BIA Holds a Departure Under Advance Parole Triggers the Unlawful-Presence Inadmissibility Bar

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied a motion to reopen filed by a Salvadoran respondent seeking adjustment of status, and in doing so overruled its own precedent in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, holding that a temporary trip abroad under a grant of advance parole is a "departure" that can trigger the ten-year unlawful-presence inadmissibility bar.

The Board held the plain meaning of "departure" contains no exception for advance parolees, that Congress has shown elsewhere in the INA it knows how to draft such exceptions when intended, and that the government's own advance-parole documents have long warned applicants of this exact consequence. Because the new rule departs from decades-old precedent, the Board applied it only prospectively and denied the respondent's motion as untimely and number-barred without reaching the merits of her inadmissibility.

The full text of Matter of Delcarmen-Lara can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1457741/dl?inline

BIA Interprets 3/10 Year Unlawful Presence Bars

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that non-citizens subject to the 3- and 10-year bars in section 212(a)(9)(B) of the INA are not required to serve the entire bar outside of the country. “A plain-text reading of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(B)(i)(II), indicates that the period of ineligibility runs from the date of departure from the United States and does not require a noncitizen to remain outside the United States for the entire 10-year period of inadmissibility.”

The full text of Matter of Duarte-Gonzalez can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1568471/download