A Major Change for Advance Parole: What Matter of Delcarmen-Lara Means for You

If you’ve traveled abroad on advance parole – or you’re planning to – there’s important news out of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On August 13, 2026, the BIA issued a new precedent decision, Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), that overturns a rule immigrants have relied on for over a decade. Here’s what happened and what it means, in plain English.

The short version

For the last 14 years, people who left the United States on advance parole and came back generally didn’t have to worry that the trip itself would trigger the harsh 3-year or 10-year reentry bars that apply to people who were unlawfully present. The BIA has now reversed that rule. Going forward, the Board says a trip abroad on advance parole does count as a “departure” that can trigger those bars if you had accrued enough unlawful presence beforehand.

This is a big deal for DACA recipients and anyone else who used advance parole as a bridge to a green card, because it changes the evaluation around whether it’s safe to travel.

Some background: what is advance parole, and what changed in 2012

Advance parole is permission from the government to leave the United States temporarily and be let back in, without abandoning a pending application (like a green card application) or a status like DACA. People use it to travel for work, school, family emergencies, or humanitarian reasons.

Separately, immigration law has a rule that punishes people who were “unlawfully present” in the U.S. and then leave. Under INA § 212(a)(9)(B), someone who accrues more than 180 days of unlawful presence and then departs can be barred from reentry for 3 years; someone who accrues a year or more can be barred for 10 years.

For a long time, it wasn’t clear whether leaving on advance parole counted as a “departure” for purposes of that bar. In 2012, in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), the BIA said no – a trip authorized by advance parole wasn’t the kind of “departure” the statute was written to punish, because the person always intended to return and the government had pre-approved the trip. That decision made it much safer for people, especially DACA recipients with a pending or eventual path to a green card, to travel on advance parole without worrying that the trip itself would create a reentry bar.

What the BIA decided in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara

The case involved a woman from El Salvador who had an old removal order from 2006, later got DACA, and asked the immigration court to reopen her case so she could apply to adjust her status to a green card. She argued that a trip she took abroad on advance parole in January 2024 helped make her eligible.

The Board used this case to revisit – and overrule – Arrabally and Yerrabelly. Reading the statute’s plain language, the Board found no exception in the text for departures made under advance parole, and pointed out that Congress knew how to write advance-parole-specific exceptions elsewhere in the law when it wanted to, but didn’t do so here. Based on that reading, the Board held that a departure under a grant of advance parole is a “departure” that can trigger the unlawful presence bars.

Importantly, the Board also said this new rule applies prospectively – meaning going forward, not retroactively to trips people already took under the old rule. In the respondent’s own case, the Board didn’t even decide whether her 2024 trip triggered a bar; it denied her motion to reopen for separate, procedural reasons (it was filed too late and it was a second such motion, both of which are independently disqualifying).

Why this matters

If you accrued unlawful presence before getting DACA or another status or filed an application for adjustment of status, and you’re weighing whether to travel on advance parole, this decision means that trip could now expose you to a 3-year or 10-year bar on future admission – a risk that, before this decision, most attorneys would have told you didn’t apply to advance parole travel. That risk can potentially be addressed with a waiver (like an I-601A provisional waiver) in some cases, but that adds a real layer of complexity, cost, and uncertainty that wasn’t part of the calculation before.

Because the decision is brand new, expect it to be litigated, possibly appealed, and possibly addressed by agency guidance in the months ahead. If you have travel on advance parole planned, or you’re in the middle of an adjustment of status case, this is a good time to talk to an immigration attorney before you make any decisions.

FAQ

Does this mean advance parole travel is now illegal or that DACA is ending? No. Advance parole itself is still a valid, lawful form of travel authorization, and this decision doesn’t touch DACA as a program. What changed is a narrower legal question: whether that kind of trip can trigger the unlawful presence reentry bars in INA § 212(a)(9)(B). It can now.

Who is actually affected by this? Mainly people who accrued unlawful presence in the U.S. before getting DACA or filing an application for adjustment of status, and who have traveled – or are considering traveling – on advance parole while that unlawful presence history exists. If you never accrued unlawful presence, or your unlawful presence was excused for another reason, this ruling has less bearing on your situation.

I already traveled on advance parole years ago. Does this decision apply to my past trip? The Board said the new rule applies prospectively, not retroactively, and it specifically declined to decide whether the respondent’s own 2024 trip triggered a bar. That’s a strong signal that past trips taken in reliance on the old rule are treated differently, but the exact boundaries of “prospective” (for example, exactly which filing or travel dates are covered) are not yet fully settled. This is exactly the kind of question to bring to an attorney rather than assume an answer.

I have advance parole and a trip planned. Should I cancel it? Don’t make that call based on a blog post. Whether this decision affects you depends on your specific immigration history, including how much unlawful presence you accrued and when. Talk to an immigration attorney before you travel so they can look at your specific timeline.

What is the “unlawful presence bar” this decision is about? It’s a rule in INA § 212(a)(9)(B) that says if you were unlawfully present in the U.S. for more than 180 days and then depart, you can be barred from returning for 3 years; if you were unlawfully present for a year or more, the bar is 10 years. These bars can sometimes be waived (for example, with an I-601A provisional waiver or I-601) if you can show extreme hardship to a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent.

I already left and came back on advance parole – do I need to file an I-601 now? Possibly. If you’re already back in the U.S. and adjusting status through a Form I-485, the waiver you’d file if you’re found inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(9)(B) is the standard Form I-601 (Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility), filed with or after your adjustment application. However, to qualify for the I-601 waiver of the unlawful presence bar, you have to show that your denial would cause “extreme hardship” to a qualifying U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent (a qualifying child doesn’t count for this particular waiver). If you don’t have a qualifying relative, you are not eligible for the waiver. Whether you even need to file one – and whether Delcarmen-Lara actually applies to your specific trip – depends on timing and facts an attorney needs to review with you, so don’t file anything before getting a case-specific assessment.

What was Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, and why does it keep coming up? It was the 2012 BIA decision that this new case overrules. It held that leaving the U.S. on advance parole wasn’t a “departure” that could trigger the unlawful presence bars. For 14 years, that decision was the reason many DACA recipients and adjustment applicants felt comfortable traveling on advance parole.

Is this decision final, or could it change again? It’s a published BIA precedent decision, so it’s binding on immigration judges and the Board unless and until it’s overturned by a federal court of appeals, the Attorney General, or a future Board decision – or unless Congress or the agencies step in with new rules or guidance. Given how significant this reversal is, it’s reasonable to expect continued legal challenges and possibly further developments.

Where can I read the decision myself? The full decision, Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4233, is published by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and is publicly available on the Department of Justice’s website.

QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CASE?

We’re here to help. Every case is different. Contact the Law Office of Lina Baroudi to schedule a consultation and get answers about your specific situation.

Disclaimer: This article is for general information only. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration rules change quickly, and how they apply depends on the facts of each case. Please speak with a qualified immigration attorney about your own situation before making any decisions.