The Supreme Court is set to decide a consequential question in Bondi v. Lau: can immigration agents rely on criminal charges alone to bar a permanent resident from reentry, or must they have clear and convincing evidence of a conviction? The outcome will reshape how DHS adjudicates admissibility for returning LPRs facing criminal allegations.
What changed
The justices will consider whether border officials can rely on criminal charges alone to decide that permanent residents have committed an offense that allows the government to remove them from the country.
The case centers on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen who became a permanent resident in 2007 and was charged with trademark counterfeiting by New Jersey prosecutors almost five years later. While the criminal case was pending, Lau left the United States. On his return to JFK, immigration officers denied him admission; instead, the officer allowed Lau to enter under “parole,” a legal permission to enter for humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. More than one year later, in 2013, Lau pleaded guilty.
The legal conflict is stark. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that permanent residents returning from abroad generally “shall not be regarded as seeking an admission into the United States,” except in limited circumstances Congress identified, including when a migrant “has committed” a crime involving moral turpitude. The circuit courts have split on what “has committed” requires. The 2nd Circuit explained that immigration law requires “clear and convincing evidence” that the migrant committed the crime. Unlike the 2nd Circuit, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th and 9th Circuits have previously adopted positions that align with the government’s view — that charges may suffice.
Why it matters
The standard of proof matters enormously for your clients. Migrants who were paroled, rather than admitted, into the United States can be forcibly removed if they commit a crime involving moral turpitude at any time; by contrast, Lau’s conviction would not have affected his immigration status had he been admitted at JFK, but it spelled the beginning of his removal because he was paroled.
If SCOTUS sides with the government and allows agents to rely on charges alone, returning LPRs with pending criminal cases will face denial of admission and forced parole — triggering unlimited deportability for any eventual conviction. If SCOTUS sides with the 2nd Circuit, agents must have clear and convincing evidence of guilt, which means charges and indictments will not suffice until trial conclusion or guilty plea.
For practitioners, this determines how you advise a permanent resident contemplating travel while facing charges. If the law permits agents to presume guilt from charges, reentry becomes treacherous; if it requires proof of conviction, you have a stronger position arguing for admission or contesting the agent’s decision.
Way forward
- Review your returning-LPR client’s criminal exposure now. If charges are pending, assume for now that reentry may trigger admissibility issues. Do not advise travel abroad unless the criminal case is resolved.
- Track the Supreme Court docket for Bondi v. Lau (No. 25-429). Briefs are due to the Court throughout spring 2026; oral argument and decision are likely in 2026 or 2027. The decision will reshape reentry strategy.
- Preserve the record at the border. If your client is denied admission or offered parole when an LPR status should permit reentry, document the agent’s stated reason. The Supreme Court decision may provide grounds to reopen admissibility if the agent applied an unlawful standard.
- Coordinate with criminal counsel. Early resolution (dismissal, diversion, or guilty plea before travel) may be safer than reentry while charges are pending, depending on the charge’s moral turpitude implications.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The facts and law in Bondi v. Lau are complex, and the Supreme Court’s decision is not yet final. Immigration policy and court rulings can change without notice. You must consult a licensed immigration attorney regarding your specific situation and verify all information against the primary sources linked above and applicable case law.