Travel has long been an integral part of the life of modern immigrants. Careers stretch across continents, families embrace diversity, and urgent matters don’t pause for paperwork. For professionals navigating the U.S. employment-based green card process, international travel often feels like second nature—another trip, another stamp in the passport, another return home. Yet, this routine can turn perilous the moment you submit an Adjustment of Status application. What once seemed like a straightforward process can take on a whole new meaning legally. Every journey outside the U.S. now interacts with a pending immigrant benefit request that hinges on your physical presence in the country.

This risk is frequently underestimated, particularly by those who have traveled for years on H-1B, L-1, or other work visas without issues. Filing Form I-485 is not simply a procedural step; it fundamentally alters the legal parameters surrounding your residency in the United States. You’re no longer just maintaining a nonimmigrant status; you are actively petitioning to become a permanent resident while inside the country. The immigration system assumes your continuity. It anticipates your availability for biometrics, background checks, and final decisions. Leaving immediately after filing disrupts this assumption at a crucial point in the process.

For those applying as derivative beneficiaries—whose eligibility for a green card arises from a spouse’s or parent’s employment-based petition—the stakes are even higher. Many of these applicants feel a sense of safety, thinking that since their employer relationship isn’t directly tied to them and the I-140 is not linked to their job, they are shielded from complications. However, this sense of security can easily become a trap. A derivative’s I-485 application is its own entity with distinct legal implications. It can be abandoned, delayed, or even denied, regardless of the primary applicant’s success.

At the heart of this issue is the concept of abandonment. Immigration regulations state that if an applicant leaves the United States while an I-485 application is pending, without the necessary authorization, the application is considered abandoned. This consequence doesn’t require an official denial or a dramatic event at the airport. It can happen quietly and legally. Then, months later, when the applicant is expecting progress, the status reflects that the case is no longer valid.

There are some notable exceptions in the realm of nonimmigrant categories, particularly with visas like H-1B and L-1, which are classified as “dual intent.” This means that individuals holding these visas can pursue permanent residency without jeopardizing the temporary status of their visas. Under certain conditions, individuals with these statuses can leave and reenter the US while their I-485 application is pending, and they do not necessarily need advance parole. However, these exceptions come with strict and technical requirements. It’s essential that the applicant continues to meet the qualifications of their nonimmigrant status and returns under the same classification. Any misstep—such as an expired visa stamp, an impending petition expiration, a substantial change in employment, or a worksite that no longer aligns with the approval—can turn what seems like a routine trip into a significant misstep.

The timing of these changes can heighten the risk. Right after filing, applicants are in a precarious position: there’s no advance parole document or employment authorization card yet, and they might not have even received their receipt notices. Biometrics appointments could be just around the corner, and automated systems may generate requests for additional evidence without pausing for travel plans. During this phase, applicants find themselves most vulnerable and least protected.

For those who are derivative beneficiaries, the situation can be even more fragile. Their eligibility hinges on the stability of another person’s petition and job. If the primary applicant’s employment changes, if an employer withdraws an I-140 prematurely, or if a corporate restructuring complicates matters, the derivative’s status can become precarious almost overnight. When a derivative is within the US, these changes might be navigated more smoothly. However, when the derivative is outside the US, the same shifts can leave them without a clear and lawful route back.

Reentry poses its own challenges for derivatives. A primary applicant can typically convey their employment situation, pending petition, and intentions in a coherent story. In contrast, a derivative must weave together several documents: the marriage certificate, the principal applicant’s approval notices, pending I-485 receipts, and the nonimmigrant status that underlies their reentry. While border officers are not responsible for adjudicating green cards, they must determine if the person before them qualifies for admission under the requested classification. Any gaps or inconsistencies in the documentation may lead to secondary inspections, deferred entry, or outright denial.

The risks become particularly significant when a derivative loses their independent H or L status. Many spouses and children find themselves relying entirely on the ongoing green card application process. They might have moved from F-1 status to adjustment or transitioned from an H-4 without work authorization to awaiting an EAD. In such situations, obtaining advance parole isn’t just a helpful option; it’s a crucial legal tool that safeguards their application during travel. Leaving the country without it isn’t merely a minor oversight—it can prove detrimental to their case.

On top of the legal complexities, there are practical challenges in today’s immigration landscape. USCIS adheres to strict timelines, and biometrics appointments are set automatically. Requests for evidence come with tight deadlines for responses, and notices are sent to the last known address. When an applicant is out of the country, these processes don’t stop. A derivative spouse who misses a biometrics appointment because their visa appointment was delayed while overseas may experience significant delays in their case. Neglecting to respond to an RFE can result in denial, and losing a notice in the mail can close a vital window of opportunity irretrievably.

Consular processing introduces further uncertainty. Even those who have previously secured visas without any issues can suddenly face administrative processing, security checks, or local backlogs. A planned two-week trip can end up extending to two months. While this is happening, the adjustment of status case continues in the U.S. without the applicant present, which can lead to family separation during this critical phase of the immigration journey.

Intent also comes into play. Certain visa categories, like F-1 and B-1/B-2, are not aligned with immigrant intent. Trying to reenter the U.S. under one of these statuses while a green card application is pending creates an internal inconsistency. Even if reentry is granted, this contradiction can have repercussions down the line. Having a record of entry as a visitor while pursuing permanent residency can raise questions about honesty and intent. For derivatives who believe they can simply “return as a visitor,” this misunderstanding can complicate their path permanently.

What makes these risks all the more deceptive is that they often don’t seem urgent at the moment. There may not be any visible issues at the airport, no immediate confrontation, no explicit warning. The fallout emerges later, manifested as stalled applications, unexpected denials, or the painful realization that an application was considered abandoned months prior. By that point, the original filing window may have closed, priority dates may become outdated, and the family could find themselves starting from scratch.

Travel after filing for immigration benefits is not always an option, but it’s certainly not impossible. It simply requires a more thoughtful approach. Every trip needs to be assessed in the context of the case structure, the applicant’s status, and the timing of any pending benefits. For some individuals, waiting until their advance parole is approved is the safest path. Others—especially those in strong H-1B or L-1 positions with valid documentation—might find travel legally acceptable, yet it still comes with its own set of risks.

For those who are derivatives, caution is even more critical. Their immigration outcomes are closely linked to another person’s employment and petition, often leaving them without independent status to fall back on. A single misstep could jeopardize their connection to the primary applicant or push them into an entirely different immigration route.

It’s also essential to recognize the emotional weight of this process. For many, the green card journey is the result of years of effort, sacrifice, and uncertainty. Reaching this stage brings a hope that the most challenging part is behind them, and travel feels like a return to everyday life. Ironically, this is when it’s most important to exercise restraint. The process is actively unfolding—files are being created, background checks initiated, appointments being scheduled. Stability is what enables the process to conclude smoothly.

The key takeaway isn’t that applicants must pause their lives forever; it’s that the time immediately after filing is particularly delicate. Safety nets are still in the works, and the procedural components haven’t fully aligned with the applicant’s presence. For derivatives, the margin for error is even smaller, since the legality of their situation partially rests outside their control.

In immigration matters, timing can be just as crucial as eligibility. A trip taken three months after filing, with approved advance parole and completed biometrics, can be routine. In contrast, the same trip taken just three days after filing could have disastrous consequences. While the difference may seem insignificant to most, it can be pivotal from a legal standpoint.

Thus, travel after filing isn’t just a logistical choice; it’s a legal action that can alter the entire course of a case. For the primary applicant, it may introduce risk, while for derivatives, it could sever their ties to permanent residency. Recognizing this distinction isn’t about being overly cautious; it’s about being prudent.

In a scenario where a single form, date, or classification can shape a family’s future, the most sensible strategy in the early days of adjustment is to embrace patience. The world will still be waiting when the green card is approved, but the chance to rectify a premature application may be lost.

By: Karim Jivani

Karim Jivani is an Associate Attorney at Reddy Neumann Brown PC who focuses on employment-based non-immigrant visas. Karim’s practice covers all phases of the EB-1A and EB-2 NIW visa process including filing petitions, responding to Requests for Evidence (RFE), and drafting motions and appeals. Karim has also worked on all aspects of H-1B, L-1, I-140, and VAWA petitions.

Karim earned his Bachelor of Business Administration degree from Houston Baptist University and his J.D. from University of Houston Law Center in May 2019. During his time in law school, Karim served as an Articles Editor for the Houston Business and Tax Law Journal, a student managed publication dedicated to scholarly research and the academic advancement of business, tax, and corporate law. He was part of the Civil Practice Clinic and Immigration Clinic, where he gained his passion for immigration law. As a child of immigrants, he hopes to continue to play a role in helping individuals start their life in the United States as well as help them navigate the complex and difficult immigration process. He is fluent in English, Urdu, and Hindi.