On Aug. 13, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a precedential decision in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, overruling Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly (2012). The BIA held that travel outside the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole constitutes a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful presence inadmissibility provisions under INA Section 212(a)(9)(B). 

For more than a decade, Arrabally allowed individuals who had accrued unlawful presence to travel on advance parole without triggering the three-year or 10-year unlawful presence bars upon return. The BIA has now rejected that interpretation, concluding that the statute does not provide an exception for travel authorized through advance parole. 

What Changed? 

The BIA found that the plain language of INA Section 212(a)(9)(B) treats a departure under advance parole the same as any other departure from the United States. As a result, individuals who have accrued more than one year of unlawful presence may become subject to the 10-year inadmissibility bar upon departing the United States, even if travel is authorized through advance parole. 

Why It Matters 

This decision is relevant to individuals who have accrued unlawful presence and are considering international travel on advance parole. The ruling may affect: 

• Adjustment of status applicants who entered the United States without inspection or who previously accrued unlawful presence and rely on a subsequent advance parole entry to pursue a green card; 

• DACA recipients who travel pursuant to advance parole; 

• TPS beneficiaries who travel on advance parole; 

• Individuals with prior periods of unlawful presence; and 

• Anyone considering international travel while relying on advance parole as part of a future immigration strategy. 

The decision does not affect all adjustment applicants equally. The greatest impact is likely on individuals who accrued sufficient unlawful presence to trigger the three-year or 10-year bars and who previously relied on Arrabally to travel abroad without immigration consequences. 

Prospective Application 

The BIA determined that the new rule will apply prospectively, recognizing that many individuals relied on Arrabally when making travel decisions. As a result, individuals who previously traveled on advance parole in reliance on Arrabally may be protected from the impact of this ruling. 

The precise scope of the BIA’s prospective application holding may be addressed in future litigation and agency guidance. 

Practical Implications 

Before traveling on advance parole, individuals with any history of unlawful presence should consider consulting immigration counsel to evaluate the potential consequences of departure. Travel that was previously considered low-risk under Arrabally may now trigger inadmissibility and complicate future adjustment of status or other immigration benefits. 

Key Takeaways 

• The BIA overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly. 

• Travel on advance parole is now considered a “departure” for purposes of INA Section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). 

• Individuals with one year or more of unlawful presence may trigger the 10-year inadmissibility bar by departing the United States, even on advance parole. 

• The decision applies prospectively rather than retroactively. 

• Individuals with prior unlawful presence should evaluate the risks of international travel before using advance parole.