The U.S. Supreme Court delivered another significant immigration victory for the Trump administration on Tuesday, ruling 6-3 that federal immigration officials do not need “clear and convincing evidence” at the border before treating a lawful permanent resident accused of certain crimes as an applicant for admission.
Justice Clarence Thomas delivers the hammer: Border officers making “quick judgments on the spot” do NOT need clear and convincing evidence of guilt at the moment of parole. Proof can come later at removal proceedings.
The Court sided with the Trump administration in Blanche v. Lau, rejecting activist attempts to tie the hands of border officers and making it significantly easier to remove lawful permanent residents who commit serious crimes.
The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who became a green card holder in 2007. In May 2012, while facing criminal charges in New Jersey for selling nearly $300,000 worth of counterfeit clothing (a clear crime involving moral turpitude), Lau took a trip to China.
When he tried to return through JFK Airport in June 2012, immigration officers did exactly what they were supposed to do: they paroled him into the country instead of formally admitting him as a returning resident because of the pending charges.
That parole decision was critical. It allowed the Department of Homeland Security to later treat Lau as an applicant for admission rather than automatically being allowed back into the country as a green card holder.
After he pleaded guilty in 2013 to trademark counterfeiting and received probation, DHS moved to remove him on inadmissibility grounds.
After Lau later pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge, the federal government initiated removal proceedings. However, the Second Circuit intervened and ruled that border officials needed “clear and convincing evidence” that Lau had committed the crime before treating him as an applicant for admission.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument outright.
Hellbound and Down 