Advance Parole Can Now Trigger the 10-Year Bar: What Matter of Delcarmen-Lara Means

Developing legal update: This article explains a precedential decision issued today. USCIS has not yet reconciled all of its public guidance with the new ruling. We will update this page as the agency or federal courts provide additional guidance.

Start here, in plain English

A recent decision changed one rule about travel. If your green card application is in progress and you leave the country on a document called Advance Parole, that trip can now count against you in a way it did not before.

Here is what most headlines skip. This only turns into a real problem if two things are both true. First, you spent a long stretch of time in the U.S. without legal status. Second, you then travel. If you kept valid status the whole time, or you are married to a U.S. citizen and plan to get your green card without leaving the country, this most likely changes nothing for you.

If you have ever been out of status, the safe move is simple. Do not travel on Advance Parole until an immigration attorney has reviewed your full history. Most people in this situation do not need to travel to get their green card anyway.

And one thing that gets confused a lot. This decision is only about whether your trip counts against you later. It does not decide whether you are allowed back in at the border. That is a separate question, enforcement at the border can be unpredictable right now, and officers may treat this decision as bigger than it legally is. That is one more reason not to travel on Advance Parole right now if there is any doubt.

On August 13, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals changed a rule that Green Card applicants had relied on for more than a decade.

In Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), the Board held that leaving the United States with Advance Parole counts as a "departure" for purposes of the 10-year unlawful-presence bar. The Board expressly overruled its 2012 decision in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly.

That sounds as if nobody can safely use Advance Parole anymore. That is not what the decision says.

The decision becomes a serious problem when these facts come together:

• The person accumulated one year or more of unlawful presence in the United States;

• The person leaves the United States with Advance Parole after the new rule takes effect; and

• The person seeks admission or Adjustment of Status within 10 years of that departure.

If the person did not accumulate enough unlawful presence to trigger a bar, this particular decision does not create one merely because the person traveled. If the person has already received a Green Card, this decision does not govern ordinary travel as a permanent resident.

The practical warning is narrower but still significant: an approved Advance Parole document is no longer a reliable shield against the unlawful-presence bar.

The short version

Already have your Green Card? This decision does not apply to your travel as a lawful permanent resident. Normal permanent-resident travel rules still apply.

Your Green Card application is pending, but you maintained valid status and did not accumulate unlawful presence? This decision does not create a 10-year bar merely because you travel with Advance Parole.

You overstayed or otherwise may have accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence? Do not assume that you cannot travel, but do not leave the United States until an experienced immigration attorney has reviewed your complete timeline.

You completed an Advance Parole trip before August 13, 2026? The strongest reading of the decision is that the old rule continues to protect that completed trip.

USCIS approved your Advance Parole before August 13, but you have not traveled yet? The approval date does not appear to protect a later departure. The important event is the departure itself.

What Advance Parole Does and Does Not Do

Advance Parole is a travel document that allows certain noncitizens to present themselves at a U.S. port of entry and request parole after temporary international travel.

For many people with a pending Form I-485, traveling without Advance Parole causes USCIS to treat the Adjustment of Status application as abandoned. Traveling with approved Advance Parole generally prevents that abandonment consequence.

But Advance Parole has never guaranteed entry. When the traveler returns, Customs and Border Protection still makes a separate discretionary decision about whether to parole the person into the United States.

After Delcarmen-Lara, it is especially important to separate three different questions:

1. Will the pending I-485 be treated as abandoned because the applicant traveled? Advance Parole may prevent abandonment.

2. Will CBP allow the applicant to return? Advance Parole permits the person to request parole, but it does not guarantee that CBP will grant it.

3. Will USCIS ultimately be able to approve the Green Card? If the trip triggered an unlawful-presence bar, the person may be inadmissible even if CBP paroled the person back into the country.

This distinction matters more than almost anything else here, so it is worth saying plainly. This decision is only about the third question, whether the trip counts against you for the green card. It does not decide the second question, whether the border lets you back in. Those are separate.

And in practice, expect border officers to treat this decision as broader than it legally is. Even where the law is on your side, the border may not feel that way, which is one more reason to have your timeline reviewed before any travel.

In other words, a person could preserve the pending application, be paroled back into the United States, and still face denial of the Green Card because the departure created a separate inadmissibility problem.

What changed under Matter of Delcarmen-Lara?

The 10-year bar applies to a non-permanent resident who accumulated one year or more of unlawful presence, departed or was removed from the United States, and then seeks admission within 10 years of that departure or removal.

Under Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, a temporary trip with Advance Parole was not treated as a "departure" for this purpose. That meant someone could have substantial unlawful presence, travel with government-approved Advance Parole, return, and continue pursuing Adjustment of Status without that trip triggering the 10-year bar.

The Board has now adopted the opposite interpretation. It concluded that the ordinary meaning of "departure" includes physically leaving the country with Advance Parole because Congress did not write an Advance Parole exception into this part of the statute.

The result is counterintuitive: USCIS can approve a travel document, but using that document can still create an inadmissibility problem.

Approval of Form I-131 therefore should not be understood as a finding that USCIS reviewed the applicant's entire immigration history or decided that international travel is legally safe.

What is unlawful presence?

Unlawful presence is not always the same as being "out of status," and it is not determined solely by whether the visa stamp in a passport has expired.

For many nonimmigrants, the starting point is the expiration of the authorized stay shown on Form I-94. A visa stamp is primarily an entry document. It can expire while the person remains in a valid authorized stay, and a person's authorized stay can end even while the visa stamp remains unexpired.

Some periods generally do not count as unlawful presence. Examples may include:

• Time before the person turns 18;

• Time during which a valid grant of DACA is in effect;

• Certain periods protected by TPS or another authorized stay; and

• The period during which a properly filed Form I-485 remains pending, under the applicable USCIS rules.

These protections generally stop additional unlawful-presence accrual. They do not erase unlawful presence accumulated earlier.

The calculation can become complicated when the person had DACA renewal gaps, a pending extension or change-of-status request, an admission for "duration of status," an asylum application, TPS, prior departures, removal proceedings, or other unusual circumstances. It should not be estimated from memory before international travel.

What about the three-year bar?

The published holding in Delcarmen-Lara directly interprets the 10-year-bar provision, which concerns one year or more of unlawful presence.

A related provision creates a three-year bar in certain cases involving more than 180 days but less than one year of unlawful presence. That provision has additional statutory language, including language concerning departure before the commencement of removal proceedings.

The Board did not separately analyze that provision in this decision. Nevertheless, its broad reasoning, that travel with Advance Parole is a departure unless Congress created a specific exception, may be applied to the three-year bar as well. Current national immigration alerts are already advising travelers to evaluate both bars.

Until USCIS or the courts provide more specific guidance, anyone who may have accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence should obtain individual legal advice before departing with Advance Parole.

Why this matters so much in marriage-based Adjustment of Status

Marriage-based Adjustment of Status contains a rule that frequently causes confusion here.

The spouse of a U.S. citizen is an "immediate relative." Certain Adjustment of Status bars involving an overstay, failure to maintain status, or unauthorized employment do not apply to immediate relatives.

That is why someone who entered legally, overstayed, married a U.S. citizen, and remained inside the United States may still be eligible to adjust status.

But that immediate-relative protection does not erase unlawful presence, and it is not a waiver of the inadmissibility grounds in INA § 212(a)(9)(B).

The same person may therefore be eligible for a Green Card while remaining inside the United States but create a three- or ten-year-bar problem by leaving.

Example 1: A long visa overstay

Maria entered the United States as a visitor. Her Form I-94 authorized her to remain until January 1, 2024. She stayed in the United States, married a U.S. citizen, and properly filed Form I-485 on March 1, 2026.

Maria accumulated more than two years of potential unlawful presence before filing Form I-485.

Because she is the immediate relative of a U.S. citizen and entered legally, the overstay itself may not prevent her from adjusting status while she remains inside the United States.

If Maria departs with Advance Parole after August 13, 2026, however, that departure can trigger the 10-year bar. CBP might parole her back into the United States, but USCIS could later determine that it cannot approve her Form I-485 unless she obtains a waiver or otherwise overcomes the bar.

For Maria, an optional vacation could turn a straightforward Adjustment of Status filing into a waiver situation.

Example 2: A shorter overstay

Daniel entered as a visitor, remained four months beyond the authorized period on his Form I-94, and then properly filed Form I-485 based on marriage to a U.S. citizen.

Four months is less than 180 days. Assuming no other period counts as unlawful presence, this particular period would not reach the statutory threshold for either the three- or ten-year bar.

That does not make travel automatically risk-free. Advance Parole never guarantees parole, and other immigration facts can matter. But Delcarmen-Lara does not create a 10-year bar where the required unlawful-presence period does not exist.

Example 3: The applicant maintained valid status

Leila entered in valid H-1B status, maintained that status until properly filing Form I-485 through her U.S.-citizen spouse, and did not accumulate unlawful presence.

If she later travels with Advance Parole, the trip now counts as a departure. But a departure alone is not enough to create the 10-year bar. Because Leila did not first accumulate the required unlawful presence, this particular inadmissibility ground does not apply.

Other travel rules, including rules specific to H-1B travel and continued employment, still require attention.

Example 4: DACA received before unlawful presence began

Sofia entered without inspection as a young child. She received DACA before turning 18 and renewed it without gaps. Because time before age 18 generally does not count and valid DACA generally stops unlawful-presence accrual, she may have no unlawful presence for purposes of this bar.

If Sofia receives Advance Parole and travels after August 13, 2026, the departure itself does not automatically trigger the 10-year bar. There must first be one year or more of unlawful presence.

The return on parole may still satisfy the "inspected and paroled" requirement needed for a later marriage-based Adjustment of Status filing, assuming she is otherwise eligible.

Her full history still requires review. A DACA gap, prior removal order, prior departure, false claim, criminal issue, or another inadmissibility ground can change the result.

Example 5: DACA received after substantial unlawful presence

Mateo entered as a child but did not receive DACA until age 21. He may have accumulated several years of unlawful presence after turning 18 and before DACA began.

DACA may stop additional accrual while it is valid, but it does not erase those earlier years.

If Mateo now departs using Advance Parole, the trip can trigger the 10-year bar. The traditional strategy of using DACA-based Advance Parole to obtain a parole entry for marriage-based Adjustment of Status may therefore create a new inadmissibility problem for someone with his timeline.

Example 6: Advance Parole travel completed before the decision

Ana accumulated unlawful presence but completed an Advance Parole trip in 2024. She returned to the United States and plans to file a marriage-based Form I-485 after August 13, 2026.

The strongest reading of Delcarmen-Lara is that Ana's completed 2024 trip remains governed by Arrabally. The Board expressly made its new rule prospective and declined to determine whether the respondent's own January 2024 Advance Parole trip was a triggering departure.

The later filing date should not retroactively change the legal character of Ana's earlier trip. Nevertheless, because DHS has not yet issued detailed implementation guidance, applicants relying on prior Advance Parole travel should preserve all travel records and obtain individual advice if unlawful presence is part of the history.

Example 7: Green Card already approved

Noah used Advance Parole while his application was pending and later received his Green Card.

This decision does not govern Noah's later travel as a lawful permanent resident. The unlawful-presence provision at issue expressly excludes lawful permanent residents, and he no longer travels using Advance Parole.

Normal Green Card travel rules still apply. Long absences, possible abandonment of residence, criminal history, removal proceedings, fraud, or other complications can create separate problems, but they are not the new rule announced in Delcarmen-Lara.

What about TPS travel authorization?

TPS travel needs to be treated separately and cautiously.

Current TPS travel is generally authorized through Form I-512T under INA § 244(f)(3). USCIS policy treats an eligible TPS beneficiary returning from authorized travel as inspected and admitted into TPS. USCIS guidance has also treated authorized TPS travel favorably for unlawful-presence purposes.

Delcarmen-Lara expressly concerns departure under Advance Parole and does not separately analyze the modern TPS travel-authorization framework. But because it overrules the precedent on which USCIS relied, existing USCIS TPS guidance now requires reconciliation with the new decision.

Until USCIS updates that guidance, a TPS beneficiary who accumulated substantial unlawful presence before receiving TPS should not assume that Form I-512T makes travel safe from the unlawful-presence bars. This is an area for individual legal advice, not a categorical answer.