Secretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

Homeland

Security

November 20, 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR: Stevan E. Bunnell

General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

Leon Rodriguez

Director

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Thomas S. Winkowski

Acting Director

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

R. Gil Kerlikowske

Commissioner

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

FROM: Jeh Charles Johnson

Secretary

SUBJECT: Directive to Provide Consistency Regarding Advance

Parole

Advance parole is an established procedure by which U.S. Citizenship and

Immigration Services (USCIS) may authorize, as a matter of discretion, an individual to

travel abroad with advance authorization to be considered for parole into the United

States upon return. For example, USCIS regularly grants advance parole to individuals

with certain types of temporary status or with pending immigration applications.

Advance parole is subject to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) later considering

parole at the port of entry.

In April 2012, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued the precedent decision

Matter of Arrabally (later amended in August 2012),1 which held that individuals who

travel abroad after a grant of advance parole do not effectuate a "departure . . . from the

1 Matter of Arrabally, 25 I. & N. Dec. 771 (BIA 2012).

1

www.dhs.gov

United States" within the meaning of section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (INA). That provision , along with section 212(9)(B)(i)(I) , establishes the

"3- and 10-year bars" for persons who have "departed " after more than 180 days of

unlawful presence in the United States.2 The Arrabally decision arose in the context of

two aliens who had been in unlawful status for multiple years , applied for adjustment of

status, and obtained advance parole to travel to India several times. The Board of

Immigration Appeals held that travel on advance parole was not a "departure" within the

meaning of the statute and hence did not trigger the ground of inadmissibility that bars

admission after the accrual of unlawful presence .

This is to notify you that I have asked the Department’s General Counsel to issue

written legal guidance on the meaning of the Arrabally decision, which will clarify that in

all cases when an individual physically leaves the United States pursuant to a grant of

advance parole, that individual shall not have made a "departure" within the meaning of

section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the INA. This instruction will ensure consistent application of

the Arrabally decision across the Department , and provide greater assurance to

ind ividuals with advance parole of the consequences of their travel.

Nothing in this directive is intended to l imit the authority of CBP to conduct its

routine inspection and admission or parole of an individual returning to the United States.

2 IN A § 2 l 2(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U .S.C. § l l 82(a)(9)(B)(i).

2