on the facts of that case and the applicable statutory exceptions.
The Decision Is Prospective
One of the most important aspects of Matter of Delcarmen-Lara is the BIA’s treatment of retroactivity.
The BIA recognized that it was overturning longstanding precedent that had governed Advance Parole travel for more than a decade. The Board therefore addressed whether its new interpretation should be applied retroactively.
The decision is prospective in application.
This is particularly significant for individuals who traveled on Advance Parole before the date of the decision. The BIA did not simply announce that every prior Advance Parole departure should now be treated as having triggered the unlawful-presence bar.
Instead, the Board concluded that the new rule should apply going forward.
Individuals who previously traveled on Advance Parole should nevertheless have their individual immigration histories reviewed before assuming that the decision has no impact on them.
What Should Adjustment Applicants Do Now?
Individuals with pending Adjustment of Status applications should not assume that an approved Advance Parole document makes international travel risk-free.
Before leaving the United States, applicants with any history of unlawful presence should consider having an immigration attorney review:
- When and how they entered the United States;
- Whether and when they began accruing unlawful presence;
- How much unlawful presence they may have accrued;
- Whether any statutory exceptions to unlawful presence apply;
- Whether they have a prior removal order or other immigration violations;
- Whether they have or may require an unlawful-presence waiver;
- Whether they have any other potential grounds of inadmissibility; and
- Whether international travel is advisable at all under their particular circumstances.
This is especially important for individuals who entered the United States without inspection, remained in the United States after their authorized period of stay, or otherwise have a complicated immigration history.
Advance Parole Is Not the Same as Guaranteed Admission
It is also important to understand that Advance Parole is not a guarantee that an individual will be permitted to return to the United States.
Advance Parole generally permits an individual to seek parole upon return. It does not eliminate all grounds of inadmissibility, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection retains authority to inspect travelers seeking entry or parole into the United States.
The new Delcarmen-Lara decision therefore makes it even more important to evaluate international travel before departing the United States.
What This Means for Marriage-Based Adjustment of Status Applicants
The decision may be particularly important for individuals pursuing marriage-based Adjustment of Status.
Many marriage-based adjustment applicants historically relied on Advance Parole to travel internationally while their I-485 applications were pending.
Under Arrabally, Advance Parole generally provided protection against treating the trip itself as a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful-presence bar.
That is no longer the rule under Delcarmen-Lara.
Accordingly, applicants with a history of unlawful presence should consult with immigration counsel before using Advance Parole to travel internationally, even if they have an approved Advance Parole document.
The Bottom Line
Matter of Delcarmen-Lara is a significant change in immigration law.
The BIA has overturned Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly and held that a departure pursuant to Advance Parole may constitute a “departure” for purposes of INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
As a result, certain individuals who have accrued one year or more of unlawful presence may face the 10-year unlawful-presence bar after departing the United States on Advance Parole.
The decision is prospective, but its practical implications for individuals considering international travel are substantial.
If you have a pending Adjustment of Status application and have accrued unlawful presence, you should speak with an experienced immigration attorney before traveling internationally, even if you have already been approved for Advance Parole.
Important Disclaimer
This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is highly fact-specific, and the consequences of international travel can vary significantly depending on an individual’s immigration history. The information in this article reflects the law and BIA precedent as of August 13, 2026 and may change as courts, agencies, or Congress take further action. Individuals should consult with qualified immigration counsel regarding their specific circumstances before traveling outside the United States.
Contact
If you have any questions, please contact us at josh@wildeslaw.com.
