A new immigration ruling is making it significantly harder for some Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients to use international travel as a pathway toward permanent residency and, ultimately, U.S. citizenship.
The decision, issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) on August 13, overturns a longstanding precedent that had generally protected certain immigrants who left the United States with advance parole from triggering the three- or 10-year bars associated with unlawful presence. The ruling could have its greatest impact on DACA recipients who entered the country without authorization and later sought to obtain green cards, including through marriage to U.S. citizens.
- Advertisement -
For more than a decade, DACA recipients could request advance parole, allowing them to temporarily leave the United States for approved educational, employment or humanitarian reasons and seek permission to return. For some recipients who had originally entered the country without authorization, that process provided an important opportunity to overcome the consequences of their original entry and pursue adjustment of status from within the United States.
The new ruling, known as Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, changes that calculation. The BIA concluded that leaving the United States under advance parole can constitute a departure for purposes of federal immigration law. As a result, individuals who have accumulated sufficient unlawful presence before traveling could face the same three- or 10-year inadmissibility bars that apply to other immigrants who leave the country after being unlawfully present.
The distinction is particularly important for DACA recipients who entered the country without inspection and later married U.S. citizens. Under the previous interpretation, travel on advance parole could allow some of these individuals to return and pursue a marriage-based green card without triggering the unlawful-presence bar. The new decision removes that protection for future travel in cases covered by the ruling.
The ruling does not mean that every DACA recipient is automatically barred from traveling or pursuing permanent residency. Its effect depends on an individual’s immigration history, including whether the person accrued enough unlawful presence, whether there is a prior removal or deportation order and the circumstances surrounding any potential adjustment-of-status application.
The Los Angeles Times reported that immigration attorneys were already cautioning DACA recipients to obtain individualized legal advice before traveling. Some recipients may still be able to travel without triggering the same consequences, while others, particularly those with previous deportation orders — could face serious risks if they leave the country.
The change represents another significant development for a population that has lived for years under a temporary immigration programme. DACA, created in 2012 under President Barack Obama, provides eligible individuals brought to the United States as children with protection from deportation and authorization to work, but it does not provide permanent legal status or a direct path to citizenship.
The latest federal data cited by the Los Angeles Times show that approximately 455,000 people remained active DACA recipients as of March 2026, including about 126,000 in California. Historical data from the Congressional Research Service also show that tens of thousands of DACA recipients have used advance parole, while more than 76,000 had obtained lawful permanent residence by July 2019, most commonly through marriage to U.S. citizens.
The administration defended the new interpretation, saying immigration law imposes consequences when people who have accumulated unlawful presence leave the country and subsequently seek admission, regardless of whether they traveled using advance parole. USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler said the agency would apply the law and binding precedent when evaluating immigration applications.
Immigration advocates, however, argue that the ruling removes an important legal avenue for Dreamers who have established families, careers and lives in the United States. Karen Tumlin of the Justice Action Center described the decision as part of a broader effort to make it more difficult for immigrants who have lived in the country under temporary protections to obtain permanent status.
For affected DACA recipients, the practical consequences could be substantial. A trip abroad that previously offered a potential route toward resolving an individual’s immigration status could now result in a lengthy bar to reentry, while available waivers are limited and depend on specific circumstances.
The decision therefore narrows one of the most important mechanisms some DACA recipients had relied upon to transition from temporary protection to permanent residency. While it does not eliminate every possible route to a green card or citizenship, it leaves many Dreamers facing a more complicated immigration landscape, and makes legal advice increasingly important before any international travel.
