Summary: On October 7, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decided Matter of M-R-I-, 30 I&N Dec. 137. The Board held that an asylum applicant who travels on advance parole back to the country where he claims he would be persecuted has abandoned his entire application, including withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection, unless he shows compelling reasons for the trip.
What happened
The respondent, a citizen of Nepal, had an asylum case pending before an Immigration Judge. While it was pending, DHS granted him advance parole, and in 2016 he returned to Nepal for about two months. He testified that he missed his family and was worried about his mother’s health and his family after the 2015 earthquake. In 2018 he used advance parole again to travel to India, where he met Nepalese family members.
In June 2020 the Immigration Judge found that he had abandoned his asylum and withholding applications. The judge noted that his mother’s last health crisis was about four years before the trip, the earthquake was a year before, and he was later able to see his family in India instead.
A federal regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.8(b), says an applicant who leaves on advance parole “and returns to the country of claimed persecution shall be presumed to have abandoned” the application, unless the applicant shows compelling reasons for the return. The Board agreed with the Immigration Judge and went further, holding that:
- Abandonment covers the whole application: asylum, withholding of removal and CAT protection. The Board also said such a person cannot then seek CAT deferral of removal.
- Whether a mandatory bar to relief applies depends on the evidence in the record, not on the arguments of the lawyers. The applicant carries the burden of explaining the trip.
The Board rejected the argument that DHS’s late-served closing brief made the ruling unfair, finding no prejudice. In the alternative, it also upheld the denial of CAT protection on the merits and denied a motion to remand based on new country-conditions evidence.
Who is affected
The decision is most relevant to people with pending asylum, withholding or CAT claims who have traveled, or are considering travel, on advance parole to the country they say they fear. It is binding on Immigration Judges nationwide unless changed by the Attorney General or a federal court.
What it means
Under this precedent, a return trip to the country of feared persecution can end the entire protection claim, not just the asylum part, unless the applicant proves compelling reasons. In this case, family ties and a parent’s health were not enough because of the time gap and the option of meeting relatives in another country. The decision does not define every situation that could count as “compelling,” and federal appeals courts could review the Board’s reading of the regulation in future cases.
Source: Board of Immigration Appeals – Matter of M-R-I-, 30 I&N Dec. 137 (BIA 2026) (published October 7, 2026)
Wondering how this affects you or your family? Every case is different. Schedule a consultation with Attorney James Betzold, by phone or video, or call (833) 847-2335.
This article is a news summary for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law changes often and every case is different; only a legal consultation with Attorney James Betzold can determine how this news applies to you.