The Travel Trap For Legal Immigrants

In November 2024, during a presentation at a prominent university, I advised international students to avoid international travel beginning in January 2025, when the new administration would take office. My comments were met with significant resistance from some of the organizers, who pointed out that many students had summer internships, research opportunities, and projects abroad.

But I stood by my advice. Looking back, I wish I had spoken even more forcefully about what I believed was coming.

Why?

Because we are now witnessing what I call the travel trap — a new reality for legal immigrants, including green card holders. And if you have been following the news, you know that the concern is no longer limited to international travel. Increasingly, legal immigrants are also reportedly being detained during domestic travel.

Travel, once viewed as a routine part of life for legal immigrants, now requires careful legal and strategic consideration.

Let’s break this down by category.

International Travel

Nonimmigrant Visa Holders

Whether you are an international student or are in the United States on a temporary work visa, it is more important than ever to think carefully about whether international travel is truly necessary.

Today’s travel analysis goes well beyond confirming that your visa and passport are valid. Before leaving the United States, ask yourself:

• Have you ever had contact with law enforcement?
• Have you ever been arrested, cited, or questioned?
• Was a criminal case ever filed?
• Are charges still pending, or were they dismissed or reduced?
• Was there a conviction or sentence?

Not every arrest or criminal charge makes someone inadmissible to the United States. However, even when the immigration consequences may ultimately favor the traveler, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers may subject the individual to extensive questioning, secondary inspection, or further review before permitting entry.

The legal analysis should happen before you board an international flight, not when you are standing at the airport trying to come home.

Green Card Holders

In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that could have significant implications for lawful permanent residents for years to come. In Bondi v. Lau, the Court held, by a 6-3 vote, that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require CBP officers to possess clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that individual as an applicant for admission upon returning to the United States.

The decision interprets INA § 101(a)(13)(C), the provision that determines when a lawful permanent resident returning from abroad may be treated as an applicant for admission rather than simply being readmitted as a returning resident. This distinction is critically important because applicants for admission are subject to the grounds of inadmissibility.

The case focused on crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs), but its practical implications extend beyond the legal definition itself.

Congress has never defined a crime involving moral turpitude. Instead, the Board of Immigration Appeals has described it as conduct that is inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to accepted standards of morality, and generally requiring both reprehensible conduct and a culpable mental state, such as intent or knowledge. See Matter of Silva-Trevino, 26 I&N Dec. 826 (BIA 2016).

The practical concern is this: a returning green card holder may now face greater scrutiny before CBP determines whether they should be admitted as a lawful permanent resident. Depending on the circumstances, a pending criminal charge or even allegations requiring further legal analysis, may be sufficient for CBP to treat the individual as an applicant for admission rather than simply recognizing them as a returning resident.

That does not mean a border officer can revoke someone’s green card on the spot. Lawful permanent resident status may still be terminated only through the procedures established by Congress, generally before an immigration judge. However, it does mean that a returning permanent resident may find themselves placed into removal proceedings or paroled into the United States while those proceedings are pending, rather than simply being admitted as a returning green card holder.

That is a significant shift in how travel risk must be assessed.

For decades, many lawful permanent residents believed that possessing a green card largely guaranteed reentry after international travel. While that has never been entirely true under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores that those protections are narrower than many assumed.

Accordingly, any green card holder with a criminal history, or even pending criminal charges, should seek individualized immigration advice before traveling internationally.

Applicants with Pending Green Card Applications

On August 13th, 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a significant precedent decision, Matter of Delcarmen-Lara, 29 I&N Dec. 830 (BIA 2026), changing the consequences of international travel on advance parole for certain individuals who have accrued unlawful presence.

The BIA overruled Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I&N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012).

For more than a decade, Arrabally held that leaving the United States pursuant to advance parole was not considered a “departure” for purposes of triggering the three- and 10-year unlawful-presence bars under INA § 212(a)(9)(B).

That has now changed.

Under the new precedent, traveling outside the United States on advance parole can constitute a departure that triggers the three- or 10-year unlawful-presence bar for someone who has accrued sufficient unlawful presence.

This is particularly important for individuals with pending green card applications who may have previously spent time in the United States without lawful status. It may also affect individuals who experienced gaps in status following a layoff or other change in employment.

And there is another concern. As we have seen with many immigration policies under this administration, the practical consequences of travel may continue to evolve. Even individuals who believe they have maintained lawful status should carefully evaluate the risks of traveling on advance parole as implementation of this new precedent develops.

The key message is simple: do not assume that having an approved advance parole document means it is safe to travel.

Domestic Travel

Immigration lawyers have long advised clients to exercise caution when traveling internationally. Domestic travel, however, has traditionally presented far fewer immigration concerns.

That appears to be changing.

In recent weeks, reports have emerged of legal immigrants being detained during domestic air travel. The New York Times has reported that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are sharing information that has been used to identify certain immigrants during airport screening.

Those reports have sent shockwaves through the immigration law community.

As a business immigration attorney, my clients include engineers, physicians, professors, executives, researchers, entrepreneurs, and other highly skilled professionals. They are overwhelmingly law-abiding individuals who are living and working in the United States lawfully.

Like many recent immigration enforcement initiatives, these developments were not preceded by formal policy memoranda or advance public guidance. Instead, attorneys began learning about them through individual detention cases and media reports.

One particularly troubling pattern involves individuals whose visas have expired but who have timely filed extension or change-of-status applications that authorize them to remain and, in many cases, continue working, in the United States while those applications are pending.

Historically, these individuals have been considered to be in a period of authorized stay under longstanding immigration statutes and regulations. Yet there are increasing reports that some are nevertheless being detained during domestic travel.

At present, DHS has not publicly explained the legal authority being relied upon in these cases or how these enforcement actions fit within decades of established immigration law governing periods of authorized stay.

These issues will likely be litigated. But litigation takes time.

In the meantime, visa holders should exercise caution before flying domestically.

Review your immigration documents carefully. Confirm that your Form I-94 remains valid. Carry copies of your approval notices. Understand exactly what immigration status or period of authorized stay you are relying upon. If your ability to remain in the United States depends on a pending extension or change-of-status application, consult with an immigration attorney before making travel plans.

Employment-based visa holders are not the only individuals affected. Reports have also involved asylum seekers, adjustment-of-status applicants, and other immigrants with pending applications.

Although the legal landscape continues to evolve, domestic air travel has become another potential point of immigration enforcement. That reality should now factor into every immigrant’s travel decisions.

What Should You Do?

Don’t panic. But don’t assume that travel is routine.

Before making either international or domestic travel plans:

• Consult an experienced immigration attorney if you have any criminal history, prior immigration violations, periods of unlawful presence, or a pending immigration application.
• Carefully evaluate whether your travel is truly necessary.
• Confirm that your Form I-94 is valid and understand your current immigration status.
• Carry copies of your immigration approval notices and other relevant immigration documents.
• If your ability to remain in the United States depends on a pending extension or change-of-status application, seek legal advice before traveling.
• If there is any uncertainty about your immigration or criminal history, resolve those questions before you travel.

For many years, legal immigrants could reasonably assume that routine travel, particularly within the United States, posed relatively little immigration risk.

Today, that assumption no longer holds true.

The law has not changed in every respect. But enforcement has.

And that may be the most important distinction of all.

The travel trap is real. Before boarding a plane, whether for international or domestic travel, immigrants should understand their individual risks. Knowing those risks before you travel may be one of the most important immigration decisions you make.

---

Tahmina Watson is the founding attorney of Watson Immigration Law in Seattle, where she practices US immigration law focusing on business immigration. She has been blogging about immigration law since 2008 and has written numerous articles in many publications. She is the author of Legal Heroes in the Trump Era: Be Inspired. Expand Your Impact. Change the World and The Startup Visa: Key to Job Growth and Economic Prosperity in America.  She is also the founder of The Washington Immigrant Defense Network (WIDEN), which funds and facilitates legal representation in the immigration courtroom, and co-founder of Airport Lawyers, which provided critical services during the early travel bans. Tahmina is regularly quoted in the media and is the host of the podcast Tahmina Talks Immigration. She is a Puget Sound Business Journal 2020 Women of Influence honoree.  Business Insider recently named her as one of the top immigration attorneys in the U.S. that help tech startups. You can reach her by email at [email protected], connect with her on LinkedIn or follow her on Twitter at @tahminawatson.