Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

Matter of Arrabally

Board of Immigration Appeals
25 I. & N. Dec. 771 (2012)


A husband and wife (petitioners), citizens of India, were admitted temporarily to the United States as nonimmigrants in 1999 and 2000. Their visas expired in 2000 and 2001, but they remained in the U.S. for several years afterwards. In 2004, the husband obtained an employment-based visa, and they applied for adjustment of status under § 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Although the applications were deemed approvable, they were held in abeyance for several years due to an excess of visas in the husband’s preference category. While the applications were in abeyance, the couple needed to return to India to care for their elderly family members. They did not want the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to deem their applications abandoned if they left the United States, so they applied for “advanced parole” under § 212(d)(5)(A) of the Act, which allows adjustment applicants to leave the United States without risk of their applications being classified as abandoned. Advanced parole was granted and the couple traveled back and forth from the United States to India multiple times. In 2007, the USCIS denied the adjustment applications on account of the couple being inadmissible to the United States under § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(II) because they had departed the country after having been unlawfully present and were seeking admission less than 10 years after departure. The husband sought reopening of his application, arguing that the couple should not be punished for having left the U.S. when the USCIS had granted advance parole. In 2008, the USCIS granted a decision concluding that inadmissibility under the statute necessitated denial of the application. The Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings, and an Immigration Judge eventually ordered petitioners removed to India. They appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Wendtland, Board Member)

Dissent (Pauley, Board Member)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 497,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 497,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial