In a 6–3 decision issued on June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers are not required to possess “clear and convincing evidence” when they encounter a returning lawful permanent resident (LPR) at a port of entry and decide to parole that individual into the United States pending criminal proceedings.
Case Background
The case arose from a 2012 incident involving Muk Choi Lau, a green card holder who was stopped at John F. Kennedy International Airport after a temporary trip abroad. At the time, Lau faced a pending state trademark-counterfeiting charge in New Jersey.
Under Section 101(a)(13)(C)(v) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), returning lawful permanent residents are generally considered already admitted to the United States and are not treated as applicants for admission unless certain exceptions apply, including the commission of specified offenses such as crimes involving moral turpitude. Because of the pending charge, the CBP officer did not treat Lau as an admitted resident and instead granted him parole into the United States so he could appear in his criminal case.
After Lau later pleaded guilty, the government initiated removal proceedings under the inadmissibility provisions of the INA rather than the deportability provisions. Lau challenged the government’s position, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in his favor, holding that CBP officers must possess clear and convincing evidence at the border that an LPR committed a disqualifying offense before denying normal admission and issuing parole.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas reversed the Second Circuit’s ruling and clarified the evidentiary standards applicable at ports of entry.
The Court emphasized three key points:
- No Border-Level Evidentiary Burden: The Court found that requiring frontline CBP officers to possess clear and convincing evidence of a disqualifying offense during routine border inspections would be impractical and inconsistent with the statutory framework.
- Evidentiary Standards Apply Later: The majority explained that heightened evidentiary standards belong in adversarial removal proceedings before an immigration judge, not during an initial inspection at a port of entry.
- Burden in Removal Proceedings Remains: Once formal removal proceedings begin, the government must still prove by clear and convincing evidence that the noncitizen falls within one of the statutory exceptions that permits treatment as an applicant for admission. However, that proof need not be available to CBP officers at the moment of inspection.
Potential Impact on Green Card Holders
The Court’s decision may have significant consequences for lawful permanent residents who travel internationally and return to the United States while facing unresolved criminal allegations. According to the analysis in the article, several potential consequences may arise.
Reclassification as an Arriving Alien
A returning permanent resident who is flagged because of an unresolved criminal matter may be treated as an “arriving alien” rather than as a previously admitted lawful permanent resident.
Temporary Documentation
CBP may confiscate the physical green card and issue temporary evidence of status, such as a one-year I-551 stamp or an I-94 document.
Shift in the Burden of Proof
Individuals proceeding under the “seeking admission” framework may bear the burden of demonstrating admissibility, rather than requiring the government to establish deportability
Practical Challenges
Reliance on temporary documentation may create difficulties when verifying employment eligibility, maintaining banking relationships, securing housing, or handling other routine administrative matters.
Increased Detention Exposure
Being classified as an arriving alien may increase the risk of mandatory detention while removal proceedings are pending, even if criminal charges are ultimately dismissed or otherwise resolved favorably.
Conclusion: Increased Travel Risks for Green Card Holders With Pending Criminal Matters
The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that CBP officers are not required to possess clear and convincing evidence before treating a returning lawful permanent resident as an applicant for admission at the border. While the government must still satisfy that evidentiary standard during subsequent removal proceedings, the ruling broadens the authority available to CBP officers during the inspection process and may increase the immigration consequences faced by green card holders who travel abroad while criminal matters remain unresolved.
