With you, every step of the way

For years, advance parole has been an important tool for immigrants who need to travel outside the US while their case is pending. In many situations, a person with a pending application could obtain advance parole to travel abroad, and return to the United States without the trip itself triggering certain immigration penalties. A recent decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), however, has changed an important part of that analysis. In Matter of DelCarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), the BIA held that leaving the US with advance parole can count as a “departure” for purposes of the unlawful-presence bars under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The decision applied the plain language definition of the term “departure” and overruled an earlier BIA decision that had provided greater protection to certain immigrants who temporarily traveled using advance parole. What is Advance Parole Intended for? Advance parole generally allows certain noncitizens to request permission to return to the US after traveling abroad while an immigration application or other similar process is pending. For example, a person with a pending adjustment-of-status application may apply for advance parole before traveling internationally to visit family. Without the appropriate travel authorization, leaving the country can have serious consequences that may include the disqualification of your application. Advance parole has never been a guarantee that a person will face no immigration consequences from traveling. Under INA § 212(a)(9)(B), a person who has accumulated more than 180 days of unlawful presence may become subject to a three-year bar after departing the United States. A person who has accumulated one year or more of unlawful presence may face a ten-year bar. Previously, the BIA's decision in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly provided an important exception for certain people traveling on advance parole. Under that decision, a temporary departure pursuant to advance parole generally did not count as a “departure” for purposes of the three- and ten-year unlawful-presence bars. This meant that some immigrants who had accrued unlawful presence could travel using advance parole without triggering those particular bars simply because they left the country. DelCarmen-Lara changed that rule. The BIA concluded that a departure pursuant to advance parole is still a “departure” under INA § 212(a)(9)(B). As a result, people who have accrued enough unlawful presence may now face the three- or ten-year bar even if they left the US after obtaining advance parole. This does not mean that advance parole is no longer useful, it can still be extremely important for people who are eligible to use it. What has changed is the assumption that advance parole automatically protects a person from the consequences of leaving the US. For someone with a history of unlawful presence, international travel may now require much more careful consideration. The person's immigration history, the amount of unlawful presence they accumulated, whether they have a prior removal order, and the type of immigration benefit they are pursuing can all affect the analysis. For this reason, obtaining advance parole should not be viewed as the end of the travel analysis. A person who has accrued significant unlawful presence or has previously been in removal proceedings should understand what could happen after leaving the US before making travel plans. Matter of DelCarmen-Lara is an important reminder that having permission to travel and being protected from every immigration consequence of traveling are two different things. Advance parole may still provide a valuable pathway for eligible immigrants, but whether it is safe to use depends on the individual's circumstances. Before traveling internationally, people with complicated immigration histories should consider speaking with an experienced immigration attorney about the potential consequences of leaving the US and how they can prepare before they leave. Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. The information provided is for general informational purposes only. Immigration laws and enforcement priorities can change rapidly. For advice specific to your situation, please consult with a licensed immigration attorney at the Law Office of Phan Nguyen — call 469-465-2344 or visit nguyen-legal.com.

Asylum has played a large role in the immigration process for decades, and it has provided safety for millions of people, but with recent changes to immigration policy, many people are left wondering if this option is still available to them. One of the most controversial policies issued last year is the “fast track” denial policy.  Under the policy, if a judge decides that a Form I-589 is legally incomplete or insufficient, the case can be denied without a hearing. In the past, people had the ability to correct mistakes, but now an error can lead to deportation without a review of evidence. Since hearings are not guaranteed, it is important that you ensure the correctness of your information, as immigration processes often run on strict deadlines, and even the smallest delay may harm your case. How to Qualify? Before you submit your application, you must not only confirm that you are eligible for asylum, but also be able to prove that you are. Since asylum offers a direct path to citizenship, these applications are looked at very closely, and these are the qualifications: You must be within the US when you submit your application File Form I-589, within 1 year of arriving in the US, there is a $100 non-waivable fee Provide evidence of well-founded fear of persecution Not all forms of persecution qualify for asylum— only those falling within these protected categories: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, and membership in a particular social group. While most categories are self-explanatory, proving that you are a part of a “particular social group” (PSG) requires 3 characteristics: A shared trait they can't change. Everyone in the group has something in common that's either unchangeable (like where they're from or who their family is) or so personal that no one should be forced to change (like their sexuality). The group has clear boundaries. "People who've been threatened" is too vague — almost anyone could fit. "Women from a specific village who face forced marriage" is specific enough to have real edges. Other people in their country actually see them as a group. It's not enough that the applicant thinks of themselves as part of a group — their own society has to recognize that group as real and distinct, whether through laws, culture, or social norms. If you are a part of a qualifying category, you also need to show one of two things: either that you were already harmed in your home country, or that you have reason to believe you will be harmed if you go back. If something already happened to you, this is a strong starting point because the law assumes the danger is still there, and it's then up to the government to argue otherwise. If nothing has happened yet but you're afraid it will, you don't need to prove it's guaranteed to happen—you just need to show there's a realistic chance it could. But your fear can't just be a feeling. You need to be able to point to real-world reasons — things happening in your country, to people like you — that back it up. The persecution also has to come from the right source — either your government directly, or from a group that your government is unwilling or unable to stop. Asylum Disqualifications and Bans While the qualifications are important, you should also keep in mind the disqualifying factors: You participated in persecuting others based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. You have been convicted of a particularly serious crime, including any aggravated felony. You are considered a threat to national security or have ties to a terrorist organization. You were already offered permanent safety in another country before coming to the US. You are subject to a third-country removal agreement, meaning the US can send you to another country to have your claim processed there instead, where you would then need to prove you'd be in danger there too. The third-country removal agreements were introduced in 2025 and are formally known as an Asylum Cooperative Agreement (ACA). This is essentially a deal the US makes with another country where that country agrees to take in asylum seekers and process their claims instead of the US doing it. So if you traveled through or have a connection to one of those countries on your way to the US, the US government can say "that country will handle your case" and send you there rather than letting you apply here. You don't have to have lived there or have any real ties to it — just being subject to the agreement can be enough. The catch is that once you're sent there, you'd have to start the asylum process all over again in that country. And if you want to argue against being sent, you'd have to prove that you'd face danger in that third country specifically — not just in your home country. The BIA confirmed in a 2025 ruling that immigration judges can dismiss an asylum application outright if an ACA applies and the applicant can't show they'd be at risk in the third country — even if their original claim against their home country is strong. There are also 39 country-wide asylum application processing pauses with two tiers: countries with a full ban (all nonimmigrant and immigrant visa categories are fully suspended) and countries with a partial ban (suspension covers B-1/B-2 visitor visas, F, M, and J student and exchange visitor visas, and all immigrant visas — but other nonimmigrant categories like work visas (H-1B, L-1, O-1) remain available). As of March 30, 2026, USCIS lifted the processing hold for asylum seekers from "non-high-risk countries," but has not publicly defined which countries count as "high-risk" or provided any written guidance. Full ban: Afghanistan, Burma (Myanmar), Burkina Faso, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen — anyone traveling on Palestinian documents. Partial ban: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Burundi, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Gabon, The Gambia, Malawi, Mauritania, Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo, Tonga, Venezuela, Zambia, and Zimbabwe — plus Turkmenistan. A single incomplete form, a missed deadline, or an unexpected policy change can derail a case that might otherwise succeed — and with hearings no longer guaranteed, there may not be a second chance to get it right. Whether you're just beginning the process or have a case already in motion, working with an experienced immigration attorney can help you understand where you stand and give your case the best possible chance of moving forward. Call the Law Office of Phan Nguyen at 469-465-2344. We are here Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM. You can also visit us at nguyen-legal.com to book a consultation. You don't have to face this alone. We are here for you. Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. The information provided is for general informational purposes only. Immigration laws and enforcement priorities can change rapidly. For advice specific to your situation, please consult with a licensed immigration attorney at the Law Office of Phan Nguyen — call 469-465-2344 or visit nguyen-legal.com.