New Immigration Decision Changes Advance Parole Travel Rules

On August 13, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued an important decision concerning travel outside the United States with advance parole. In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, the Board held that leaving the United States with advance parole can count as a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful-presence bars. The decision changes a rule that had been in place since 2012.

What Changed?

Under U.S. immigration law, certain immigrants who accumulate unlawful presence and then leave the United States may become inadmissible:

• More than 180 days of unlawful presence may result in a three-year bar; and
• One year or more of unlawful presence may result in a ten-year bar.

The exact calculation depends on the person’s immigration history and other circumstances.

For many years, the Board’s decision in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly provided that travel with advance parole was not considered a departure that triggered these unlawful-presence bars. The Board has now overruled that decision. Under Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, travel with advance parole can be treated as a departure.

Who May Be Affected?

The decision may affect immigrants who:

• Previously accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence;
• Are currently inside the United States;
• Have received or applied for an advance-parole document; and
• Are considering international travel.

This may include some applicants for adjustment of status and some individuals with DACA or other forms of temporary immigration protection. However, the decision does not affect everyone with advance parole. A person who did not accumulate sufficient unlawful presence may not trigger a three- or ten-year bar by traveling. Time before age 18 and certain other periods may not count as unlawful presence. The calculation can be complicated and should be reviewed individually.

What About Pending Green Card Applications?

The decision does not automatically deny or cancel a pending green card application. The principal concern arises when a person with sufficient prior unlawful presence leaves the United States with advance parole. Although parole may allow the person to return and may satisfy one requirement for adjustment of status, the departure may also create an inadmissibility problem. An approved advance-parole document therefore does not necessarily mean that international travel is legally safe.

What About Earlier Travel?

The Board stated that its new rule will apply prospectively. This suggests that advance-parole travel completed before August 13, 2026, should not be treated under the new rule merely because an immigration application remains pending. Nevertheless, USCIS may issue additional guidance explaining how it will apply the decision in particular situations.

What Should Applicants Do?

Anyone who has accumulated possible unlawful presence should obtain an individual review of their immigration history before traveling with advance parole. The review should include:

• The person’s complete entry and departure history;
• Periods of lawful status or authorized stay;
• DACA, TPS, asylum, or adjustment application dates;
• Any prior removal proceedings or removal order; and
• The immigration benefit being requested.

The safest conclusion is not that advance parole can never be used. Rather, an approved travel document should not be treated as a guarantee that leaving the United States will have no immigration consequences.

Conclusion

Matter of Delcarmen-Lara represents a significant change in how advance-parole travel may affect immigrants with prior unlawful presence. It does not create a general bar against pending or future immigration applications, but it makes careful legal review especially important before international travel.

You can read the complete BIA decision here.

Consultation

If you have questions about advance parole, unlawful presence, or a pending application for adjustment of status, contact the Law Offices of Sean D. Hummel to schedule a consultation.

Disclaimer

This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration cases are fact-specific, and the result depends on the individual’s complete immigration history.

About the Author

Sean D. Hummel is a South Florida immigration attorney who represents individuals and families in immigration and naturalization matters before USCIS and the immigration courts.