Matter of M-R-I-, 30 I&N Dec. 137 (BIA 2026): Returning to Your Home Country on Advance Parole Can Abandon Your Asylum, Withholding, and CAT Claims

What Happened in Matter of M-R-I-?

The respondent was a citizen and native of Nepal who had applied for asylum and related protection in the United States. While his applications were pending, he requested and received advance parole from DHS to travel outside the United States.

In 2016, he used advance parole to return to Nepal for approximately two months. He testified that he wanted to see his family and was concerned about his mother's health and his family's well-being following the 2015 earthquake in Nepal.

In 2018, he was again granted advance parole. This time, he traveled to India, where he met with members of his Nepalese family who had traveled there. Throughout this period, he continued pursuing asylum and related protection in Immigration Court.

The Immigration Judge ultimately denied asylum and withholding of removal and determined that the respondent had abandoned his applications because he had returned to Nepal under advance parole without establishing compelling reasons for doing so.

The respondent appealed to the BIA. The Board dismissed the appeal and denied his motion to remand.

The BIA's Main Holding

The central issue was the application of 8 C.F.R. § 1208.8(b). The regulation provides that an applicant who leaves the United States pursuant to advance parole and returns to the country of claimed persecution is presumed to have abandoned the application unless the applicant establishes compelling reasons for the return.

The BIA agreed with the Immigration Judge that this rule applied to the respondent. The Board explained that the rule is consistent with the statutory definition of a refugee, which requires an applicant to be unable or unwilling to return to the country of nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.

The BIA also relied on the principle that voluntarily returning to the country where an applicant claims persecution may undermine the credibility or strength of a claimed fear of future persecution. The Board cited federal appellate decisions recognizing that an applicant's voluntary return to the claimed country of persecution can be relevant to whether the applicant genuinely fears returning.

Advance Parole Does Not Mean Travel Is Safe for an Asylum Case

One of the most important lessons from Matter of M-R-I- is that advance parole is not a guarantee that international travel will have no effect on a pending asylum case.

An applicant may receive permission from DHS to travel outside the United States, but if the applicant uses that permission to return to the country where the applicant claims persecution, the regulations create a presumption of abandonment.

The BIA therefore treated the respondent's advance parole authorization as important, but not dispositive. The fact that DHS granted permission for the travel did not prevent the abandonment regulation from applying.

For asylum applicants, this creates an important distinction: being permitted to travel is not the same as being protected from the immigration consequences of traveling.

What Is a “Compelling Reason” to Return?

The regulation does not automatically make every return to the country of claimed persecution fatal. Instead, the applicant may overcome the presumption by establishing compelling reasons for the return.

In M-R-I-, however, the BIA concluded that the respondent had not met that burden.

The Immigration Judge had considered the timing of the events that allegedly motivated the trip. The respondent's mother's last health incident and hospitalization had occurred approximately four years before his trip to Nepal, while the earthquake that he cited had occurred approximately one year before the trip. The Immigration Judge found that these gaps weakened the claim that there was a compelling need to return to Nepal at the time of the trip.

The BIA also found significant that the respondent later met his Nepalese family in India. According to the Board, this demonstrated that there was an alternative way for him to meet his family without traveling to Nepal—the very country where he claimed he was unable or unwilling to return because of persecution.

This portion of the decision demonstrates that the analysis is highly fact-specific. Applicants and their attorneys should carefully document why travel to the country of claimed persecution was necessary, why alternatives were unavailable, and why the circumstances genuinely required the trip.

The Rule Applies to More Than Asylum

The BIA's decision is particularly significant because it did not limit abandonment to the asylum claim.

The Board held that the abandonment rule applies to the applicant's entire application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The BIA relied on the language of 8 C.F.R. § 1208.1(a)(1), which provides that the regulatory provisions in the relevant subpart apply to applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The Board also focused on the wording of 8 C.F.R. § 1208.8(b), which refers to abandonment of the applicant's “application” rather than separately identifying individual forms of protection.

As a result, the BIA concluded that an applicant who returns to the country of claimed persecution under advance parole, without compelling reasons, abandons the application as a whole.

What About CAT Protection?

The decision also addressed protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The BIA explained that the abandonment rule applies to CAT protection as well. The Board rejected the idea that the applicant could simply preserve a separate CAT claim after abandoning the broader application.

The BIA further explained that deferral of removal under CAT is available only to individuals who satisfy the applicable regulatory requirements. Because the respondent had abandoned his application under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.8(b), the Board concluded that he did not fall within the class of individuals eligible to seek CAT deferral in the manner he proposed.

The Board nevertheless went further and held that, even if the respondent could seek CAT deferral, his CAT arguments would not establish eligibility.

The BIA Also Rejected the Respondent's CAT Arguments

The respondent argued generally that he remained in danger of torture or death from Maoists, the Nepalese government, or government agents.

The BIA found these arguments insufficient. The Immigration Judge had identified several facts that undermined the CAT claim, including that the respondent's last encounter with the Maoists occurred in 2010 and that he remained in Nepal for approximately eight months after that incident without being harmed.

The Immigration Judge also found insufficient evidence that the respondent's parents had recently been targeted and considered it speculative that the Maoists remained interested in locating him or would be able to find him after his return.

The Board also considered significant that, during the 2010 incident, the respondent was able to flee into a police station, where the Maoists did not follow him. Police officers sheltered him, took a report, and helped him reach a relative's home.

Against this factual background, the BIA concluded that the respondent's brief appellate assertion that he remained in danger did not establish a clear probability of future torture.

Arguments by an Attorney Are Not Evidence

Another important holding in Matter of M-R-I- concerns the distinction between legal argument and evidence.

The BIA expressly stated that “arguments by counsel are not evidence.” The Board explained that the application of a mandatory bar or similar evidentiary issue is governed by the evidentiary record rather than simply by the arguments made by counsel.

This principle mattered because the respondent argued that DHS had not properly presented or preserved its abandonment argument. The BIA rejected that argument.

More importantly, the Board explained that even if DHS's closing argument had been excluded, the respondent still had the burden of establishing why he returned to the country where he claimed persecution. The Immigration Judge had placed the respondent on notice of the issue and allowed both sides to brief it.

Because the respondent himself had to establish compelling reasons for the return, the absence or inadequacy of DHS's argument did not eliminate his evidentiary burden.

The BIA Found No Due Process Violation

The respondent also argued that DHS's closing argument had not been timely served and lacked certain signatures.

The BIA rejected the due process argument because the respondent had not demonstrated prejudice. He was able to object to DHS's submission in writing, renewed the objection orally at a later master calendar hearing, and the Immigration Judge considered his objection.

The Board therefore concluded that the respondent had received notice and an opportunity to respond and that consideration of DHS's closing argument was not fundamentally unfair.

New Country Conditions Evidence Did Not Save the Case

The respondent also submitted additional evidence on appeal, which the BIA treated as a motion to remand for purposes of introducing new evidence.

The BIA explained that motions to remand are evaluated under the same standards applicable to motions to reopen. Under the applicable regulations, new evidence must be material and must have been unavailable and undiscoverable at the time of the prior hearing.

The respondent submitted updated evidence concerning country conditions in Nepal. The BIA found that evidence insufficient because it did not address the central reason his application had been deemed abandoned: his earlier voluntary return to Nepal.

The Board also concluded that the respondent had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the new evidence would result in a different outcome.

Why Matter of M-R-I- Matters for Asylum Applicants

Matter of M-R-I- is an important warning for individuals with pending asylum or protection claims who are considering international travel.

Travel to the country where an applicant claims persecution can create a serious problem even when the applicant has obtained advance parole. Under the BIA's new precedent, returning to the country of claimed persecution creates a presumption that the applicant has abandoned the entire application unless compelling reasons for the return can be established.

The consequences can extend beyond asylum to statutory withholding of removal and CAT protection.

The case also demonstrates why an applicant should not assume that a humanitarian or family-related reason for travel will automatically qualify as compelling. The timing of the circumstances, available alternatives, the purpose of the trip, the length of the stay, and the evidence supporting the claimed necessity of travel may all become important.

What Should Asylum Applicants Do Before Traveling?

If you have a pending asylum, withholding, or CAT case and are considering travel outside the United States, you should speak with an experienced immigration attorney before making travel arrangements.

In particular, an attorney should evaluate:

• the country you intend to visit;
• whether it is the country where you claim persecution or fear of torture;
• whether you have advance parole or another travel document;
• why you need to travel;
• whether there are alternatives to traveling to the country of claimed persecution;
• the timing of the circumstances requiring travel;
• the length and purpose of the proposed trip;
• the evidence available to establish why the trip is necessary; and
• how the travel could affect asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.

Do not assume that having advance parole makes travel to your home country safe for your immigration case. The BIA's decision in Matter of M-R-I- makes that distinction especially important.

Bottom Line

Matter of M-R-I-, 30 I&N Dec. 137 (BIA 2026) establishes a clear rule: when an asylum applicant leaves the United States under advance parole and returns to the country of claimed persecution, the applicant is presumed to have abandoned the application unless the applicant establishes compelling reasons for the return.

The BIA held that this abandonment extends to asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The decision also emphasizes that the applicant's burden is satisfied through evidence in the record—not simply through an attorney's arguments.

Because international travel can have serious consequences for a pending protection claim, anyone considering travel to a country where they claim persecution should obtain individualized legal advice before leaving the United States.

Source: Matter of M-R-I-, 30 I&N Dec. 137 (BIA 2026), Interim Decision #4258, decided October 7, 2026. (BIA decision)