- within Immigration topic(s)
- in Australia
- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- with readers working within the Consumer Industries and Technology industries
On August 13, 2026, in Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the Board”) ruled that travel outside the United States on a grant of “advance parole” constitutes a “departure” for purposes of the 10-year unlawful presence bar.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an individual who accrues more than one year of unlawful presence in the United States, and then departs will trigger a 10-year bar on admission. This can prevent them from obtaining a green card or nonimmigrant status in the future unless a waiver is available.
What Has Changed and Who Is Impacted?
In 2012 in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, the Board held that travel on a pre-approved grant of advance parole did not constitute a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful presence bar.
For the past 14 years, Arrabally has provided important protection for certain individuals with prior periods of unlawful presence who received advance parole to travel abroad. This has included some recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS), as well as certain applicants for permanent residence. In particular, many DACA recipients were brought to the U.S. unlawfully as small children. Unlawful presence does not start accruing until age 18; however, DACA recipients who turned 18 before DACA was created in 2012 may have unintentionally accrued unlawful presence in the time period before they were granted DACA.
In its August 2026 decision in Delcarmen-Lara, the Board overruled Arrabally. Under the Board’s new interpretation, advance parole travel can constitute a departure that triggers the 10-year bar. The holding is prospective to future travel.
What This Means for Workers with Prior Unlawful Presence
The Delcarmen-Lara decision has a major impact on DACA holders. About half a million workers in the U.S. hold DACA status, many with advanced degrees and skills. DACA holders frequently request “advance parole” to take trips for educational, professional, or humanitarian reasons without losing their status. However, after August 13, 2026, such travel will trigger a 10-year bar on applying for a green card or another lawful status.
The decision also affects certain green card applicants who may have had status violations in their past. Although these applicants may pay for and request advance parole authorization to travel while their case is pending, acting on this authorization could trigger the denial of the green card. Green card applicants will now need to carefully review their immigration history before deciding to travel.
For workers in DACA status, or another non-sponsored humanitarian status, such as TPS, we recommend a consultation with an immigration attorney to understand how this holding might impact them and their broader immigration options if travel is critical.
What Advance Parole Travel Now Means for Employers
Employers do not bear direct legal consequences from the Delcarmen-Lara decision, but the ruling still carries practical implications for any workforce that includes DACA or TPS holders, or employees with pending green card applications who hold advance parole. A trip taken in good faith before this shift was understood could now jeopardize an employee’s ability to return to the United States and resume work.
Employers with DACA or TPS holders, or sponsored employees with pending immigration matters, should consider the following:
- Route any request to approve international travel for a sponsored employee, whether for business or personal reasons, through immigration counsel before the trip occurs.
- Flag this development internally to relevant HR or mobility staff so that upcoming travel plans can be reviewed before departure.
- Consider the operational risk of an affected employee triggering a 10-year bar, particularly for roles tied to specialized skills or long-term sponsorship investments, where an unplanned gap would be costly to fill.
- Review, at a general level, which employees in the workforce may fall into an affected category, and pause any planned travel for those employees pending consultation with counsel.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]