The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that border agents do not need “clear and convincing evidence” to determine whether a lawful permanent resident can be treated as seeking admission to the United States after traveling abroad, a decision advocates say expands immigration officers’ discretion.
In a 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, the court held that officials may require green card holders suspected of committing certain crimes, including those involving “moral turpitude,” to seek reentry as applicants rather than returning residents. The ruling effectively lowers the evidentiary threshold for making such determinations at the border.
The case centers on a lawful permanent resident who was allowed to reenter the United States while criminal charges were pending against him. After later pleading guilty to trademark counterfeiting, he was placed in removal proceedings. The court assumed for argument’s sake that the offense qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude.
The immigrant, Lau, challenged his removal, arguing that because the allegations against him were unproven at the time of his reentry, he should not have been treated as seeking a new admission. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed, overturning prior immigration rulings. The Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.
Immigrant advocacy groups, including LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Immigrant Defense Project, filed a friend-of-the-court brief warning of broader consequences for lawful permanent residents.
Lourdes M. Rosado, president and general counsel of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, criticized the ruling, saying it “essentially hands a blank check to border officers” to presume guilt based on criminal accusations. She said the decision undermines the legal principle of innocence until proven guilty.
Rosado added that the ruling could affect the nation’s approximately 12.8 million lawful permanent residents, leaving them vulnerable to discretionary decisions by border officials when returning from travel abroad. She warned it could lead to detention, family separation and barriers to employment, housing and education if individuals’ status is downgraded.
Advocates also argued that the decision may disproportionately affect immigrants already subject to heightened scrutiny, including Latinos and other communities of color.
Kishor Panthi
View More PostsKishor Panthi is the founder and editor-in-chief of Khasokhas and NepYork. He is the author of three books, “Kampan,” "UNTRANSLATABLE" and “Zero Mile.” He writes about social issues, immigration, and politics.
