Leaving the US on Advance Parole? You could now risk a 10-year return bar

US immigration: Advance Parole travel can now trigger 10-year bar - what applicants need to know

A trip outside the US that was once considered relatively safe for some immigrants with Advance Parole could now carry a potentially severe consequence: a three- or 10-year bar on returning to the country.

 

In a major immigration decision issued on August 13, 2026, the US Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overturned its 2012 precedent in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly. In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, the Board held that leaving the US under Advance Parole constitutes a "departure" for purposes of the unlawful-presence provisions of US immigration law.

 

That matters because people who have accumulated enough unlawful presence can face a three-year or 10-year inadmissibility bar after departing the US.

   

The decision is prospective, meaning the BIA specifically declined to apply its new interpretation retroactively.

 

What is Advance Parole?

 

Advance Parole is a travel document that can allow certain non-US citizens with pending immigration applications or qualifying immigration status to leave the US and seek permission to return without obtaining a visa specifically for that return trip.

 

It is commonly relevant to people with a pending Form I-485 adjustment-of-status application, as well as certain DACA and other humanitarian categories.

 

For example, imagine someone who entered the US without inspection years ago, later became eligible to pursue a green card through a US-citizen spouse and obtained Advance Parole while their adjustment application was pending.

 

Under the old BIA precedent, travelling abroad on Advance Parole generally did not count as the "departure" that triggered the three- or 10-year unlawful-presence bars.

 

That protection has now been removed.

 

What did the old rule say?

 

The key case was Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, decided by the BIA in 2012.

 

For more than a decade, the decision was understood to mean that a person who left the US pursuant to Advance Parole had not made a "departure" for purposes of INA Section 212(a)(9)(B).

 

That distinction was enormously important.

 

Under the unlawful-presence rules:

 

More than 180 days but less than one year of qualifying unlawful presence can result in a three-year bar after departure.

One year or more can result in a 10-year bar after departure.

 

The previous Advance Parole interpretation meant that certain people who would otherwise face those consequences could travel and return under parole without triggering the unlawful-presence bar.

 

A 2025 practice advisory from the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) described the Arrabally rule as providing that Advance Parole travel was not a "departure" for purposes of INA §212(a)(9)(B).

 

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) likewise cited Arrabally and Yerrabelly in discussing adjustment-of-status cases involving DACA beneficiaries and Advance Parole.

 

What has changed now?

 

The BIA has taken the opposite view.

 

In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, the Board concluded that travelling outside the US under Advance Parole does constitute a departure under the unlawful-presence statute.

 

The result is potentially dramatic.

 

Consider a hypothetical applicant who:

 

• entered the US without inspection;
• accumulated more than one year of qualifying unlawful presence;
• subsequently became eligible to apply for a green card inside the US;
• obtained Advance Parole; and
• leaves the US after the new decision.

 

Under the new interpretation, that departure can trigger the 10-year unlawful-presence bar.

 

The same reasoning can apply to someone with more than 180 days but less than one year of qualifying unlawful presence, potentially resulting in the three-year bar.

 

It does not mean everyone travelling on Advance Parole gets a 10-year ban

 

This is an important distinction.

 

The ruling does not mean that every person with Advance Parole who travels outside the US will automatically receive a 10-year ban.

 

The unlawful-presence bars depend on the individual's immigration history and the amount of qualifying unlawful presence accumulated before departure.

 

For someone who has not accumulated the relevant amount of unlawful presence, this particular three- or 10-year bar may not apply.

 

And "being out of status" and "accruing unlawful presence" are not necessarily identical concepts. The calculation can depend on the person's immigration history, age, status, pending applications and other circumstances.

 

That is why immigration lawyers are urging applicants to look at their individual history rather than assuming that an approved Advance Parole document makes travel safe.

 

What about people with a pending green-card application?

 

This is another major group affected by the development.

 

Suppose an Indian national in the US has a pending I-485 application based on marriage to a US citizen. They previously overstayed a visa for more than a year but later became eligible to adjust status.

 

Before travelling, they obtain Advance Parole.

 

Previously, Arrabally provided an important protection against triggering the unlawful-presence bar through that Advance Parole trip.

 

Under Delcarmen-Lara, the applicant may now trigger the bar by leaving.

 

This creates a potentially difficult situation because Advance Parole remains a travel document, but it is no longer a blanket solution to the unlawful-presence problem.

 

An immigration law firm, Herman Legal Group, has separately cautioned that people with prior unlawful presence, visa overstays or status violations need to assess the risks before travelling with a pending I-485.