A new Board of Immigration Appeals decision overturned a 2012 precedent, changing how advance-parole departures can affect the 3- and 10-year unlawful-presence bars. Here’s what DACA recipients need to know before traveling.
A trip outside the United States can mean something very different for some DACA recipients today than it did just days ago.
On Aug. 13, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) overturned a 14-year-old precedent that had protected certain immigrants who temporarily left the country using advance parole from being treated as having made a “departure” for purposes of federal unlawful-presence bars.
The new decision, Matter of Milagro Delcarmen-Lara, says that leaving the United States under advance parole does count as a departure under the immigration law governing certain three- and 10-year bars. The BIA expressly overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, the 2012 decision that had provided the earlier protection.
For DACA recipients considering international travel, the practical question is no longer simply:
“Can I get advance parole?”
It is:
“What could happen to my immigration case if I leave the country?”
The answer depends heavily on a person’s immigration history.
The short answer: Advance parole still exists. Its legal consequences have changed.
First, an important distinction.
The new BIA decision does not eliminate advance parole for DACA recipients.
USCIS continues to provide information about advance parole and the filing of Form I-131, the application used to request certain travel documents. Its current Form I-131 page also specifically alerts applicants to the Aug. 13 BIA decision and its potential significance.
For DACA recipients, advance parole can still be requested for qualifying travel, including certain humanitarian, educational and employment purposes. USCIS’s DACA guidance explains the circumstances under which advance parole may be available.
But the BIA has now changed how the government interprets what happens when someone actually leaves the United States under that document.
That change could be consequential for people who have accumulated qualifying unlawful presence before traveling.
And because the consequences can affect future immigration benefits, getting advance parole is no longer the only question that needs to be answered before a trip.
The dispute centered on a relatively technical word with enormous consequences:
“Departure.”
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person who has been unlawfully present in the United States for one year or more and then seeks admission within 10 years of departing can be inadmissible under INA §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). The BIA’s decision directly addresses this provision.
In 2012, the BIA decided Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.
That decision held that a person who temporarily left the United States under advance parole did not make the type of “departure” that triggered the unlawful-presence bar under §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II).
For more than a decade, that interpretation became an important part of immigration planning for some people seeking permanent residence.
Now it is gone.
In Delcarmen-Lara, the BIA concluded that a departure under advance parole is a departure under that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act and expressly overruled Arrabally and Yerrabelly.
The respondent in Delcarmen-Lara was a DACA recipient.
According to the BIA’s decision, she was granted DACA in 2013 and later sought to pursue adjustment of status based on an approved immigrant petition filed by her husband. She had temporarily left the United States and returned under advance parole in January 2024.
That matters because it illustrates how advance parole can intersect with a person’s broader effort to obtain permanent residence.
But there is another important point:
The ruling is not technically a DACA-only rule.
The BIA’s legal holding concerns the meaning of “departure” under §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). Its decision says the new interpretation applies to people who become inadmissible under that provision after a temporary trip abroad under advance parole.
So DACA recipients are a particularly important audience for this story, but other immigrants who use advance parole may also need to understand the change.
What are the three- and 10-year bars?
This is where immigration terminology can become confusing.
In simplified terms, federal immigration law can impose:
A three-year bar: when someone has accumulated more than 180 days but less than one year of qualifying unlawful presence and then departs.
A 10-year bar: when someone has accumulated one year or more of qualifying unlawful presence and then departs.
The new BIA ruling means that an advance-parole trip can now constitute the departure relevant to §212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II). Matter of Delcarmen-Lara – BIA decision
But that does not mean every DACA recipient who travels automatically receives a three- or 10-year bar.
The person’s immigration history matters.
What the ruling does and does not mean
It does mean:
- Advance-parole travel can now count as a “departure” under the specific unlawful-presence provision addressed by the BIA.
- Some people with sufficient qualifying unlawful presence could face serious inadmissibility consequences after leaving.
- The change can affect strategies involving adjustment of status.
- The old Arrabally and Yerrabelly protection has been overturned. Read the BIA’s ruling
It does not mean:
- Every DACA recipient has a three- or 10-year bar.
- DACA recipients can no longer request advance parole.
- Every advance-parole trip automatically creates a bar.
- DACA itself has been eliminated.
- Congress has created or eliminated a general path from DACA to citizenship.
- Previous trips are automatically subject to the new interpretation.
That last point is particularly important.
What about people who already traveled?
The BIA specifically addressed this question.
Because it was overturning longstanding precedent, the Board conducted a retroactivity analysis and concluded that the new holding should be applied prospectively.
The Board recognized that Arrabally and Yerrabelly had been longstanding and that people had relied upon it. It therefore declined to apply the new interpretation retroactively.
That means readers should not assume that the new rule automatically turns an earlier advance-parole trip into a new violation.
But immigration cases are highly fact-specific.
Someone with a previous trip, a pending green-card case, a removal order or another complicated immigration history should not rely on a general news article to determine the outcome of their individual case.
Why advance parole mattered to some green-card strategies
This is another area where misinformation can spread quickly.
Advance parole is not itself a green-card pathway.
Rather, for certain immigrants, the ability to travel and return under advance parole could interact with the requirements for adjustment of status and other immigration strategies.
The BIA’s decision directly acknowledges that its new interpretation represents a significant change concerning adjustment-of-status eligibility.
That is why the decision could matter to a DACA recipient who has an approved family- or employment-based immigrant petition.
The important distinction is:
DACA does not automatically give someone a green card. And advance parole does not automatically give someone a green card.
A DACA recipient may have another potential immigration avenue. The new ruling can change the risk calculation surrounding travel within that broader strategy.
DACA does not erase every immigration issue from the past
USCIS explains that DACA provides deferred action and, for eligible recipients, employment authorization. But DACA itself does not confer lawful immigration status.
That distinction can become particularly important when reconstructing someone’s immigration history.
A person’s time before receiving DACA, gaps in protection and other circumstances can matter.
That’s why a simple question such as:
“I have DACA, so do I have unlawful presence?”
may not have a simple answer.
For that reason, a person considering international travel should have their individual history reviewed rather than relying solely on a DACA approval notice or advance-parole document.
A DACA recipient considering advance parole should not assume that having an approved travel document answers every immigration question.
A lawyer or DOJ-accredited representative may need to examine issues including:
- when you entered the United States;
- how you entered;
- whether you previously had lawful status;
- whether and when you accumulated unlawful presence;
- when DACA began;
- whether there were gaps in DACA;
- whether you have ever had a removal order;
- whether you have a pending immigrant petition;
- whether you are considering adjustment of status; and
- whether any other immigration violations or waivers are involved.
USCIS’s current Form I-131 guidance is especially important to review because the agency now specifically flags the Aug. 13 BIA decision for people dealing with travel-document applications.
What reasons qualify for DACA advance parole?
Advance parole is not intended simply for vacation.
USCIS guidance identifies qualifying circumstances that can include:
Humanitarian reasons — such as medical treatment, visiting an ill relative or attending a family member’s funeral.
Educational reasons — such as study abroad or certain academic activities.
Employment reasons — such as overseas assignments, training or other qualifying employment-related travel.
DACA recipients should review the current USCIS requirements before submitting Form I-131 because eligibility and filing requirements can change.
And an advance-parole document is not the same thing as an unrestricted visa or an absolute guarantee that every immigration issue will be resolved at the border.
What should DACA recipients do now?
1. Don’t make an international travel decision based only on your DACA status.
The new legal standard makes the individual’s immigration history more important.
2. If you are considering advance parole, have your history reviewed before leaving.
Ask specifically about unlawful presence and INA §212(a)(9)(B).
3. If you are pursuing a family- or employment-based green card, tell your immigration lawyer about planned travel.
The BIA specifically recognized that its new interpretation can affect adjustment-of-status eligibility.
4. If you already traveled under advance parole, don’t panic—but don’t assume you’re unaffected either.
The BIA said its new holding applies prospectively. Your individual circumstances still matter. Read the BIA’s prospective-application ruling
5. Don’t rely on an unlicensed “notario” for legal advice.
Use a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-accredited representative when you need individualized immigration advice.
Don’t confuse the new travel ruling with DACA renewal
The advance-parole decision is separate from DACA renewal, but both are part of the same larger reality: immigration rules can change quickly, and delays or mistakes can have real consequences.
Parriva has been following the issue closely, including our recent report, “Months-Long DACA Renewal Delays Leave Many Without Work.” The story explains how prolonged USCIS processing delays have left some DACA recipients waiting months for renewed work authorization.
Parriva also recently reported on DACA renewal rejections and the growing USCIS backlog, another development that shows why DACA recipients need to monitor both their current protection and the broader immigration landscape.
USCIS continues to provide DACA renewal information through its official DACA guidance, including information about advance parole and employment authorization. USCIS DACA information
If your DACA is approaching expiration, don’t wait until the last minute to understand your options.
The BIA’s decision is a major administrative precedent, but immigration law does not stop evolving with one agency decision.
The Board itself acknowledged an Eleventh Circuit decision that had previously applied the Arrabally interpretation, while concluding that the earlier precedent did not prevent the Board from revisiting the issue.
That means future litigation and additional legal developments could affect how the decision operates.
For DACA recipients and other immigrants considering advance parole, however, the immediate lesson is simpler:
Don’t assume yesterday’s immigration strategy still works today.
The Aug. 13 BIA decision did not eliminate DACA or create a new citizenship ban.
It changed something narrower—but potentially very consequential.
For more than a decade, Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly meant that certain temporary trips under advance parole were not treated as “departures” for purposes of the unlawful-presence bars in §212(a)(9)(B).
Now, under Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, they can be.
The BIA says the new interpretation applies prospectively, and the consequences depend on whether a person falls within the statutory unlawful-presence provisions. Matter of Delcarmen-Lara — official BIA decision
For someone with DACA, that can turn an ordinary family visit, medical trip, educational opportunity or work assignment into a much more complicated immigration decision.
Before leaving the United States, know your immigration history—and have a qualified professional evaluate how the new rule could affect your case.
This article provides general information and is not individualized legal advice. Immigration law is highly fact-specific. Readers considering international travel or an immigration application should consult a licensed immigration attorney or DOJ-accredited representative.
