Blanche v. Lau: Supreme Court Changes the Rules for Green Card Holders Returning to the U.S.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision has changed an important rule affecting certain lawful permanent residents returning to the United States after international travel.

On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Blanche v. Lau . The Court held that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) does not need clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident committed a qualifying criminal offense before treating that person as an applicant for admission when returning to the United States. (Supreme Court)

The decision is especially important for green card holders who have pending criminal charges or other unresolved criminal matters and are considering travel outside the United States.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide in Blanche v. Lau?

Lawful permanent residents are generally treated as already admitted to the United States when they return from a temporary trip abroad. They ordinarily do not have to apply for admission again simply because they traveled internationally.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, however, contains several exceptions. One allows the government to treat a returning lawful permanent resident as “seeking an admission” if the person has committed an offense identified in INA § 212(a)(2). Those offenses include certain crimes involving moral turpitude. (Supreme Court)

In Blanche v. Lau, the Supreme Court held that the INA does not require a CBP officer to possess clear and convincing evidence that the lawful permanent resident committed the qualifying offense before making that determination at the border.This distinction matters because being classified as an applicant for admission can place a returning green card holder in a significantly different immigration position.

The Court Identified a Two-Step Process

The Supreme Court explained that two separate legal questions are involved.

First, the government determines whether the returning lawful permanent resident may be treated as someone seeking admission.

Second, the government must establish whether that person is actually inadmissible under the applicable provision of immigration law.

For the crime involving moral turpitude provision involved in Lau, the Court explained that commission of the offense is relevant to the first step, while a conviction or qualifying admission is required at the second step to establish inadmissibility.

That means the absence of a conviction at the time a green card holder arrives at the border does not necessarily prevent CBP from treating the individual as an applicant for admission.

It also does not mean that a pending charge, by itself, proves that the person is inadmissible.

What Happened in Blanche v. Lau?

Muk Choi Lau became a lawful permanent resident in 2007. In 2012, New Jersey charged him with trademark counterfeiting. While the criminal case was still pending, Lau traveled to China.

When he returned to the United States, a border officer treated him as an applicant for admission because of the pending criminal matter rather than treating him as an already-admitted lawful permanent resident.

CBP did not formally admit him. Instead, Lau was paroled into the United States while his criminal case remained pending. Parole allowed him to physically enter the country without constituting a formal admission under immigration law. (Supreme Court)

Lau later pleaded guilty. The Department of Homeland Security then initiated removal proceedings, alleging that he was inadmissible based on a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Lau should have been treated as already admitted unless the government had clear and convincing evidence, at the time he returned, that he had committed the offense.

The Supreme Court rejected that requirement. It held that nothing in the INA requires CBP officers to satisfy a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard before treating a returning lawful permanent resident as seeking admission. (Supreme Court)

The Supreme Court did not, however, decide whether Lau's trademark-counterfeiting conviction actually constituted a crime involving moral turpitude. It sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings on that issue. (Supreme Court)

Who Could Be Affected by Blanche v. Lau?

The decision is particularly relevant to lawful permanent residents who travel internationally while they have unresolved criminal matters involving an offense that could fall within INA § 212(a)(2).

That may include a lawful permanent resident who:

• has a pending criminal charge,

• has been arrested but has not yet completed the criminal case,

• has a prior criminal matter whose immigration consequences have not been evaluated, or

• may have conduct that could trigger one of the criminal grounds referenced in INA § 212(a)(2).

The American Immigration Lawyers Association has cautioned practitioners about the broader consequences of the decision for LPRs returning to the United States with pending criminal matters. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center has similarly noted that LPRs with pending charges may potentially be treated as applicants for admission even before the criminal case results in a conviction. (AILA)

Importantly, the Court did not establish that every arrest or pending charge is enough to trigger this result. The relevant statutory question remains whether the individual falls within one of the exceptions in INA § 101(a)(13)(C), including whether the person has committed an offense identified in INA § 212(a)(2).

Why Applicant-for-Admission Status Matters

The distinction between being treated as an already-admitted lawful permanent resident and being treated as an applicant for admission can have significant consequences.

A person treated as seeking admission may face the grounds of inadmissibility under INA § 212 rather than only the grounds of deportability that ordinarily apply to people who have already been admitted.

The government may also decide not to formally admit the individual while the issue is being resolved. Depending on the circumstances and applicable law, the person could potentially be detained or paroled into the United States while the admissibility question remains unresolved.

In Lau, CBP chose parole rather than detention while Lau's criminal proceeding was pending. (Supreme Court)

Does a Pending Criminal Charge Automatically Make Someone Inadmissible?

No. This is an important limitation of the Supreme Court's decision.

Blanche v. Lau addressed when a returning lawful permanent resident may be treated as seeking admission. It did not eliminate the government's obligation to establish the applicable ground of inadmissibility.

For the crime involving moral turpitude provision involved in Lau, the Supreme Court explained that the two inquiries are distinct. Commission of the offense relates to whether the LPR may be regarded as seeking admission, while a conviction or qualifying admission is necessary to establish inadmissibility under the provision at issue.

The immigration consequences of a criminal case can also depend heavily on the exact statute, the record of conviction, possible statutory exceptions, the date of the offense, and the person's immigration history.

What Should Green Card Holders With Criminal Cases Do Before Traveling?

International travel can now carry additional immigration risk for some lawful permanent residents with unresolved criminal matters.

A green card holder with a pending charge, prior conviction, or other criminal history should have both the criminal offense and immigration consequences reviewed before leaving the United States.

The fact that someone has a valid green card does not necessarily guarantee that CBP will treat the person as already admitted when they return.

The analysis is highly fact-specific. The exact criminal statute, procedural posture of the criminal case, immigration history, travel history, and potential grounds of inadmissibility can all matter.

If you are a lawful permanent resident with a pending criminal case or criminal history and are considering international travel, speak with an immigration attorney before departing the United States.

Important Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration laws, regulations, USCIS policies, forms, and filing requirements are subject to change. The public charge rules may apply differently depending on an individual’s immigration category and circumstances. For advice regarding your specific situation, consult a qualified immigration attorney.