On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court released its decision in Blanche v. Lau, 609 U.S. ___ (2026). The court's holding may impact the way Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers inspect and admit green card holders returning to the United States after international travel if they have pending criminal charges or prior criminal convictions.

Legal Background

Green card holders are generally not considered as “seeking admission” when they return to the United States. Rather, green card holders are normally determined to have already been admitted to the United States, with limited exceptions. This gives them a presumed right to return to the United States. One of the exceptions, outlined in INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v), applies to green card holders who have committed crimes outlined in INA § 212(a)(2). 

INA § 212(a)(2) includes: crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs); multiple criminal convictions where the aggregate imprisonment was five or more years; controlled substance trafficking; prostitution and commercialized vice, and; those who have committed serious crimes but asserted immunity from prosecution. 

Note: The decision in Lau does not change admission for green card holders under the other exceptions outlined in the INA, such as abandonment of lawful permanent resident status, absences from the United States for 180 or more days, or departing the United States with pending removal proceedings. If any of the above exceptions apply to you, please consult an immigration attorney. 

____________

Mr. Lau is a long-time green card holder who was charged with selling counterfeit shorts. While his criminal charges were pending, he took an international trip to his home country. When returning to the United States, CBP deemed him to be seeking admission under INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v) for having committed a CIMT. CBP applied this exception to Mr. Lau even though, at the time of his trip, he had not yet been convicted.

Mr. Lau was paroled into the United States while waiting for his court case to end and had his physical green card confiscated. He was left without proof of his lawful permanent resident status and with great uncertainty around his ability to remain in the United States long term. 

Mr. Lau was eventually convicted of the criminal charges against him, at which point the government began removal proceedings based on that conviction. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the removal order against him, but the Second Circuit later vacated it. The Second Circuit held that the government could not treat Mr. Lau as seeking admission without clear and convincing evidence that he had committed the offense at the time of his entry. This is important because, at the time Mr. Lau was returning to the United States, his criminal charges were still pending; he had not yet been convicted. 

The Supreme Court's decision has reversed the Second Circuit's holding. This means that, under the June 23 decision, the action taken against Mr. Lau was permissible and that clear and convincing evidence is not required before taking such action. 

Why does it matter if you are considered as "seeking admission"? 

When a returning green card holder is already considered as admitted, the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the green card holder is removable on deportability grounds.  

On the other hand, if the returning green card holder is treated as seeking admission, the burden flips and the green card holder must prove that they are not inadmissible to the United States. This gives the government a significant advantage as they no longer bear the burden of proof. Inadmissibility proceedings also give the government more available legal grounds to challenge the green card holder's right to enter. For example, in inadmissibility proceedings the government can rely on certain criminal convictions no matter how old they are. This differs from removal proceedings where only convictions within the five year period after the person's original admission to the United States may be considered. 

What does this mean for green card holders? 

While the Supreme Court decision in Lau determined that the action taken against Mr. Lau was permissible, it still leaves many questions to be answered. For example, it is unclear what standard CBP officers will apply when inspecting returning green card holders. 

We can also anticipate that returning green card holders, especially those with any pending criminal charges or previous convictions, will be subjected to additional questioning and scrutiny when returning to the United States. 

Unless and until a blanket policy is put into place by CBP, we can expect to see a wide range of decisions being made by CBP officers nationwide as it pertains to green card holders seeking admission. 

If you are a green card holder with pending criminal charges or previous convictions, please consult with an immigration attorney before scheduling any international travel. An immigration attorney will be able to review your charges/convictions, determine if a CIMT has been committed based on existing case law, determine if any exceptions apply to your case, and advise on your options if CBP treats you as seeking admission at entry. 

____________

Contact the Law Offices of James D. Eiss to schedule a consultation today.