Travel abroad for couples waiting on a marriage-based green card: what changed with the August 13, 2026 decision

The question couples waiting on a marriage-based green card ask most often is about travel. Can we make a short trip for a family wedding or funeral? A decision often takes years, and family events do not wait for that schedule. Until now the answer was to obtain an advance parole document in advance. A decision issued on August 13, 2026 changed that answer in one situation: when the spouse who applied has accumulated time without status. Here is what changed and how to check whether your marriage is affected, step by step.

Leaving on an advance parole document now counts as "leaving"

"Leaving the United States on an advance parole document, by a person who has accumulated one year or more of unlawful presence, is a 'departure' under the provision that bars that person from entering for ten years."

This is the core of the August 13, 2026 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, in plain language. The Board reviews whether an immigration judge's decision was correct, and a decision it publishes as precedent becomes the standard for other cases dealing with the same question.

A spouse who has applied for a green card from inside the United States and is waiting cannot simply leave and come back. Leaving means the application is treated as abandoned. That is why applicants obtain a document before leaving: advance parole. With it, the application is not cancelled by the trip. Because unavoidable events arise while an application drags on, such as a parent's illness, a sibling's wedding, or a sudden funeral, many couples have treated this document as a safe method.

In 2012, the same Board held that such a trip differs from an ordinary departure. The reasoning was that the person leaves on the premise of being able to return and continue the application already on file.

This time, the Board rejected that premise and overruled the 2012 decision. Its reason: the immigration statute does not define "departure," and where nothing is defined, the word must be read in its ordinary sense of going out and leaving. Leaving on advance parole is still leaving, and the method couples relied on for nearly 14 years is gone with this decision.

What accumulates is the applying spouse's days

"A person who was unlawfully present for more than 180 days, departs the United States, and seeks to re-enter within three or ten years is inadmissible."

This is what USCIS added to its travel document guidance when it posted the decision.

Two things must both be present for the provision to apply. The spouse who applied must have accumulated one year or more of unlawful presence, and that person must leave on advance parole on or after August 13, 2026. If either is missing, this decision does not concern you. What the Board squarely decided was the ten-year provision, for one year or more. The 180 days and three years quoted above are the caution that USCIS, which actually reviews the documents, added to its guidance. So you cannot relax simply because your period is under one year.

Unlawful presence here means the days that pile up while a person remains in the United States after student, work, or similar status has ended. A couple that filed while continuously maintaining status is not the target at all. Those affected are couples where the spouse's status lapsed long ago and the marriage-based application came late, or where the spouse was living under deferred action and then married a U.S. citizen and applied. And the days that count belong to the spouse who applied for the green card, the one who wants to travel, not the spouse who petitioned. The petitioning spouse's status is irrelevant.

For the spouse who stays behind and waits, this is not someone else's problem. If the applying spouse leaves and is refused entry, the application itself cannot proceed, and the couple may be separated for a long, unplanned period. So this calculation must be understood by both spouses, not just the one traveling. Even the person concerned cannot easily guess how many days have accumulated, because the answer depends on when status ended and whether another application was pending in the meantime.

The law does provide a waiver for hardship, but the door is narrow. You must show that a spouse or parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident would suffer extreme hardship, and hardship to a child does not count. Meeting the condition does not mean automatic approval; the adjudicator looks at the whole picture and decides again. It is not something to rely on in advance when planning a trip.

Some read this decision as "do not apply for advance parole." That is not accurate. The problem is not the permission itself but a spouse with accumulated days leaving on or after August 13. The document remains necessary for a person pursuing an application inside the United States.

Trips taken before August 13, 2026 are not affected

"We apply this new standard prospectively only."

This is the conclusion the decision itself reached.

When the Board overturned the old standard, it separately decided whether to apply the new one to past events, and this time it chose to apply it only to future travel. Since many couples had relied on the method for 14 years, since 2012, the Board saw no strong reason to undo their situations. It did not apply the new standard even to the party in this case. So couples who have already traveled are not newly disadvantaged by this decision. When this point is reported vaguely, couples who have already traveled worry about something they need not. Still, the Board did not confirm that earlier trips were "fine." It simply did not apply the new standard.

The party in the case that produced this standard was also pursuing a marriage-based green card. But she filed a late motion to reopen while already under a final removal order, and the motion was denied first on timing and number limits. The Board did not decide whether her trip was a "departure." Her situation differs from that of a couple waiting normally for a decision.

Before leaving, both spouses should check the record together

"The advance parole document warned that, absent a favorable exercise of discretion, the person could be found inadmissible upon return and be unable to complete the green card application."

The decision cited this as a ground.

Being granted permission is not the same as being safe to leave. This warning was printed on the document before this decision, and this decision has made it the actual standard. To get a green card inside the United States, the applying spouse must show that they are a person allowed to enter and live here, and a single ground of inadmissibility stops the case right there. So what actually catches a couple is not the few days of travel but what happens to the application after the return. If you were told before August 13 that "all you need is advance parole," that answer was correct under the standard at the time. Now it must be re-confirmed after this decision.

The safer order is the reverse. Instead of buying tickets first, the couple should together organize the applying spouse's record of entries and exits, status-related notices, and receipt notices for every application filed, and then set a date. All three carry printed dates, which prevents the discrepancies that arise when answering from memory. This calculation should be confirmed with an attorney rather than judged by the couple alone. Events such as a funeral come without warning and leave no time to check, so it is better for the couple to organize this once now, even without travel plans. If you get the conclusion in writing, you will not have to redo the same calculation when you set a date months later.

Closing

There are three things you can do now.

First, before making travel plans, check the applying spouse's record of stay. Whether there was a period out of status, and how long, determines whether this decision applies. Neither spouse should calculate and decide on their own.

Second, do not read "permission was granted" as "it is safe to leave." The permission is a document that opens the procedure for leaving and re-entering; what happens to the application after the return is calculated separately.

Third, make the decision together as a couple and get it confirmed in writing. This is not only the traveling spouse's problem but also the waiting spouse's. Since you are living through the long wait together, it is better to decide together whether to postpone the trip or take it. If you already traveled before August 13, 2026, this decision does not cover that trip, but if the application is still pending, have that part confirmed as well.

Disclaimer: This column is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case. For matters concerning your individual immigration situation, please consult an immigration attorney.

Law Office of Jin D. Cho, P.C.

NEW YORK OFFICE (Flushing) 35-24 154th Street, Flushing, NY 11354

(T) 718-353-2699 (F) 718-353-8132

NEW JERSEY OFFICE 560 Sylvan Avenue, 3Fl., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

(T) 201-449-0009