Supreme Court: Border Officers Need No Heightened Proof to Treat Returning Green Card Holders with Criminal Issues as Seeking Admission

In a decision with real consequences for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who travel internationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on 23.Jun.2026, that a border officer does not need clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder committed a crime before treating that person as an applicant for admission. The 6-to-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429, makes it easier for the government to channel returning green card holders with criminal histories into the more difficult inadmissibility track, where they can be paroled into the country, detained, or placed in removal proceedings in which the burden of proof falls on the individual rather than on the government.

Background

As a general rule, an LPR returning from a trip abroad is treated as already admitted and is not regarded as “seeking an admission” to the United States. The law lists six narrow exceptions. One of them, subsection (C)(v), 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), which includes a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).

This case arose when Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident, was charged in New Jersey with trademark counterfeiting and then traveled to China. When he tried to reenter at John F. Kennedy International Airport, the CBP officer did not treat him as already admitted. Instead, citing the pending charge, the officer paroled him into the United States under INA Section 212(d)(5)(A) while his criminal case played out. 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 downgrading the person to “seeking admission,” and that a pending charge alone was not enough.

What the Court Held

The Supreme Court reversed course on that point. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas held that the INA does not impose any clear and convincing evidence requirement on a border officer before deeming a returning LPR an applicant for admission. The Court explained that while the statute carefully assigns burdens of proof in removal hearings, it places no comparable evidentiary standard on the officer making the initial, on-the-spot determination at the port of entry.

The Court described the process as a two-step framework. At the first step, at the border, the government need only have a basis to conclude that the LPR committed a qualifying offense in order to treat the person as seeking admission rather than already admitted. At the second step, in the removal hearing itself, the government still must prove the case to remove the person, and that is where the heightened proof and the conviction (or admission of the conduct) come into play. The Court emphasized that the statute requires only that the LPR “committed” the offense to trigger the exception, not that the person already be convicted. As the majority put it, “One does not commit a conviction.” The Court declined to follow contrary footnote language from its earlier decision in Vartelas v. Holder, concluding that the plain text of the statute controlled.

Importantly, the Court did not decide whether Lau’s trademark counterfeiting offense is in fact a crime involving moral turpitude. It vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back for that question to be resolved, which means Lau still may prevail on remand if the offense is found not to qualify.

What this Means for Green Card Holders

The practical takeaway is significant. The classification of a returning LPR as “seeking admission” is not a mere formality. It determines which removal track applies, and the two tracks are very different.

If a returning resident is treated as already admitted, the government may pursue removal only on deportability grounds, where the government carries the burden of proof. If, instead, the resident is treated as seeking admission, the government proceeds on inadmissibility grounds, where the burden shifts onto the individual to prove admissibility. Inadmissibility charges can also reach a broader set of offenses and lack some of the time limits that apply on the deportability side. As a practical matter at the airport, a resident reclassified in this way may be paroled into the country, issued temporary evidence of status in place of the physical green card, detained, or referred to immigration court.

After today’s decision, CBP officers have clear authority to make that reclassification based on a pending charge, a prior conviction, or other indications that the traveler committed a qualifying offense, without first meeting a heightened evidentiary standard at the port of entry.

For green card holders, the key cautions are these. International travel carries elevated risk for any LPR who has a criminal charge, a conviction, or even an arrest in their history, including older or seemingly minor matters that might be treated as crimes involving moral turpitude. Whether a particular offense qualifies as a CIMT is a technical and frequently contested question. Any green card holder with a criminal record, including pending charges or matters they believe were resolved long ago, should consult an experienced immigration attorney before traveling abroad and before reentering the United States, and should understand their rights at the port of entry.

Conclusion

Blanche v. Lau strengthens the government’s hand at the border and lowers the practical threshold for treating returning permanent residents with criminal issues as applicants for admission. It does not change the substantive grounds of inadmissibility or remove the government’s ultimate burden in the removal hearing itself, but it does shift the leverage and the procedural posture in ways that can be difficult to undo once a traveler is reclassified. The Murthy Law Firm will continue to monitor developments, including the proceedings on remand and any agency guidance that follows. Green card holders with any criminal history are strongly encouraged to seek individualized legal advice before international travel.

Copyright © 2026, MURTHY LAW FIRM. All Rights Reserved.