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
