A 23 June 2026 U.S. Supreme Court decision changes the practical risk calculation for lawful permanent residents with criminal issues who travel abroad. In a 6–3 ruling in Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429, the Court held that border officers do not need clear and convincing evidence that a returning green card holder committed a crime before treating that person as an applicant for admission.
Background
As a general rule, a lawful permanent resident returning from international travel is treated as already admitted to the United States and is not considered to be “seeking an admission.”
The law contains six narrow exceptions. One exception allows the government to treat a returning LPR as seeking admission if the person “has committed” an offense described in INA Section 212(a)(2), including a crime involving moral turpitude.
The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who was charged in New Jersey with trademark counterfeiting and then traveled to China. When he returned through John F. Kennedy International Airport, CBP did not treat him as already admitted. Instead, the officer cited the pending charge and paroled him into the United States under INA Section 212(d)(5)(A) while the criminal case continued.
Lau later pleaded guilty, and the government placed him in removal proceedings on inadmissibility grounds. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Lau, holding that a border officer needed clear and convincing evidence that the LPR actually committed the crime before treating the person as seeking admission. The Second Circuit also held that a pending charge alone was not enough.
Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court reversed that point. Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, held that the Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to meet a clear and convincing evidence standard before treating a returning LPR as an applicant for admission.
The Court said the statute assigns burdens of proof in removal hearings, but does not impose the same type of evidentiary standard on a border officer making an initial decision at the port of entry.
The Court described a two-step process:
- At the border, the government only needs a basis to conclude that the returning LPR committed a qualifying offense in order to treat the person as seeking admission.
- In the removal hearing, the government still must prove the case for removal, and that is where heightened proof and a conviction or admission of conduct become relevant.
The majority emphasized that the statute refers to whether the LPR “committed” the offense, not whether the person has already been convicted. The Court also declined to follow contrary footnote language from its earlier decision in Vartelas v. Holder, finding that the plain text of the statute controlled.
The Court did not decide whether Lau’s trademark counterfeiting offense is actually a crime involving moral turpitude. It vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back for that issue to be resolved. Lau may still prevail on remand if the offense is found not to qualify.
Why the classification matters
Being treated as “seeking admission” is not just a technical label. It affects the removal track that applies.
If a returning LPR is treated as already admitted, the government must proceed on deportability grounds, where the government carries the burden of proof.
If the LPR is treated as seeking admission, the government proceeds on inadmissibility grounds, where the burden shifts to the individual to prove admissibility. Inadmissibility charges can also cover a broader set of offenses and may lack some time limits that apply in deportability cases.
At the airport, a reclassified green card holder may be:
- paroled into the United States;
- issued temporary evidence of status instead of retaining the physical green card;
- detained;
- referred to immigration court.
Practical effect for green card holders
After the decision, CBP officers have clearer authority to reclassify returning green card holders based on a pending charge, prior conviction, or other indications that the traveler committed a qualifying offense. The officer does not first need to meet a heightened evidentiary standard at the port of entry.
This creates elevated travel risk for any LPR with:
- a pending criminal charge;
- a prior conviction;
- an arrest history;
- an older or seemingly minor criminal matter;
- a case that may be treated as involving moral turpitude.
Whether a particular offense qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude is often technical and contested. The decision does not change the substantive grounds of inadmissibility, and it does not remove the government’s ultimate burden in the removal hearing itself. But it does make it easier for the government to place a returning resident into the inadmissibility track at the border, shifting the procedural posture in a way that may be difficult to reverse later.
Green card holders with any criminal history, including pending charges or matters they believe were resolved long ago, should seek individualized immigration advice before traveling internationally and before attempting to reenter the United States.
Source article: www.murthy.com
