Immigration Parole

Immigration Parole

Immigration Parole
October 15, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R46570

Immigration Parole

Summary
The parole provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) discretionary authority to “parole into the United States
temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent
humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United
States.”
Immigration parole is official permission to enter and remain temporarily in the United States. It
does not constitute formal admission under the U.S. immigration system. An individual granted
parole (a parolee) is stil considered an applicant for admission. A parolee is permitted to remain
in the United States for the duration of the grant of parole, and may be granted work
authorization.
The DHS Secretary’s parole authority has been delegated to three agencies within the department:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Parole can be requested by
foreign nationals inside or outside the United States in a range of circumstances. Major parole
categories include port-of-entry parole, advance parole, humanitarian parole, and parole-in-place.
Over the years, U.S. Administrations have used parole authority to bring in various groups of
foreign nationals seeking long-term admission to the country, including Indochinese refugees,
Cuban nationals, and Central American minors found ineligible for refugee status. Although
created in response to specific circumstances, there are certain commonalities among these
special parole programs. Many can be grouped under at least one of three headings: refugee-
related parole programs, family reunification parole programs, and Cuban parole programs. Data
on grants of parole under some of these programs are available from DHS.
The use of parole authority to enable designated populations abroad to enter the United States has
been particularly controversial. Some policymakers have argued that such programs are an
appropriate use of the DHS Secretary’s statutory authority, while others see them as violations of
the “case-by-case basis” requirement of the parole provision. Reflecting the latter view, President
Donald Trump’s Executive Order 13767 on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
Improvements directs the DHS Secretary to “take appropriate action to ensure that parole
authority … is exercised only on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of
the statute.”
Parole does not grant, nor entitle beneficiaries to later obtain, a lawful permanent resident (LPR)
status. Beginning in the mid-1950s, Congress passed measures (separate from the INA) that
established processes to grant LPR status to specified groups of parolees. Since the enactment of
a 1960 law, persons with parole in the United States have been able to apply for and be granted
LPR status, but to do so they must be eligible to receive an immigrant visa and meet other
requirements.
Bil s introduced in recent Congresses il ustrate differing views on the appropriate use of
immigration parole authority. On the one hand, various measures have proposed utilizing parole
authority as a mechanism to grant temporary immigration relief to specified populations. On the
other hand, multiple bil s have sought to restrict the use of parole authority; some of these bil s
have included language specifical y to prohibit the use of parole for entire classes of people.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 24 Immigration Parole

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
INA Parole Authority ....................................................................................................... 2
DHS Exercise of Parole Authority ..................................................................................... 3
Categories of Parole ................................................................................................... 4
Port-of-Entry Parole ............................................................................................. 5
Deferred Inspection Parole..................................................................................... 5
Advance Parole .................................................................................................... 5
Humanitarian Parole for Persons Outside the United States ......................................... 5
Significant Public Benefit Parole for Persons Outside the United States ........................ 6
Parole-in-Place .................................................................................................... 6
Removal-Related Parole ........................................................................................ 6
Special Parole Programs for Persons Outside the United States.................................... 6
Parole Application Process .......................................................................................... 6
Selected Immigration Parole Programs for Persons Outside the United States........................... 7
Refugee-Related Parole Programs ................................................................................ 8
Family Reunification Parole Programs .......................................................................... 9
Other Parole Programs for Cuban Nationals................................................................. 11
Debate Over Parole Programs for Specified Populations ................................................ 12
Work Authorization for Parolees...................................................................................... 13
Parole and Permanent Immigration Status ......................................................................... 15
Adjustment of Status Legislation................................................................................ 15
Advance Parole and Adjustment of Status ................................................................... 16
Legislation in Recent Congresses .................................................................................... 18
Conclusion................................................................................................................... 19

Appendixes
Appendix. INA Parole Provision (§212(d)(5)) ................................................................... 20

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 21

Congressional Research Service

link to page 23 Immigration Parole

Introduction
Executive Order 13767 on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, issued
by President Donald Trump on January 25, 2017, is perhaps best known for its cal for
construction of a wal on the Southwest border. It includes a number of other provisions,
however, including one on immigration parole. Section 11(d) directs the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to “take appropriate action to ensure that parole
authority … is exercised only on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of
the statute.”1
Immigration parole permits a foreign national to be present temporarily in the United States for
humanitarian or public benefit reasons. A parole provision was included in the original
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 and was subsequently amended.2 It currently
reads, in part:3
(A) The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security] may ... in his
discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions as he may
prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public
benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of such alien
shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such parole
shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shall forthwith
return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled.
While seemingly limited and technical, INA parole authority has been the subject of considerable
debate. It gives the DHS Secretary broad, discretionary authority to al ow persons who may not
otherwise be admissible to the country under the immigration laws to enter and remain in the
United States temporarily. Persons granted parole (parolees) can apply for work authorization.
Parole is one of several authorities that al ow foreign nationals to live and work in the United
States without being formal y admitted to the country and without having a set pathway to a
permanent immigration status.
Over the years, parole authority has been used to bring in various groups of foreign nationals
seeking long-term admission, including Indochinese refugees, Cuban nationals, and Central
American minors found ineligible for refugee status. Parole also has been granted to individuals
within the United States, including certain unauthorized family members of U.S. military service
members and veterans.
This report provides a brief legislative history of the INA parole provision, describes categories of
parole and the application process, explores the exercise of parole authority for groups outside the
United States and related debates, discusses regulations on employment authorization, explains
how parolees can obtain U.S. lawful permanent resident (LPR) status, and considers recent
legislative efforts to delineate appropriate uses of parole.

1 Executive Order 13767, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” 82 Federal Register 8793,
January 30, 2017.
2 T he INA is Act of June 27, 1952, ch. 477, codified, as amended, at 8 U.S.C. Sections 1101 et seq. It is the basis of
U.S. immigration law. T he parole provision is INA Section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(d)(5). See the Appe ndix
for the full original 1952 parole provision and the current parole provision.
3 An alien is defined in the INA as a person who is not a U.S. citizen or a U.S. national; it is synonymous with foreign
national.
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 23 Immigration Parole

INA Parole Authority
Immigration parole is official permission to remain temporarily in the United States. In the case
of individuals outside the United States, it also permits entry into the country. Parole does not
constitute formal admission under the U.S. immigration system. A parolee is stil considered an
applicant for admission and is required to leave the United States before the period of parole
expires.4
The original INA parole provision authorized the Attorney General, head of the Department of
Justice (DOJ), to grant parole “for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public
interest.”5 The INA, as initial y enacted, did not contain distinct provisions for the admission of
refugees; beginning in the 1950s, U.S. Administrations used the parole provision to bring in
refugees.6
As part of the 1965 INA Amendments,7 a “conditional entry” provision for the admission of
refugees was added to the INA. House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee
reports on the 1965 legislation stated, in identical language, that with this addition the INA parole
authority should thereafter be limited to certain situations:
Inasmuch as definite provision has now been made for refugees, it is the express intent of
the committee that the parole provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which
remain unchanged by this bill, be administered in accordance with the original intention of
the drafters of that legislation. The parole provisions were designed to authorize the
Attorney General to act only in emergent, individual, and isolated situations, such as the
case of an alien who requires immediate medical attention, and not for the immigration of
classes or groups outside of the limit of the law.8
The conditional entry provision, however, was limited to the Eastern Hemisphere and was subject
to other restrictions. As a consequence, the executive branch continued to use parole authority to
address refugee situations. During the 1960s and 1970s, large numbers of individuals from Cuba,
Indochina, and other areas, who the United States considered to be refugees, were paroled into the
country.9
The Refugee Act of 198010 added language to the INA defining the term refugee and establishing
a refugee admissions process.11 Among its other provisions, the 1980 act amended the INA

4 A parolee, however, may apply for re-parole.
5 See the Appendix for the full original 1952 parole provision.
6 In 1956, in the first use of the INA parole provision to bring in refugees, President Dwight Eisenhower directed the
Attorney General to parole in 15,000 Hungarian refugees who had fled the country after the Hungarian Revolution of
1956. U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Review of U.S. Refugee Resettlem ent Program s and Policies,
committee print, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 96th Cong., 2nd sess., 66-439 O (Washington, DC:
GPO, 1980), p. 9 (hereinafter cited as 1980 committee print).
7 P.L. 89-236, §3.
8 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Amending the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for Other
Purposes, report to accompany H.R. 2580, 89th Cong., 1st sess., H. Rept. 945, August 6, 1965, p. 15-16; U.S. Congress,
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Am ending the Im m igration and Nationality Act, and for Other Purposes, report to
accompany H.R. 2580, 89th Cong., 1st sess., S. Rept. 748, September 15, 2016, p. 17.
9 For additional information, see 1980 committee print, pp. 12 -15.
10 P.L. 96-212.
11 T he refugee definition is set forth in INA Section 101(a)(42), and the refugee admissions process in INA Section
207. For additional information about the U.S. refugee admissions program, see CRS Report RL31269, Refugee
Adm issions and Resettlem ent Policy.
Congressional Research Service
2

link to page 23 Immigration Parole

section on parole to restrict its use for bringing in refugees. It added a second paragraph to the
parole provision as INA Section 212(d)(5)(B).12 This paragraph, which remains in law, reads:13
(B) The Attorney General [now the Secretary of Homeland Security] may not parole into
the United States an alien who is a refugee unless the Attorney General determines that
compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that
the alien be paroled into the United States rather than be admitted as a refugee under section
207.
The Il egal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 further
amended the parole provision to replace the original 1952 language, “for emergent reasons or for
reasons deemed strictly in the public interest,” with the current language specifying “on a case-
by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.”14 IIRIRA also
included language to amend the INA provisions on the worldwide level of family-sponsored
immigrants to require that long-term parolees be counted against those limits.15
The Homeland Security Act of 200216 abolished DOJ’s Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) and transferred most of its immigration functions to the new DHS as of March 1, 2003.
Since then, the DHS Secretary has exercised immigration parole authority.
Parole can be compared to other statutory and non-statutory mechanisms that provide foreign
nationals with temporary authorization to be in the United States.17 Like recipients of statutory
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and executive branch-established Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA), for example, parolees can live and work in the United States for a
specified period.18 Among the key differences, however, is that parole is subject to fewer
eligibility requirements than TPS or DACA. It also can be granted to persons inside or outside the
country, while both TPS and DACA are limited to persons within the United States. Parole,
though, is subject to at least one restriction that does not apply under TPS or DACA. A person is
not eligible for parole-in-place, which, as described below, is a term for the authorization of
parole for someone inside the United States, if that person was lawfully admitted, even if his or
her authorized period of stay has expired.
DHS Exercise of Parole Authority
The DHS Secretary’s parole authority has been delegated to three agencies within the
Department: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In 2008, the three agencies

12 P.L. 96-212, §203(f).
13 See the Appendix for the full current INA parole provision.
14 P.L. 104-208, Division C, §602(a).
15 P.L. 104-208, §603. For information on family-based immigration and related numerical limits, see CRS Report
R43145, U.S. Fam ily-Based Im migration Policy.
16 P.L. 107-296.
17 For further discussion, see Geoffrey Heeren, “T he Status of Nonstatus,” American University Law Review, vol. 64,
issue 5 (June 2015).
18 For information about T PS, see CRS Report RS20844, Temporary Protected Status: Overview and Current Issues;
for information about DACA, see CRS Report R45995, Unauthorized Childhood Arrivals, DACA, and Related
Legislation.
Congressional Research Service
3

Immigration Parole

entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) regarding the exercise of parole with respect to
aliens outside the United States and at ports of entry.19
As discussed in the MOA, the phrases “humanitarian reasons” and “significant public benefit” in
the current parole provision have taken on particular meanings:
As practice has evolved, DHS bureaus have generally construed “humanitarian” paroles
(HPs) as relating to urgent medical, family, and related needs and “significant public
benefit[”] paroles (SPBPs) as limited to persons of law enforcement interest such as
witnesses to judicial proceedings.20
Regarding the length of a parole grant, the INA provision general y states, “when the purposes of
such parole shal … have been served the alien shal forthwith return or be returned.” USCIS has
addressed the length of its grants of humanitarian or significant public benefit parole for
individuals outside the United States (these parole categories are further discussed below). As
explained by the agency, it grants parole “for a temporary period of time to accomplish the
purpose of the parole,” which typical y is no longer than one year.21
In addition, according to USCIS, “Parole ends on the date the parole period expires or when the
beneficiary departs the United States or acquires an immigration status, whichever occurs first. In
some cases, we may place conditions on parole, such as reporting requirements.” The agency also
notes that it “may revoke parole at any time and without notice” upon a determination that it “is
no longer warranted or the beneficiary fails to comply with any conditions of parole.”22 A parolee
in the United States who needs to remain beyond his or her authorized parole period can request
re-parole.23
Categories of Parole
Parole can be requested by foreign nationals inside or outside the United States in a range of
circumstances. Selected major parole categories are described below.24 As late as the early 2000s,
annual reports of immigration statistics published by the former Immigration and Naturalization

19 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum of Agreement between U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (USCIS), U.S. Im m igration and Custom s Enforcem ent (ICE), and U.S. Custom s an d Border Protection (CBP)
for the Purpose of Coordinating the Concurrent Exercise by USCIS, ICE, and CBP , of the Secretary’s Parole Authority
Under INA § 212(d)(s)(A) With Respect to Certain Aliens Located Outside the United States, https://www.ice.gov/
doclib/foia/reports/parole-authority-moa-9-08.pdf (hereinafter cited as DHS, MOA on parole). With respect to CBP, the
MOA notes: “ T o the extent that this MOA largely assists ICE and USCIS apportion its parole caseloads, omission of
specific reference to CBP should not be construed to detract from CBP ’s inherent authority to issue paroles. CBP does
and will continue to exercise parole authority for both urgent humanitarian reasons and significant public benefit.” (p.
3).
20 DHS, MOA on parole, p. 2.
21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Humanitarian or Significant
Public Benefit Parole for Individuals Outside the United States,” https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-or-
significant -public-benefit -parole-for-individuals-outside-the-united-states (hereinafter cited as USCIS, parole).
Information on length of parole appears under the “What is Parole?” tab.
22 USCIS, parole.
23 For additional information, see USCIS, parole (under the “Re-Parole” tab).
24 T he categories, as described here, are mutually exclusive but are not exhaustive. For example, the DHS MOA lists
others, such as parole related to national intelligence, parole for participants in events held by U.S. -based international
organizations, and parole under 50 U.S.C. Section 40 3(h), which provides for the “ entry of a particular alien into the
United States for permanent residence” when it “ is in the interest of national security or essential to the furtherance of
the national intelligence mission. DHS, MOA on parole, pp. 2-3.
Congressional Research Service
4

Immigration Parole

Service (INS) and then DHS contained data on parole grants.25 DHS’s 2003 Yearbook of
Immigration Statistics, the last to include such data, contained annual data for FY1998 through
FY2003 on six categories of parolees, including port-of-entry parolees, deferred inspection
parolees, advance parolees, and humanitarian parolees (see descriptions below).26 During this six-
year period, the annual total number of parolees ranged from about 235,000 to about 300,000,
with port-of-entry parolees accounting for more than half of each annual total.27 While
comparable cross-category data on parole are no longer available from DHS, there are some
available USCIS statistics on particular parole programs, which are presented in the relevant
sections below.
Port-of-Entry Parole
Port-of-entry parole is authorized at the port of arrival and can be provided in a variety of
situations. These include permitting the entry of an LPR returning to the United States who is not
carrying proper documents. Port-of-entry parole also can be used to al ow foreign nationals to
enter for short stays, such as to attend a family funeral or assist in a natural disaster.
Deferred Inspection Parole
Deferred inspection is a form of parole that is used when an alien appears at a port of entry with
documentation but questions remain about his or her admissibility to the United States. In such
cases, parole can be granted to enable the individual to appear at another immigration office to
resolve the issue.
Advance Parole
As suggested by its name, advance parole is authorized prior to an individual’s arrival at a U.S.
port of entry. The term is most commonly used to describe the issuance of a document to a
foreign national (other than an LPR) residing in the United States who needs to depart and wants
to return, and whose conditions of stay do not otherwise al ow for re-entry into the country.
An advance parole document authorizes such an alien to appear at a U.S. port of entry to seek
parole after travel ing abroad. However, it does not entitle the bearer to be paroled into the United
States. That remains a discretionary decision to be made when the person arrives at the port of
entry. Among the categories of individuals in the United States that need to request advance
parole to be able to return to the country after traveling abroad are most applicants for LPR status,
holders of and applicants for TPS, and individuals with parole.
Humanitarian Parole for Persons Outside the United States
This category of parole takes its name from the text of the INA provision and reflects the
underlying reason for the grant of parole. Although al parole authorizations are required to be for
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, humanitarian parole is often used to
describe a narrower category of parole grants. These are grants to persons residing outside the

25 INS yearbooks for FY1996-FY2001 and DHS yearbooks since FY2002 are available at U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, “ Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,” https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook.
26 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2003 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics,
September 2004, pp. 81-84, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/
Yearbook_Immigration_Statistics_2003.pdf (hereinafter cited as DHS, 2003 Yearbook).
27 DHS, 2003 Yearbook.
Congressional Research Service
5

Immigration Parole

United States who apply for parole from abroad to enter the United States temporarily for urgent
humanitarian reasons, such as to receive medical treatment.
Significant Public Benefit Parole for Persons Outside the United States
A counterpart to the humanitarian parole category, this category similarly takes its name from the
text of the INA provision and reflects the underlying reason for the grant of parole. As used here,
it includes parole grants to persons residing outside the United States who apply for parole from
abroad to enter the country temporarily for significant public benefit, such as to participate in a
legal proceeding.
Parole-in-Place
Parole-in-place authorizes individuals who are physical y present in the United States but have
not been lawfully admitted to remain in the country. In accordance with a 2013 USCIS policy
memorandum, parole-in-place has been granted to certain family members (spouses, children, and
parents) of active duty members and former members of the U.S. Armed Forces and the Selected
Reserve of the Ready Reserve. That memorandum specified that such grants of parole “should be
authorized in one-year increments, with re-parole as appropriate.”28
Removal-Related Parole
This category of parole applies to aliens in removal proceedings or aliens who have final orders
of removal, as wel as aliens granted deferred action by ICE at any point after the commencement
of removal proceedings.29
Special Parole Programs for Persons Outside the United States
Over the years, INS and DHS established special parole programs for particular populations
abroad in response to specific circumstances; these are sometimes referred to as “categorical
parole” programs. Among these are parole programs—such as the Cuban lottery (described
below)—established in connection with international agreements. These special parole programs
are the subject of a separate section below.
Parole Application Process
General y, individuals applying for parole in advance, whether they are inside or outside the
United States, submit USCIS Form I-131, Application for Travel Document. Depending on their
location, parole applicants use this form to apply for either an advance parole document for

28 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigratio n Services, Parole of Spouses, Children and
Parents of Active Duty Mem bers of the U.S. Arm ed Forces, the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, and Form er
Mem bers of the U.S. Arm ed Forces or Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve and the Effect of Parole on
Inadm issibility under Im m igration and Nationality Act §212(a)(6)(A)(i), policy memorandum, November 15, 2013.
Reasons cited in this memorandum in support of the use of parole-in-place in such cases included that U.S military
service members and veterans experience stress and anxiety due to their family members’ immigration status, that this
worry can affect military preparedness, and that the United States has made a commitment to support and care for
veterans.
29 For information about other types of parole requests handed by ICE, see U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Privacy Im pact Assessm ent for the ICE Parole and Law Enforcem ent Program s Case Managem ent System s ,
DHS/ICE/PIA-049, December 3, 2018, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-ice-plepucms-
december2018.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 8 link to page 8 Immigration Parole

individuals who are currently in the United States or an advance parole document for individuals
outside the United States.30 USCIS and ICE can authorize issuance of advance parole documents,
in accordance with the 2008 MOA referenced above.
The advance parole document for individuals in the United States is referenced in the “Advance
Parole” section above. As noted, this document authorizes an alien to appear at a U.S. port of
entry after travel ing abroad to seek parole into the United States. Applicants for parole-in-place
also need to submit Form I-131.
Applicants for humanitarian parole or significant public benefit parole, as described above, and
applicants under some of the special parole programs described below use Form I-131 to apply
for an advance parole document for individuals outside the United States. Applicants for re-parole
also apply for this type of advance parole document (despite being physical y present in the
United States).
There are exceptions to the Form I-131 application process. For example, principal applicants
under the International Entrepreneur Parole program described below must submit a different
application form.31 Applicants in removal proceedings seeking release from ICE custody must
contact their local ICE office.32 ICE is responsible for handling such parole requests.
Selected Immigration Parole Programs for Persons
Outside the United States
A number of parole programs have been established over the years to enable members of
designated populations abroad to enter the United States. Although created in response to specific
circumstances, there are certain commonalities among these special parole programs. Many of
them can be grouped under one (or more) of three headings: refugee-related parole programs,
family reunification parole programs, and Cuban parole programs.
There is at least one recently established special parole program, however, that does not fal under
any of the three headings: the International Entrepreneur Parole (IEP) program. The subject of a
final rule issued at the end of the Obama Administration in January 2017, this program reflects a
novel use of parole. Supplementary information to the rule described the purpose of the IEP
program as being “to increase and enhance entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the
United States.” The supplementary information further stated:
Under this final rule, an applicant would need to demonstrate that his or her parole would
provide a significant public benefit because he or she is the entrepreneur of a new start-up
entity in the United States that has significant potential for rapid growth and job creation.33

30 Form 131 is also used to apply for other travel documents, such as a refugee travel document. See Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “ Instructions for Application for T ravel Document ”
(USCIS Form I-131), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-131instr.pdf.
31 Principal applicants file USCIS Form I-941, Application for Entrepreneur Parole, while derivative spouses and
children file Form I-131. See U.S. Department of Homeland Securit y, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
“International Entrepreneur Parole,” https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-parole/international-
entrepreneur-parole.
32 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Instructions for
Application for T ravel Document [Form 1 -131],” April 24, 2019, p. 6, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/
document/forms/i-131instr.pdf.
33 See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-01-17/pdf/2017-00481.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7

Immigration Parole

The international entrepreneur final rule had an original effective date of July 17, 2017. Due to
efforts by the Trump Administration to delay this effective date and related legal action, however,
DHS did not begin accepting applications under the rule until December 2017.34 In May 2018,
DHS published a proposed rule to remove the IEP regulations.35 According to DHS, it proposed
to eliminate the final rule “because the department believes that it represents an overly broad
interpretation of parole authority,” among other reasons.36 As of February 10, 2020, USCIS had
received a total of 28 IEP applications. Of these, 1 was approved, 22 were denied, 3 were
withdrawn, and 2 were pending.37
Refugee-Related Parole Programs
Since the end of World War II, the United States has established various immigration programs
for the admission of foreign nationals fleeing persecution.38 Prior to enactment of the 1980
Refugee Act, immigration parole was the chief means used to bring in aliens considered to be
refugees. From the late 1950s through the 1970s, hundreds of thousands of individuals from
Cuba, Indochina, Eastern Europe, and other areas were paroled into the United States.
Parole continued to be granted to some individuals considered by the United States to be refugees
after enactment of the Refugee Act. In a notable 1980 example, the Attorney General paroled in
tens of thousands of Cubans and Haitians who arrived in the United States by boat in what is
known as the Mariel Boatlift. Until 2017, Cuban nationals were routinely granted parole under
the “wet foot/dry foot” policy. As described in a 2017 DHS fact sheet, “‘wet-foot/dry-foot’
general y refers to an understanding under which Cuban migrants traveling to the United States
who are intercepted at sea (‘wet foot’) are returned to Cuba or resettled in a third country, while
those who make it to U.S. soil (‘dry foot’) are able to request parole.”39
In the late 1980s, denial rates for Soviet refugee applicants were increasing because of changes in
U.S. refugee processing and other factors. In response, in 1989, Congress passed the Lautenberg
Amendment. As subsequently amended to correct references to the Soviet Union following its
dissolution, it required the Attorney General (now the Secretary of DHS) to designate categories
of former Soviet and Indochinese nationals—including specified categories of religious
minorities from an independent state of the former Soviet Union, or of Estonia, Latvia, or
Lithuania—for whom less evidence would be needed to prove refugee status. It also provided for
adjustment to permanent resident status of certain Soviet and Indochinese nationals granted
parole after being denied refugee status.40 In connection with this legislation, INS and then

34 For additional details, see U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “Removal of International Entrepreneur Parole
Program,” 83 Federal Register 8793, May 29, 2018 (hereinafter cited as DHS, proposed rule to eliminate IEP
program).
35 See DHS, proposed rule to eliminate IEP program.
36 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, International Entrepreneur Parole, https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/
humanitarian-parole/international-entrepreneur-parole. Also see DHS, proposed rule to eliminate IEP program.
37 Data provided by USCIS to CRS by email, September 30, 2020.
38 For additional information, see 1980 committee print.
39 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fact Sheet: Changes to Parole and Expedited Removal policies affecting
Cuban Nationals, January 12, 2017. According to the fact sheet: “ Considering the reestablishment of full diplomatic
relations, Cuba’s signing of a Joint Statement obligating it to accept the repatriation of its nationals who arrive in the
United States after the date of the agreement, and other factors, the Secretary concluded that … the parole policies
discussed above [including the “ wet foot/dry foot” policy] are no longer warranted.”
40 T he Lautenberg Amendment was first enacted as part of the FY1990 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act (P.L. 101-167, §§599D, 599E). It has been regularly extended since, although
Congressional Research Service
8

Immigration Parole

USCIS offered parole to certain religious minorities from the former Soviet Union who were
denied refugee status. This parole program continued until 2011, when, according to USCIS, the
agency decided to stop it “as a matter of policy.”41
Another parole program (for unsuccessful refugee applicants) was established in 2014. It was part
of the Central American Minors (CAM) program for certain minor children in El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras. Under the now-terminated refugee part of the CAM program, a
qualifying parent in the United States could file an application for a qualifying child living in one
of the three countries to be considered for admission to the United States as a refugee, along with
certain accompanying family members. If the child was found ineligible for refugee status, the
CAM program provided for the child and his/her accompanying family members to be considered
for immigration parole.42 In written testimony prepared for a 2015 Senate hearing on the CAM
program, a USCIS official explained, “[T]o grant parole under this program, USCIS must find
that the individual is at risk of harm in his or her country and that the applicant merits a favorable
exercise of discretion.” According to the official, grants of parole general y would be for an initial
period of two years.43 According to USCIS data, there were a total of 1,464 CAM parole
approvals in FY2016 and FY2017 combined. The breakdown by applicant country of citizenship
was El Salvador (1,108), Honduras (325), and Guatemala (31).44
In August 2017, DHS announced that it was terminating the parole part of the CAM program. As
a result of related litigation and a court settlement, however, DHS agreed in 2019 to process cases
that had been conditional y approved for parole at the time of the termination announcement.45
This processing has resulted in the approval of 342 CAM parole cases in FY2020, as of June
2020. The breakdown by applicant country of citizenship is El Salvador (328), Guatemala (13),
and Honduras (1).46
Parole also figured into the CAM program in another way. A qualifying parent, for purposes of
the program, was an individual who was at least age 18 and was lawfully present in a specified
immigration category. The specified categories included parole (provided the parent had been
issued parole for at least one year).47
Family Reunification Parole Programs
Family reunification is an underlying principle of the U.S. immigration system. The INA provides
for U.S. citizens and LPRs to file immigrant visa petitions on behalf of certain family members.
The family-based immigration system is subject to statutory preferences and numerical limits that

there have been some lapses between extensions.
41 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Im migration Services, Green Card for a Lautenberg
Parolee, https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/other-ways-get-green-card/green-card-lautenberg-parolee.
42 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “ In-Country Refugee/Parole
Processing for Minors in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala (Central American Minors – CAM),”
https://www.uscis.gov/CAM (hereinafter cited as USCIS, CAM).
43 T estimony of Joseph Langlois, Associate Director, Refugee, Asylum and International Operations, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommitt ee on Immigration and
the National Interest, hearing, Eroding the Law and Diverting Taxpayer Resources: an Exam ination of the
Administration’s Central America Minors Refugee/Parole Program , 114th Cong., 1st sess., April 2015.
44 Data provided by USCIS to CRS by email, June 17, 2020.
45 USCIS, CAM.
46 Data provided by USCIS to CRS by email, June 17, 2020.
47 USCIS, CAM.
Congressional Research Service
9

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 18 link to page 18 Immigration Parole

may result in years-long waits for visas for some prospective immigrants after their petitions are
approved.48 The principle of family reunification is also reflected in various immigration parole
programs.49
The Cuban Family Reunification Parole (CFRP) program was established in 2007, a peak year for
U.S. Coast Guard interdictions of Cubans. It was seen as way to both discourage Cubans from
undertaking dangerous maritime crossings and meet the U.S. commitment on legal Cuban
migration levels under the 1994 U.S.-Cuban Migration Agreement (see the “Other Parole
Programs for Cuban Nationals” section). The CFRP program is available to Cuban nationals who
are the beneficiaries of family-based immigrant visa petitions filed by certain eligible family
members in the United States. Under the program, certain U.S. citizens and LPRs who have filed
immigrant visa petitions on behalf of family members in Cuba that have been approved are
invited by the State Department to apply to USCIS for parole for their Cuban relatives. If parole
is granted, the Cuban relatives may enter and live in the United States without having to wait for
their immigrant visas to become available. Grants of parole under the CFRP program are for two
years.50 After one year of physical presence in the United States, a Cuban parolee can apply to
become an LPR under the terms of the Cuban Adjustment Act (see the “Parole and Permanent
Immigration Status” section). According to USCIS, the CFRP program remains in effect but al
CFRP processing in Havana has been suspended for security reasons.51
The similar Haitian Family Reunification Parole (HFRP) program was implemented in 2015 to
“provid[e] the opportunity for certain eligible Haitians to safely and legal y immigrate sooner to
the United States.”52 Like the Cuban program, the HFRP program is available to Haitian nationals
who are the beneficiaries of family-based immigrant visa petitions filed by certain eligible family
members in the United States. To be invited to apply for the HFRP program, the immigrant visa
petition must have been approved by December 18, 2014, and the expected wait for an immigrant
visa must be between about 18 and 42 months. If parole is granted, the Haitian relatives may
enter and live in the United States while they wait for visa numbers to become available so they
can apply for LPR status. Grants of parole under the HFRP program are for three years.53
In August 2019, USCIS announced its intention to terminate the HFRP program in accordance
with Executive Order 13767.54 Between the program’s inception and December 31, 2019, the

48 See CRS Report R43145, U.S. Family-Based Immigration Policy.
49 Family reunification is also a feature of some refugee-related parole programs, including the CAM program and the
Lautenberg Amendment (as discussed in the preceding section). T o be considered for U.S. admission under the
Lautenberg Amendment, a prospect ive refugee must have family in the United States.
50 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Cuban Family Reunification
Parole Program , https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/fact-sheets/CFRP_Fact_Sheet_8.26.2016.pdf.
51 Email from USCIS to CRS, February 20, 2020. According to USCIS: “In light of the significant drawdown in U.S.
government personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Cuba for security reasons and the subsequent decision to close the
USCIS field office in Cuba on December 10, 2018, all CFRP processing in Havana has been suspended. T he
Department of Homeland Security is working with our co lleagues at the Department of State to evaluate options for
interviewing and processing CFRP beneficiaries in alternative locations.”
52 Remarks of Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, in U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “ DHS T o Implement Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program ,” press
release, October 14, 2014.
53 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
“T he Haitian Family Reunification Parole (HFRP) Program,” February 21, 2018, https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/
humanitarian-parole/the-haitian-family-reunification-parole-hfrp-program.
54 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “USCIS to End Certain
Categorical Parole Programs,” news release, August 2, 2019 (hereinafter cited as USCIS, August 2019 news release).
Congressional Research Service
10

Immigration Parole

agency issued 12,534 invitations (covering 23,993 beneficiaries) to petitioners to submit
applications on behalf of their beneficiary relatives and accepted 10,534 applications. As of
December 31, 2019, 8,313 of these applications had been approved, 2,209 had been denied, and
12 remained pending.55
The Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Program, implemented in 2016, makes eligible for
parole certain beneficiaries of approved family-based immigrant visa petitions that were filed by
Filipino veterans or their surviving spouses. If parole is granted, according to USCIS, the
beneficiaries could “provide support and care to their aging veteran family members” in the
United States while waiting for their visas to become available.56 Under the family-based
immigration system and its per country limits, visa waiting times for nationals of the Philippines
can be particularly long. In specified circumstances, this program permits beneficiaries to seek
parole on their own behalf based on an approved petition filed by an eligible veteran or surviving
spouse. Grants of parole under the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Program are for three
years.57
In August 2019, USCIS announced its intention to terminate this parole program in accordance
Executive Order 13767.58 Between the program’s inception and December 31, 2019, the agency
accepted 664 applications. As of December 31, 2019, 301 of these applications had been
approved, 266 had been denied, and 97 were pending.59
Other Parole Programs for Cuban Nationals
Cuban nationals have been the beneficiaries of several special parole programs over the years. In
addition to refugee-related grants of parole and the CFRP program, Cubans have been granted
parole under programs that include the Special Program for Cuban Migration and the Cuban
Medical Professional Parole (CMPP) program.
The Special Program for Cuban Migration, also known as the Cuban lottery, grew out of the 1994
U.S.-Cuban Migration Agreement. Under that accord, the United States agreed, among other
things, to al ow at least 20,000 Cubans to migrate legal y to the United States each year,
excluding immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The Cuban lottery, which was established to help
meet that target of 20,000, has been restricted to Cuban adults who meet certain basic
qualifications. Interested Cubans have applied during an open season, and winners have been
randomly chosen. Lottery winners have then been interviewed for consideration for parole.

55 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Form I -131, T ravel Document
Applications for the Haitian Family Reunification Parole (HFRP) Program As of December 31, 2019,”
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/HFRP_performancedata_fy2020_qtr1.pdf. T he latest round of
invitations was issued in June 2016.
56 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Filipino World War II Veterans
Parole Program , https://www.uscis.gov/fwvp. Also see U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, “ USCIS to Implement Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Program ,” news release, May 9,
2016, https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-implement -filipino-world-war-ii-veterans-parole-program.
57 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
“Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Program,” https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-parole/filipino-
world-war-ii-veterans-parole-program.
58 USCIS, August 2019 news release.
59 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “ Form I-131, T ravel Document
Applications for the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole (FWVP) Program Applications Accepted, Denied,
Approved, and Pending As of December 31, 2019,” https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/
FWVP_performancedata_fy2020_qtr1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 5 Immigration Parole

Successful applicants could bring their spouses and minor children with them to the United
States. There have been three Cuban lottery open seasons to date (in FY1994, FY1996, and
FY1998).60 According to USCIS, “since 1998, the Cuban Government has not permitted a new
registration for the Special Program for Cuban Migration.”61
The CMPP program, which was established in 2006, al owed Cuban health-care providers who
were conscripted by the Cuban government to study or work in another country to apply to enter
the United States on parole. Their accompanying spouses and any minor children could also be
considered for parole.62 The program was terminated in 2017 as “part of the ongoing
normalization of relations between the governments of the United States and Cuba.”63 USCIS
approved 9,693 applications under the CMPP program between January 1, 2006, and December
31, 2017.64
Debate Over Parole Programs for Specified Populations
Over the years, the executive branch’s use of its discretionary parole authority for specified
classes of foreign nationals has been controversial. Objections were voiced in a 1996 House
Judiciary Committee report on a predecessor bil to IIRIRA that proposed more restrictive
changes to the parole provision than were ultimately enacted (see the “INA Parole Authority”
section):
The text of section 212(d)(5) is clear that the parole authority was intended to be used on a
case-by-case basis to meet specific needs, and not as a supplement to Congressionally-
established immigration policy. In recent years, however, parole has been used increasingly
to admit entire categories of aliens who do not qualify for admission under any other
category in immigration law, with the intent that they will remain permanently in the
United States.65
Some House Judiciary Committee members at the time opposed the committee-approved changes
to the parole provision. In a “dissenting views” section of the report, they argued against revising
the language of INA Section 212(d)(5): “The current law provides the Attorney General with

60 For additional information, see archived CRS Report R40566, Cuban Migration to the United States: Policy and
Trends.
61 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Notice of Changes t o
Application Procedures for the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program,” 79 Federal Register 75579, 75580,
December 18, 2014. In this notice, USCIS cited Cuba’s failure to permit a new lottery registration as a reason for the
establishment of the CFRP program: “ Without this pool of individuals, there was a deficiency in the number of Cubans
potentially eligible for travel to the United States.”
62 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Serv ices,
“Cuban Medical Professional Parole (CMPP) Program,” https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-parole/
cuban-medical-professional-parole-cmpp-program.
63 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “ Statement by Secretary Johnson on the Continued Normalization of our
Migration Relationship with Cuba,” January 12, 2017, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/12/statement -secretary-
johnson-continued-normalization-our-migration-relationship-cuba.
64 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Electronic Reading Room,
Cuban Medical Professional Parole Approvals from 2006 -2017, September 02, 2019, https://www.uscis.gov/records/
electronic-reading-room?ddt_mon=&ddt_yr=&query=parole&items_per_page=10. T he data are available at
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/Cuban_Medical_Professional_Parole_Approvals_from_2006 -
2017.pdf.
65 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995, report to
accompany H.R. 2202, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 104-469, pt. 1, March 4, 1996, p. 140 (hereinafter cited as
H.Rept. 104-469, pt. 1).
Congressional Research Service
12

link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 Immigration Parole

appropriate flexibility to deal with compel ing immigration situations.”66 (Recent legislation
related to the use of parole for classes of individuals is discussed in the “Legislation in Recent
Congresses” section.)
Almost 20 years later, during the Obama Administration, then-DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
directed USCIS to issue new policies on the use of parole-in-place for individuals in the United
States who had U.S. citizen and LPR family members seeking to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.
He provided the following rationale for using parole authority for a class of individuals:
Although parole determinations must be made on an individualized b asis, the authority has
long been interpreted to allow for designation of specific classes of aliens for whom parole
should be favorably considered, so long as the parole of each alien within the class is
considered on a discretionary, case-by-case basis.67
In FY2019 and FY2020 (as of June 18, 2020) combined, USCIS approved 8,952 military parole-
in-place applications and denied 2,040. As of June 18, 2020, 4,943 applications were pending.68
The Trump Administration has acted to end some parole programs in accordance with Executive
Order 13767. Citing the executive order, USCIS announced the termination of the CAM parole
program in August 2017, although some cases continue to be processed (see the “Refugee-
Related Parole Programs” section).69
In August 2019, USCIS announced its intention to end the Haitian Family Reunification Parole
program and the Filipino World War II Veterans Parole program (see the “Family Reunification
Parole Programs” section).70 The news release quoted then-USCIS Acting Director Ken
Cuccinel i as saying, “Under these categorical parole programs, individuals have been able to
skip the line and bypass the proper channels established by Congress.”71 It further explained that
USCIS continues to review the remaining categorical parole programs but wil not terminate any
program until it completes “required administrative changes to Form I-131, Application for
Travel Document, and the form is approved for public use.”72
Work Authorization for Parolees
Immigration regulations providing that parolees are eligible for employment authorization date to
the 1980s. In May 1981, INS amended its regulations to add new provisions on employment
authorization.73 These provisions enumerated two classes of aliens eligible to work: (1) aliens

66 H.Rept. 104-469, pt. 1, p. 538.
67 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum to Leon Rodriguez, Director, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, from Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, Fam ilies of U.S. Arm ed Forces
Mem bers and Enlistees, November 20, 2014.
68 Data provided by USCIS to CRS by email, September 30, 2020.
69 T he Federal Register notice on the termination points out, however, that “[t]his discretionary change in policy does
not preclude such individuals from applying for parole consideration independent of the … program.” U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, “ T ermination of the Central American Minors Parole Program,” 82 Federal Register 38926,
August 16, 2017.
70 USCIS, August 2019 news release.
71 USCIS, August 2019 news release. T he news release describes categorical parole as “programs designed to consider
parole for entire groups of individuals based on pre-set criteria.”
72 USCIS, August 2019 news release.
73 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Employment Authorization to Aliens in the
United States,” 46 Federal Register 25079, May 5, 1981. According to the rule summary, “ T he new rules are necessary
to codify the various Service Operations Instructions and policy statements in one place in the regulations so that the
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 10 link to page 10 Immigration Parole

who were authorized for employment incident to their status, and (2) aliens who had to apply for
work authorization. The first class included aliens who were paroled into the United States as
refugees, as described in INA Section 212(d)(5)(B) and discussed above in the “INA Parole
Authority” section. Other aliens granted parole in accordance with INA Section 212(d)(5) were
not listed as part of either class.
In November 1981, INS published a final rule to add INA Section 212(d)(5) parolees to the class
of aliens who had to apply for work authorization, describing them as follows: “Any alien paroled
into the United States temporarily for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the
public interest: Provided, The alien establishes an economic need to work.”74 The rule also added
a new provision on criteria to establish economic necessity. The supplementary information to the
rule discussed the rationale for adding the new paragraph on parolees: “Although section
212(d)(5)(A) of the Act authorizes the exercise of discretion regarding the conditions of parole for
such alien, and which implies work authorization, this new class of aliens is added to Part 109 of
8 CFR to avoid any uncertainty.”75
Current DHS regulations on employment authorization describe three classes of employment-
authorized aliens: (1) “Aliens authorized employment incident to status,” (2) “Aliens authorized
for employment with a specific employer incident to status or parole,” and (3) “Aliens who must
apply for employment authorization.”76 Different parolees fal within each of these classes. As
under the 1981 regulations, the first class includes aliens who are paroled in as refugees.77 The
second class includes aliens who are paroled in as entrepreneurs under the International
Entrepreneur Parole program78 (see the “Selected Immigration Parole Programs for Persons
Outside the United States” section). The third class includes aliens granted parole under INA
Section 212(d)(5), with some exceptions. The relevant paragraph of the regulation describing this
third class reads, in part, “an alien paroled into the United States temporarily for urgent
humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act.”79 (It
does not include any language on economic necessity.) Also included in the third class, in a
separate paragraph, are spouses of entrepreneur parolees.80

public may conveniently locate the rules on employment authorization for aliens and the standards which are
applicable.” (p. 25080).
74 U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, “Employment Authorization; Revision to
Classes of Aliens Eligible,” 46 Federal Register 55920, 55921, November 13, 1981 (hereinafter cited as INS rule,
November 13, 1981). T he “emergent reasons” and “strictly in the public interest” language reflected the text of the INA
212(d)(5)(A) at the time.
75 INS rule, November 13, 1981, p. 55921.
76 8 C.F.R. §274a.12.
77 8 C.F.R. §274a.12(a)(4).
78 8 C.F.R. §274a.12(b)(37).
79 8 C.F.R. §274a.12(c)(11). Among the exceptions, this provision excludes asylum seekers and others requesting
humanitarian relief who are paroled from custody after establishing a credible fear or reasonable fear of persecution or
torture. For information about credible fear and reasonable fear, see CRS Report R45539, Im m igration: U.S. Asylum
Policy
80 8 C.F.R. §274a.12(c)(34).
Congressional Research Service
14

Immigration Parole

Parole and Permanent Immigration Status
A parolee is permitted to remain in the United States for the duration of the grant of parole, and
may be granted work authorization. A parole grant, however, does not provide a set pathway to a
permanent immigration status.
The INA, as original y enacted in 1952, did not al ow a parolee to apply for adjustment of status,
which is the standard process of obtaining LPR status while in the United States. The main
adjustment of status provision in the 1952 act (INA §245(a)) provided only for the adjustment of
status of an alien lawfully admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant81 if the alien had an
immigrant visa immediately available and met other requirements.
INA Section 245(a) was amended in 1960 to provide for the adjustment of status of an alien who
had been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States.82 This provision thus gives
parolees a potential pathway to LPR status, but it is subject to a number of requirements and
restrictions. Among the requirements, an individual must be eligible to receive an immigrant visa
and must have an immigrant visa immediately available in order to adjust status. This, in turn,
typical y requires the individual to have either a family member or employer who can sponsor
him or her under the existing family-based or employer-based permanent immigration system. To
be eligible for adjustment of status, an individual also must be admissible to the United States for
permanent residence. The INA enumerates grounds of inadmissibility, which are grounds upon
which aliens are ineligible to receive visas or to be admitted to the United States.83 These include
health, criminal, and security grounds, among others. Some grounds of inadmissibility include
exceptions, and some can be waived. In addition, adjustment of status under INA Section 245(a)
is not applicable to individuals who, for example, have engaged in unauthorized employment or
have failed to maintain lawful status continuously since U.S. entry, although there are exceptions
to these ineligibilities for certain persons, including certain relatives of U.S. citizens.84
Adjustment of Status Legislation
As noted, prior to the enactment of the Refugee Act of 1980, parole authority was one of the
mechanisms used to bring refugees into the United States. Laws enacted between the mid-1950s
and the late 1970s provided for the adjustment of status of specified groups of parolees, including
paroled refugees from World War II, the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and the Vietnam War.85
Also enacted during this period, in the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution, was the Cuban
Adjustment Act. Unlike the other adjustment of status measures, the Cuban Adjustment Act was
not limited to a finite group of Cuban parolees and did not include an end date. In its current
form, it provides for the adjustment of status “of any alien who is a native or citizen of Cuba and

81 A nonimmigrant is a foreign national who is legally admitted to the United States for a temporary period of time and
a specific purpose (e.g., tourists, students, diplomats).
82 P.L. 86-648, §10.
83 INA §212(a), 8 U.S.C. §1182(a).
84 An exception applies to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. INA Section 201(b)(2) (8 U.S.C. §1151(b)(2)) defines
this term to mean the unmarried children under age 21, spouses, and parents of a U.S. citizen, with the U.S. citizen
required to be at least age 21 in the case of parents.
85 T hese laws included P.L. 85-559, July 15, 1958; P.L. 86-648, July 14, 1960; and P.L. 95-145, October 28, 1977.
Congressional Research Service
15

link to page 11 Immigration Parole

who has been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States subsequent to January 1,
1959 and has been physical y present in the United States for at least one year.”86
After 1980, parole continued to be granted to particular groups of foreign nationals seeking
permanent admission to the United States, and legislative provisions continued to be enacted to
enable members of these groups to adjust to LPR status. One of these adjustment provisions was
enacted as part of the Lautenberg Amendment, which, as amended, provided for the adjustment of
status of nationals of an independent state of the former Soviet Union, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia who were granted parole after being denied refugee status (see the
“Refugee-Related Parole” section).87
Most beneficiaries of the current special parole programs have an existing avenue to obtain LPR
status. In the case of the Cuban programs, parolees can adjust status under the Cuban Adjustment
Act. In the case of the family reunification programs, parolees can adjust status under the
standard INA adjustment of status provisions once their immigrant visas become available.
Individuals granted parole under the CAM program or the IEP program, however, would not
necessarily have an existing pathway to LPR status and would likely require special adjustment of
status legislation.
Advance Parole and Adjustment of Status
The potential use of advance parole as a mechanism to gain access to adjustment of status has
received attention in recent years. While this issue has been raised mainly in connection with the
DACA initiative (and is discussed in that context here), it has broader relevance. It is also
applicable to others present in the United States in a capacity that makes them eligible for
advance parole but who did not enter the country lawfully—such as certain holders of TPS.88
DACA provides temporary protection from removal to individuals who have met a set of
requirements. Among these, the individual must have been in unlawful status on June 15, 2012. It
does not matter if the individual initial y entered the United States legal y as long as he or she no
longer had lawful status on June 15, 2012. DACA recipients who entered the United States
unlawfully are not eligible to adjust to LPR status (because they were never inspected and
admitted or paroled into the country), even if they meet the other eligibility requirements
discussed earlier in this section of the report.
During the Obama Administration, DACA recipients who initial y entered the United States
unlawfully could become eligible for adjustment of status if they were granted advance parole
and were permitted to re-enter the country after travel ing abroad. Now-archived USCIS DACA
FAQs enumerated the following bases for granting advance parole: “humanitarian purposes,
including travel to obtain medical treatment, attending funeral services for a family member, or
visiting an ailing relative; educational purposes, such as semester-abroad programs and academic
research[; or] employment purposes.”89 When DACA recipients who were granted advance parole

86 P.L. 89-732, as amended, 8 U.S.C. §1255 note.
87 P.L. 101-167, §599E, as amended, 8 U.S.C. §1255 note. Other post -1980 parolee adjustment of status acts include
P.L. 104-208, Division C, Section 646 (Poles and Hungarians), 8 U.S.C. Section 1255 note, and P.L. 111-293 (Haitian
orphans), 8 U.S.C. Section 1255 note.
88 For additional information about this form of relief, see CRS Report RS20844, Temporary Protected Status:
Overview and Current Issues.
89 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, “Frequently Asked Questions,
DHS DACA FAQs,” response to question 57, March 8, 2018 (archived content), https://www.uscis.gov/archive/
frequently-asked-questions#education.
Congressional Research Service
16

Immigration Parole

returned to the United States, they could be paroled in. They would therefore meet the threshold
“inspected and admitted or paroled” requirement for adjustment of status, which could enable
them to become LPRs. To do so, however, such individuals would need to meet the other
applicable requirements for adjustment of status, including being eligible to receive an immigrant
visa, being admissible to the United States, having an immigrant visa immediately available, and
being covered by an exception that shielded the individuals from any applicable ineligibilities.90
According to preliminary data provided to Congress by DHS, 45,447 DACA recipients had been
approved for advance parole as of August 21, 2017.91 It is not known how many of these
individuals subsequently applied for or were granted adjustment to LPR status.
When the Trump Administration acted to rescind DACA in 2017, it announced that it would no
longer grant advance parole under the DACA program. As stated in the September 2017 DHS
DACA rescission memorandum, DHS “wil not approve any new Form I-131 applications for
advance parole under standards associated with the DACA program, although it wil general y
honor the stated validity period for previously approved applications for advance parole.”92
In response to the June 2020 Supreme Court decision vacating the DACA rescission, acting DHS
Secretary Wolf issued a memorandum in July 2020 “making certain immediate changes to the
DACA policy to facilitate my thorough consideration of how to address DACA.” Regarding
advance parole, the memorandum stated that it “should be granted to current DACA beneficiaries
only in exceptional circumstances.”93 An August 2020 USCIS memorandum providing
implementing guidance included some examples of such circumstances, among them travel in
furtherance of U.S. law enforcement interests and travel for life-sustaining medical treatment not
available to the individual in the United States. The USCIS memorandum further stated that “in
most instances, traveling abroad for educational purposes, employment related purposes, or to
visit family members living abroad wil not warrant advance parole.”94

90 For additional discussion and case examples, see Immigrant Legal Resource Center, From Advance Parole to a
Green Card for DACA Recipients, May 17, 2016, https://www.ilrc.org/advance-parole-green-card-daca-recipients.
91 T hese data were made publicly available by the Office of Senator Chuck Grassley in a September 2017 news release;
see https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/data-indicate-unauthorized-immigrants-exploited-loophole-
gain-legal-status.
92 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum to James W. McCament, Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, T homas D. Homan, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kevin K.
McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Joseph B. Maher, Acting General Counsel,
Ambassador James D. Nealon, Assistant Secretary, International Engagement, Julie M. Kirchner, Citizenship and
Immigration Services Ombudsman, from Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secr etary, Rescission of the June 15, 2012
Memorandum Entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United
States as Children”, September 5, 2017, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/09/05/memorandum-rescission-daca.
93 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Memorandum to Mark Morgan, Senior Official Performing the Duties of t he
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Matthew Albence, Senior Official Performing the Duties of
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Joseph Edlow, Deputy Director of Policy, U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, from Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary, Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Mem orandum
Entitled “Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as
Children”, July 28, 2020, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/20_0728_s1_daca-reconsideration-
memo.pdf.
94 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Memorandum to Associate
Directors and Program Office Chiefs, from Joseph Edlow, Deputy Director for Policy, Im plementing Acting Secretary
Chad Wolf’s July 28, 2020 Mem orandum, “Reconsideration of the June 15, 2012 Mem orandum ‘Exercising
Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Cam e to the United States as Children’”, August 21, 2020,
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-alerts/
DACA%20implementation%20memo%20v2%208.21.20%20final.pdf .
Congressional Research Service
17

Immigration Parole

Some bil s introduced and considered in recent Congresses directly addressed the advance parole-
adjustment of status issue. The Security, Enforcement, and Compassion United in Reform Efforts
(SECURE) Act of 2017 (S. 2192), as introduced in the 115th Congress, proposed to rewrite the
INA parole provision. Among other changes, it would have added a definition of advance parole
to the provision and would have stipulated that “a grant of parole into the United States based on
an approved application for advance parole shal not be considered a parole for purposes of
qualifying for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident status in the United States.”
Similar language was included in the Solution for Undocumented Children through Careers,
Employment, Education, and Defending our Nation (SUCCEED) Act (S. 1852), as introduced in
the 115th Congress, and in S.Amdt. 1959, the SECURE and SUCCEED Act, as considered on the
Senate floor in February 2018.95
Legislation in Recent Congresses
Bil s introduced in recent Congresses il ustrate differing views about the appropriate use of
immigration parole authority. One key area of debate is the use of parole for designated groups.
On the one hand, various legislative proposals have sought to utilize parole authority as a
mechanism to grant temporary immigration relief to specified populations. For example, the
Healthcare Opportunities for Patriots in Exile Act (HOPE) Act, as introduced in 116th Congress
and earlier Congresses,96 would give DHS the discretion to parole into the United States certain
veterans for purposes of receiving healthcare from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The 116th Congress has also seen the introduction of a variety of bil s to grant parole to
designated groups. The Families Belong Together Act (H.R. 883/S. 271) would require DHS to
grant parole to certain parents and children separated by the department. The Syrian Al ies
Protection Act (S. 2625), which would establish a special immigrant program for certain Syrians,
would direct the executive branch to “develop and implement a framework” to grant parole to
applicants for special immigrant status who are at risk in their current locations.97 In addition, at
least one bil , the Cuban Family Reunification Act (H.R. 4884), seeks to resuscitate a currently
inactive parole program of the same name.
On the other hand, multiple bil s introduced in recent Congresses have sought to restrict the use
of parole authority. Among these are similar bil s ordered to be reported by the House Judiciary
Committee in the 114th (H.R. 1153) and 115th (H.R. 391) Congresses, both entitled the Asylum
Reform and Border Protection Act. These bil s proposed to amend the text of the INA parole
provision to limit the use of parole to an enumerated “urgent humanitarian reason” or “reason
deemed strictly in the public interest.” These bil s also would have prohibited DHS from granting
immigration parole to a foreign national who had applied for and been denied refugee status.
Some other recent bil s that would have permitted the use of parole only for enumerated reasons
also included language specifical y to prohibit the use of parole for classes of people. For
example, S. 2192, as introduced in the 115th Congress, would have prohibited the use of parole
authority for “generalized categories of aliens or classes of aliens based solely on nationality,
presence, or residence in the United States, family relationships, or any other criteria that would

95 S.Amdt. 1959 was considered as a floor amendment to the unrelated Broader Options for Americans Act (H.R.
2579)). T he Senate rejected a motion to invoke cloture on it.
96 S. 1042 in the 116th Congress; H.R. 2761 and S. 1703 in the 115th Congress; H.R. 6092 in the 114th Congress.
97 For information about special immigrants, see CRS Report R43725, Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa
Program s.
Congressional Research Service
18

Immigration Parole

cover a broad group of foreign nationals either inside or outside of the United States.”98 In the
116th Congress, the Secure and Protect Act of 2019 (S. 1494), as reported by the Senate Judiciary
Committee, would amend the INA parole provision to make it unlawful for DHS to grant parole
“according to eligibility criteria describing an entire class of potential parole recipients.” It also
would add new language to the INA provision to prohibit DHS from using parole authority “to
supplement established immigration categories without an Act of Congress.”
Conclusion
Parole authority, as currently defined in the INA, is potential y applicable to a variety of persons
and circumstances. For example, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, an immigrant advocacy
organization, views it as a useful tool: “With the right advocacy, parole has the potential to
become a more robust strategy to defend against deportation for those within the United States
and to become a more accepted method to al ow immigrants to enter the United States who do not
have other means to do so.”99 On the other hand, groups that advocate for restrictions on
immigration, such as the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), see some recent uses of parole—
such as for immigrant entrepreneurs—as overbroad. A 2018 CIS article characterized the IEP rule
as “just one more way of wedging in an ever-increasing group of aliens who couldn’t fit within
the scope of the INA as enacted into law.”100 Bil s in the 116th Congress can be seen as efforts to
further these competing points of view on parole—by alternatively legislating the use of parole
for particular groups or adding new statutory restrictions to prohibit such use. If Congress opts to
enact one or more of these measures, it may in the process further define the appropriate use of
parole.

98 Similar language was included in S. 1852, as introduced in the 115th Congress, and in S.Amdt. 1959 to H.R. 2579, as
considered on the Senate floor in February 2018.
99 Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Parole in Immigration Law, October 2016, Chapter 1, p. 1-5,
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/sample-pdf/parole-1st_ed-2016-ch_01.pdf.
100 Dan Cadman, Rescinding an Inappropriate Obama-Era Immigration Parole Rule, Center for Immigration Studies,
May 29, 2018, https://cis.org/Cadman/Rescinding-Inappropriate-ObamaEra-Immigration-Parole-Rule.
Congressional Research Service
19

Immigration Parole

Appendix. INA Parole Provision (§212(d)(5))
Current Provision
(A) The Attorney General may, except as provided in subparagraph (B) or in section
214(f)101, in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under such conditions
as he may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or
significant public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such
parole of such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the
purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the
alien shall forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and
thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other
applicant for admission to the United States.
(B) The Attorney General may not parole into the United States an alien who is a refugee
unless the Attorney General determines that compelling reasons in the public interest with
respect to that particular alien require that the alien be paroled into the United States rather
than be admitted as a refugee under section 207.102
As Originally Enacted
The Attorney General may in his discretion parole into the United States temporarily under
such conditions as he may prescribe for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in
the public interest any alien applying for admission to the United States, but such parole of
such alien shall not be regarded as an admission of the alien and when the purposes of such
parole shall, in the opinion of the Attorney General, have been served the alien shal
forthwith return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his
case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any other applicant for
admission to the United States.

101 INA Section 214(f)(2) places restrictions on the granting of parole to crewmembers in certain circumstances.
102 8 U.S.C. §1182(d)(5).
Congressional Research Service
20

Immigration Parole

Author Information

Andorra Bruno

Specialist in Immigration Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46570 · VERSION 1 · NEW
21