The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 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. In the 6-to-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, the conservative majority 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.
What changed
As a general rule, a lawful permanent resident (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 those exceptions applies when the LPR has committed certain crimes.
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.
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.
The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a green card holder charged with trademark counterfeiting who traveled to China while the charge was pending. When he returned to the U.S., a border officer placed him on parole rather than admitting him as a returning resident, despite the absence of a conviction at that time.
Why it matters
The classification matters enormously because it shifts who bears the burden of proof in removal proceedings.
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.
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.
Way forward
-
Before any international travel, advise all LPR clients with pending criminal charges, unresolved cases, or prior convictions involving crimes of moral turpitude to consult an immigration attorney. A border officer may now place them on parole based on minimal evidence.
-
At re-entry, expect that CBP may run a background check and identify any pending or prior charge. Prepare your client for the possibility of parole, temporary evidence of status, detention, or referral to removal proceedings.
-
In removal proceedings, the government must still prove admissibility grounds at the hearing itself, but your client bears the initial burden to disprove eligibility for parole. Document all mitigating facts and prepare for an uphill battle on the “applicant for admission” threshold.
-
Preserve appellate arguments on whether the underlying offense qualifies as a crime of moral turpitude or whether it was committed before reentry — the Court left those substantive questions open.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Articles.folaform.com is a software and information service, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and fact-specific; outcomes depend heavily on your individual circumstances, criminal history, travel patterns, and jurisdiction. Consult a licensed immigration attorney before traveling internationally if you have any criminal history or pending charges. Policy and precedent change without notice; verify all information against the primary source linked above and current agency guidance before making filing decisions or advising clients.