Blanche v. Lau (Case No. 25-429): Inspector May Reclassify Lawful Permanent Resident as ‘Applicant for Admission" Without Prior Conviction
On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant ruling concerning the re-entry screening criteria for lawful permanent residents (LPRs). In the case of Blanche v. Lau (Case No. 25-429), the Court held 6-3 that immigration officers may reclassify an LPR returning from international travel as ‘seeking admission’ if the LPR has a criminal charge, without the need to prove guilt separately. This reclassification alone can subject the individual to parole, detention, and removal proceedings in immigration court. The key takeaway from this ruling is that these consequences can arise even before a conviction. LPRs with pending criminal cases or criminal records should confirm the implications of this ruling before traveling abroad.
What happened – A permanent resident who returned to the country under indictment
“In Blanche v. Lau, decided on June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court held, 6-3, that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require a border adjudicator to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude.”
The party in this case is Muk Choi Lau, a permanent resident of Chinese nationality. He obtained his green card in 2007. In May 2012, the New Jersey State Prosecutor's Office charged him with selling counterfeit trademarked goods. The goods in question were shorts bearing counterfeit trademarks, valued at approximately $300,000. He was not convicted. Lau briefly visited China while under indictment, and on June 15, 2012, he underwent immigration inspection at the airport.
The immigration officer did not grant him formal admission. Instead, he was processed under parole (a temporary permit allowing someone to stay in the country without formal authorization) and his admissibility was deferred for inspection. Subsequently, Lau was notified of removal proceedings (a process by which an immigration court determines whether to deport someone) in immigration court.
Meanwhile, Lau pleaded guilty to these counterfeit trademark charges in 2013. However, the issue disputed in this case was how to classify him at the moment of entry while under indictment, before his conviction.
The reason this distinction is legally important is the core of this ruling. If a permanent resident is treated as a lawful entrant, the government must prove grounds for deportation. However, if they are classified as someone ‘seeking to enter," the burden shifts to the individual to demonstrate their eligibility for admission. The burden of proof transfers from the government to the individual.
In 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of Lau, finding that the government had erred in classifying Lau as an ‘arriving alien’ without ‘clear and convincing evidence." However, the government appealed, and the Supreme Court accepted the case. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 22, 2026, and issued its ruling on June 23, 2026, concluding that such a high standard of proof was not required for adjudicators.
Two-stage legal principle: Stage 1, where ‘circumstances of the crime' are sufficient; Stage 2, where guilt is required.
“Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §101(a)(13)(C)(v) states that a lawful permanent resident is considered an ‘applicant for admission” if they commit a crime described in §212(a)(2).”
The legal principles established by this ruling are divided into two stages. The requirements in each stage are different, and the difference between them leads to decisive outcomes in practice.
The first step is to determine whether the person should be considered as applying for admission anew. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the majority opinion, ruled that it is sufficient for the examiner, at this stage, to confirm only the ‘commission of the crime.‘ There is no need to meet the high standard of ’clear and convincing evidence.‘ Justice Thomas explained that examiners must make quick judgments on the spot and that the law does not impose an evidence standard at that stage.
Step 2 is the stage of determining whether a person classified as such is actually inadmissible. At this stage, a final denial of entry can only be made if there is still a conviction or an admission of the offense. Deportation does not occur solely based on an indictment.
The problem lies in the moment one is classified as an ‘applicant for entry' in the first stage. This classification itself shifts the burden of proof to the individual. The determination at the first stage is made immediately at the airport, and the immigration officer decides based on information available on-site, such as wanted or indictment information. Appeals against this decision are handled later in immigration court, but until then, the individual can be detained or held in conditional entry status. The process can take months or even years, and even if one ultimately wins in the second stage and is granted entry, the time and cost incurred during that period cannot be recovered.
Who is Affected — Permanent Residents with Criminal Records Traveling Abroad
“There are approximately 12.8 million lawful permanent residents in the United States. This ruling directly applies to permanent residents who have ongoing criminal cases or a history of crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMT) when they seek to re-enter the U.S. after traveling abroad.”
There are broadly two categories of individuals affected by this ruling.
The first case is a permanent resident who currently has an ongoing criminal case. If they leave the country while facing charges or with an arrest record, upon their return, an immigration officer can reclassify them as an ‘inadmissible applicant" based on this judgment. This applies even if there hasn't been a conviction yet. Even if they are awaiting dismissal of charges or an acquittal, the act of exiting and re-entering the country can create legal risks.
The second is a lawful permanent resident with a past criminal record. Crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) under immigration law include theft, fraud, forgery, and some assaults. Cases handled as misdemeanors can also fall into this category, as can plea agreements where a court, under certain conditions, could interpret an admission of guilt as a conviction. Even if a record has been sealed or expunged by court order, it can still be considered for immigration purposes.
‘If you are categorized as an 'entry applicant,' your job and daily life will be interrupted during the process, even if you ultimately win. If you have a pending citizenship application or are in the process of sponsoring a family member, those procedures could also be affected.
Dissenting Opinion Warning — ‘Immigration in Limbo" and the Stability of Permanent Residency
“Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote a dissenting opinion, pointed out that the ruling gave the government a huge blank check and expressed concern that permanent residents could remain in immigration limbo for extended periods. Justice Jackson, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion.
Dissenting opinions criticize that the majority opinion weakens the practical value of permanent residency. Justice Jackson pointed out that even permanent residents who are ultimately acquitted could be placed in immigration limbo with their legal status uncertain for years, or in the worst case, be detained.
Another problem raised by the opposing opinion is the lack of clarity in the standards. The ruling did not specifically present the level at which an examiner judges that ‘a crime has occurred." Therefore, the outcome could vary depending on which examiner is met at which airport, even in the same situation.
The foundation for lawful permanent resident (LPR) reentry protection was established by the 1963 **Rosenberg v. Fleuti** decision. This ruling established the principle that a pure, brief, and common excursion outside the United States by an LPR is not considered a new attempt to enter. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) codified this principle into Immigration and Nationality Act §101(a)(13) and was further defined through cases like **Vartelas v. Holder** in 2012. This ruling formalized a significantly lower level of protection for LPRs with criminal charges.
Closing remarks
This ruling directly impacts lawful permanent residents with criminal records or pending criminal cases. Here are three things to check before traveling abroad:.
First, if you are planning overseas travel, please consult with both an immigration lawyer and a criminal defense lawyer before your departure. Immigration law and criminal law are separate legal systems. Even if a case appears to be resolved under criminal law, it may yield different results in immigration proceedings, and it is difficult for a single lawyer to fully grasp the immigration implications of a criminal record.
Second, obtain past arrest records, indictment records, and court disposition records (official court records showing how a case was closed) before departing the country. Cases where charges were dropped or where you were found not guilty can still appear during immigration inspections.
Third, if you are subject to conditional entry or additional screening at the airport upon your return, contact your attorney if possible and be careful not to answer questions speculatively or sign documents without understanding their meaning, as these could be interpreted as ‘admissions’ under immigration law.
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
