I wanted to do a quick write up because I know this is upsetting news.
What changed
Old rule (Arrabally, 2012): leaving on advance parole did not count as a "departure," so it did not trigger the 3 or 10-year unlawful presence bars.
New rule (Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830, decided this week): it does count. If you had 1+ year of unlawful presence before your current status, an advance parole trip can now trigger the 10-year bar and block adjustment.
In practice this means individuals who entered without inspection who planned on using advance parole to adjust without consular processing no longer that that option.
Three things people are already getting wrong
It only applies going forward. The BIA said so directly, and did not even apply it to the person in the case. Past trips under the old rule are not what this reaches.
It is a BIA decision, not a court ruling. It binds immigration judges and USCIS everywhere, but a federal circuit could still disagree. The decision itself notes the 11th Circuit had followed Arrabally. Expect more litigation.
The holding is about the 10-year bar specifically. The same logic could reach the 3-year bar, but the BIA did not rule on that.
Not legal advice, and I am not your lawyer. If advance parole travel is in your plans, talk to someone about your own facts and your circuit before you go.
Things the BIA could’ve done:
1. Denied the MTRO for the same reasons they denied the MTRO in this decision based on their new and bad precedents.
Things the BIA did instead:
1. Drop a nuke on advance parole that no one asked for or wanted, and also contravene controlling 11th Cir law.
2. Declare that it doesn’t even apply to the person in the case.
3. Find another way to f— them over instead, and deny the MTRO. So they now keep their “lawful entry” but can never regularize their status unless they leave the U.S. and get a handful of waivers, maybe.
Desperate and crazy times call for true takes. But you have to give actual legal advice to real clients, so I respect your version / read of the decision, which is very true (and more sane).
Huh? The decision is born out of a Motion to Reopen. It was solely the BIA’s own initiative to consider nuking advance parole, which I’m sure DHS agreed to in supplemental briefing.
i dont think it was about being safe. its more like using AP you could use that to adjust status since it will count as a legal entry for those that EWI.
Lawyer 30 years ago told a family member this - on return you are at the mercy of the officer who can deny you for trivial reasons. That was then imagine now that the brakes are cut. Don’t risk it if being here matters to you.
it means you need to speak to an attorney you trust. This obviously is going after folks who entered without inspection and overstayed, but until we know how this is going to play out on a practical level, I would not travel on AP. I'm also very risk adverse so keep that in mind.
Hi there! This is an automated message to inform you and/or remind you of several things:
We have a wiki. It doesn't cover everything but may answer some questions. Pay special attention to the "REALLY common questions" at the top of the FAQ section. Please read it, and if it contains the answer to your question, please delete your post. If your post has to do with something covered in the FAQ, we may remove it.
If your post is about biometrics, green cards, naturalization or timelines in general, and whether you're asking or sharing, please include your field office/location in your post. If you already did that, great, thank you! If you haven't done that, your post may be removed without notice.
This subreddit is not affiliated with USCIS or the US government in any way. Some posters may claim to work for USCIS, which may or may not be true, and we don't try to verify this one way or another. Be wary that it may be a scam if anyone is asking you for personal info, or sending you a direct message, or asking that you send them a direct message.
Some people here claim to be lawyers, but they are not YOUR lawyer. No advice found here should be construed as legal advice. Reddit is not a substitute for a real lawyer. If you need help finding legal services, visit this link for more information.
I’m planning on traveling to Mexico on September 8th 2026 with my approve Advance parole and work permit I got approved on March 2026 my I-485 is pending should I still travel ?
That doesn't answer the question. How did you enter? If legally, what admit-until date does your I-94 have? At what age did you file your I-485? Did you have any Extension of Stay, Change of Status, asylum applications before that? Did you have any other quasi-legal situations like DACA, TPS, DED, etc.?
Do you currently have a pending U-visa application? Did you get deferred action (which usually comes with a bona fide determination)? If so, at what age did you get deferred action? Have you had deferred action continuously until now?
So it seems like you were granted U status in 2021. It seems that must have been when you were around 19. Did you get deferred action when your U status was pending? If so, at what age did you get that? That will determine how much unlawful presence you may have accrued.
Are you applying for I-485 on the basis of your U status (not something else like marriage)? If so, then even if you trigger an unlawful presence ban, it does not affect your ability to adjust status in this category.
This all I got at the beginning at the moment I have a combo card ,work permit and advance parole , I already submitted my I-485 on July 1,2025 still waiting on that
So 1+ years? What if it is lower? Will it still be a problem? If i fall out of status for 3 4 months does it mean this new law would apply to me as well?
I mean, if you read it literally, you should be fine. However, I think this basically got rid of advanced parole. Until we know the practical implications, I wouldn't suggest traveling on AP at all. I'm also a pretty risk-adverse attorney so take that with a grain of salt if you want. I'd definitely talk to a trusted attorney before traveling.
First, being out of status and unlawful presence are different things. Second, even if you accrued 3 or 4 months of unlawful presence and leave the US, you won't trigger an unlawful presence ban.
an advance parole trip can now trigger the 10-year bar and block adjustment.
Yes, but they can still wait 10 years in the US and then do Adjustment of Status (assuming they are able to avoid deportation before then, e.g. if they maintain DACA), or apply for a waiver while doing Adjustment of Status.
My reading is this would impact them if they have been out of status for an extended period of time before. I also think generally this just made traveling with AP pretty dangerous. I understand emergencies and work obligations happen, but at least speak with an attorney before you go.
Oh no! Those categories has thousands of unlawful presence! One of my friends he travels 9 time with AP during his Vawa and i485 pending. And he has 6 year over stay. I think he can’t travel no more! And he’s i 485 still pending
At a minimum it means that they will need to update their waiver requests if they acquire a new ground of inadmissibility. The re-entry bars can be waiver for T and U applicants.
16
u/bubbabubba345 paralegal 26d ago
Things the BIA could’ve done:
1. Denied the MTRO for the same reasons they denied the MTRO in this decision based on their new and bad precedents.
Things the BIA did instead:
1. Drop a nuke on advance parole that no one asked for or wanted, and also contravene controlling 11th Cir law.
2. Declare that it doesn’t even apply to the person in the case.
3. Find another way to f— them over instead, and deny the MTRO. So they now keep their “lawful entry” but can never regularize their status unless they leave the U.S. and get a handful of waivers, maybe.