Blanche v. Lau, Supreme Court Reconsiders Re-entry Permit for Lawful Permanent Residents
On the morning of April 22, 2026, oral arguments were held in the case of *Blanche v. Lau* at the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C. The respondent in the case is Muk Choi Lau, a Hong Kong native who received his green card in 2007. While he was briefly abroad, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) classified him as an ‘applicant for admission,’ and this single classification led to over a decade of deportation battles.
The question posed by the Supreme Court is simple. At what point and with what degree of evidence can the government deem a legal permanent resident an ‘applicant for admission" when they re-enter the country at an airport? While this may seem like a minor procedural issue, it is far from irrelevant to Korean permanent residents traveling to and from Korea, as it affects the fate of 12.8 million legal permanent residents in the United States with every international trip they take.
1. Rau's 14 Years: Deportation Battle That Began With a Single Indictment
“The law promises permanent residents a safe return, but airport immigration always tests that promise.”
The incident dates back to the spring of 2012. Mr. Lau was indicted in May of that year in New Jersey for trademark counterfeiting and traveled abroad temporarily while the trial was pending. When he returned to JFK Airport in June, CBP officers granted him ‘parole’ instead of allowing him to enter as a lawful permanent resident. His green card was confiscated, and he subsequently pleaded guilty in his criminal case and was sentenced to two years of probation.
The DHS initiated removal proceedings against Mr. Lau in 2014. In 2018, an immigration judge ordered his removal based on a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, a decision upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in 2021. However, in 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the decision. The appellate court focused on the timing. When Mr. Lau arrived at the airport in June 2012, the government only had a New Jersey state criminal indictment. Because his guilty plea occurred a year later, the court concluded that there was no “clear and convincing evidence” at the time of his re-entry. The following year, on January 9, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the government's petition for certiorari. Following oral arguments on April 22, the Court is expected to issue its decision in early July.
2. Between ‘Committed‘ and ’Confirmed' — The Narrow Passage Created by Legal Texts Since 1996
“A difference of one line of text can change a permanent resident's status.”
The starting point of the issue is the IIRIRA, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, passed by Congress in 1996. This act inserted new criteria into Section 101(a)(13)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It established the principle that a lawful permanent resident returning from abroad is “not regarded as seeking an admission,” while simultaneously providing six exceptions that partially nullify that protection.
The six exceptions are summarized as: relinquishment of permanent residency, absence exceeding 180 days, unlawful acts committed abroad, departure while removal proceedings are pending, commission of an offense under INA Section 212(a)(2), and entry at an un-designated port of entry or through an unauthorized route. Mr. Lau's case falls under the fifth category, ‘commission of an offense.’ INA Section 212(a)(2), to which this category refers, is a broad category that includes crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT), drug-related offenses, multiple criminal convictions, and procurement of prostitution.
Here, a single word can make all the difference. The key is that the statute says “committed” rather than “convicted.” The government has argued that this word allows them to classify a permanent resident as seeking admission even before a conviction, as long as it can be proven that the act was committed. The other side has countered that the proof must be available ‘at the time of re-entry," and it is this interpretation of a short word that has elevated Mr. Lau's case all the way to Washington.
Two major court cases form the background of this argument. In the 1963 case *Rosenberg v. Fleuti*, the Supreme Court established the principle that a permanent resident's brief and ordinary departure from the country is not considered a new entry. In the 2012 case *Vartelas v. Holder*, it was ruled that the 1996 IIRIRA provisions do not apply retroactively to prior criminal records. These two rulings have created a trend that permanent residents should not face a demotion in status due to their ordinary departures abroad.
3. Claims of Both Sides and Oral Argument on April 22nd, a Juncture Dividing 12.8 Million People
“The government wants to buy time, and the permanent resident loses their rights during that time.”
The positions of both sides are not simply a procedural dispute. The Ministry of Justice argues that even if there is insufficient evidence at the airport, they can issue a parole entry decision first and then prove the status of the applicant in immigration court with newly obtained evidence such as convictions. They also assert that the parole decision is within the discretionary domain of the executive branch, and therefore not a matter for the courts to review retroactively.
The Law side directly refutes this logic. Their intention is that Congress established separate protection provisions for permanent residents' re-entry so that the government could only remove that protection if it had sufficient evidence. If the burden of proof is deferred, permanent residents could be downgraded without their knowledge and bear the heavy burden of deportation proceedings. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the American Immigration Council, and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), representing Asian Americans, submitted briefs on behalf of the Law side, while FAIR, which advocates for immigration restrictions, sides with the government.
The Supreme Court's ruling is not abstract. If the government wins, airport officials could grant paroled status to permanent residents at the point of re-entry without sufficient evidence, and their status would be determined in court much later. If Lau wins, immigration inspection booths could once again become a safe passage point for permanent residents. Considering that there are approximately 12.8 million permanent residents in the United States, with a significant portion being of Asian descent, the direct impact on the Korean community is not to be taken lightly.
It was reported that the Supreme Court justices' questions during the oral arguments on April 22nd were divided into two main areas. One focused on whether the executive branch's expedited procedures would be permitted, while the other emphasized the extent to which the stable status of permanent residents would be guaranteed. The court's decision is expected to be released before early July, and the scope of the ruling could redraw the entire framework for re-entry procedures for permanent residents, extending beyond the case of Mr. Rau.
4. Checklist for Korean Permanent Residents — Before Departure and at Immigration
“Thirty seconds at the airport immigration counter can shake over a decade of permanent residency.”
While awaiting a judgment, Korean permanent residents travel daily between Incheon and JFK, LAX, and Seattle. Many leave for everyday reasons such as visiting sick parents in Korea, business trips, or attending their children's weddings. CBP has the authority to impose what is called ‘deferred inspection’ or 'secondary inspection' on permanent residents and can issue an NTA, or Notice to Appear for deportation proceedings, on the spot if there are grounds for suspicion.
Situations classified as red flags are relatively clear. These include being outside the U.S. for over 180 days, having a past criminal record, being newly involved in a criminal case in Korea, or holding a green card but having weak ties to residency in the U.S. Given that even allegations of crimes at the ‘committed’ stage, like in Mr. Lau's case, can lead to detention, it is necessary to reconsider travel abroad if a criminal case is ongoing.
If you have been abroad for an extended period, a Reentry Permit (Form I-131) or an SB-1 immigrant visa for returning residents can mitigate the risks associated with prolonged absences. However, these documents only address issues related to your stay duration and do not cure grounds for inadmissibility, such as criminal records or classifications of crimes involving moral turpitude. If you have a criminal record, it is advisable to review in advance whether the charge falls under INA Section 212(a)(2) before departing the country. Seemingly minor offenses such as counterfeit trademark transactions, petty theft, DUI with accompanying accidents, and some domestic violence cases may be classified as crimes involving moral turpitude.
If you are subject to a secondary inspection at the airport, do not voluntarily sign Form I-407 to surrender your green card. It is advantageous to keep all documents you receive at the time of parole processing. Answer the CBP officer's questions truthfully, but clearly state that you will answer detailed questions about criminal matters only in the presence of legal counsel.
Closing remarks
Regardless of how the Rau case concludes, the fact remains that a thirty-second immigration inspection can upend a decade or more of life in the United States for a green card holder at the airport. While Congress and the courts have refined laws to protect re-entry for green card holders as much as possible, the executive branch has continuously attempted new interpretations regarding how to manage those narrow exceptions.
Before a verdict is reached, there are clear steps Korean permanent residents can take. It is advisable to check criminal records and length of stay before departing the country, and if a long-term absence is planned, obtain a re-entry permit in advance. If one is eligible for citizenship application, changing permanent residency to citizenship can fundamentally reduce the burden of immigration checks. It is also important to consider that a change in the status of one family member can affect the safe entry of other family members.
A permanent resident card is not a lifelong guaranteed document once obtained. Each entry into the country is a minor review, and the recent Rau case will be a turning point that determines how the rules of that review will be redrawn. A single court ruling, rumored to be released before the end of the OT 2025 session (typically late June to early July), will determine the weight of a Korean permanent resident's suitcase for their trip back to Korea.
Disclaimer: This column is for general information purposes only and is not legal advice for your specific case. You should always consult with an attorney who specializes in immigration law for your individual case.
Law Offices of Jin Dong Cho
NEW YORK OFFICE (Flushing) 35-24 154th Street, Flushing, NY 11354
(t) 718-353-2699 (f) 718-353-8132
NEW JERSEY OFFICE 560 Sylvan Avenue, 3Fl., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
(t) 201-449-0009
