Basic HTML Version

|  | Table of Contents |  | View Full Version

Page 46 - The Indian EYE 050826
P. 46

    IMMIGRATION                                                               MAY 08, 2026     |  The Indian Eye 46

                                Blanche v. Lau:

                        Will the Supreme Court

              Degrade the Rights of Lawful

                          Permanent Residents?

            BY CYRUS D. MEHTA AND      was paroled into the United   a pending charge of third-de-  return, based on a suspicion   deportable, the government
                                       States on the basis that he   gree trademark counterfeit-  or even an indictment that’s   can more easily pursue re-
            KAITLYN BOX*
                                       committed a crime involv-   ing in New Jersey before be-  in the government’s control,   moval. In order to remove
                                       ing moral turpitude (CIMT)   ing paroled into the country   they  flag  this  person  as  be-  an LPR who was admitted,
                   n April 23, 2025,   under INA 212(a)(2) must    in 2012, argued that there   ing returning under parole   the government would have
                   the  Supreme  Court
            Oheard oral argument       prove that it possessed clear   is a presumption LPRs are   as opposed to lawful ad-  to show that the individu-
                                       and convincing evidence of
                                                                                              mission. They take this per-
                                                                                                                         al had been “convicted of a
                                                                   already admitted when they
            in Blanche v. Lau, a case that   the crime at the time of the   reenter the U.S. after travel   son’s green card, which then   crime involving moral turpi-
            confronts the issue of wheth-  LPR’s most recent reentry.   abroad. The government, on   makes it much, much harder   tude  committed  within  five
            er the government, in seek-  Mr. Lau, an LPR who had   the other hand, asserted that   for this person to actually   years” of the admission. The
            ing  to  remove  a  lawful  per-  traveled outside the U.S. with   Lau falls within an exemp-  live and work and continue   government must have clear
            manent resident (LPR) who
                                                                     tion to this presumption   in their life here in the Unit-  and convincing evidence in
                                                                      because he had already   ed States, perhaps so much   order to determine that an
                                                                      committed a crime at    so that this person self-de-  LPR is seeking admission
                                                                      the time of his reentry,   ports because it’s really, re-  after having committed a
                                                                      although he had not yet   ally difficult without a green   crime under INA 212(a)(2),
                                                                      been convicted.  Under   card to operate in this coun-  and that burden should only
                                                                      INA 101(a)(13)(C) an    try. So you could imagine a   be met if the LPR has actu-
                                                                      LPR shall not be regard-  world in which a government   ally been convicted of the
                                                                      ed as seeking admission   that really is not interested   crime involving moral turpi-
                                                                      in the US if they have   in  immigration  and  having   tude, or has admitted to the
                                                                      inter alia committed an   immigrants  here,  living  and   elements of the crime.
                                                                      offense identified in sec-  working, could use this kind   An LPR can voluntarily
                                                                      tion 212(a)(2), which in-  of thing to inappropriately   admit to the commission of
                                                                      cludes crimes involving   parole people rather than   a crime if he or she chooses
                                                                      moral turpitude or drug   admit them so that it de-  to, but such an admission
                                                                      offenses.               presses immigration.”      needs to meet rigid criteria.
                                                                          The      conserva-     If the Supreme Court    The BIA has set forth the
                                                                      tive justices seemed to   sides with the government in   following requirements for a
                                                                      largely  agree  with  the   Blanche v. Lau and decides   validly obtained admission:
                                                                      government’s position,   that an LPR who is accused   (1) the  admitted  conduct
                                                                      although Justice Jack-  of  committing  a  crime  and   must  constitute  the  essen-
                                                                      son expressed concern   paroled into the U.S. has not   tial elements of a crime in
                         m of                                         about the implications   already been admitted, this   the jurisdiction in which it
              CYRUS D. MEHTA & PARTNERS PLLC                          of this position, stating:   power  could  be  abused  by   occurred; (2) the applicant
                                                                                              the Trump administration,
                                                                          “And my concern is
                                                                                                                         must have been provided
                                                                                                 that I could actually see   which has already evidenced   with  the  definition  and  es-

                 a world in which [bad-  an intent to erode the rights   sential elements of the crime
                                                                      faith paroling] would   of LPRs. This is exactly the   in understandable terms pri-

                        be in the government’s   sort of abuse that Justice   or to making the admission;
                                                                      interest.  And it’s a sit-  Jackson appeared troubled   and (3) the admission must

                                                                      uation in which people   by in her colloquy during   have been made voluntari-
                                                                      who are lawful perma-   oral argument. By taking the   ly. See Matter of K–, 7 I&N
                                                                      nent residents who have   position that an LPR is seek-  Dec. 594 (BIA 1957).  The
              2              6th Floor                                green cards leave the   ing admission rather than   Board of Immigration Ap-
                                                                      country and, when they   arguing that the individual is   peals also held in Matter of

                                                                   www.TheIndianEYE.com

| 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 |