The United States Supreme Court is poised to address a pivotal matter pertaining to the powers of immigration officials. The court has agreed to consider a case questioning whether immigration agents can base decisions on criminal charges alone when assessing whether lawful permanent residents (LPRs) should be considered removable. The case, Bondi v. Lau, will evaluate the evidentiary standards required by immigration law, a topic that has divided lower courts.
The case revolves around Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen who gained U.S. permanent residency in 2007. In 2012, Lau faced charges in New Jersey for trademark counterfeiting. During the pending criminal proceedings, Lau exited and re-entered the United States. Upon his return, immigration officers at JFK Airport in New York denied him regular admission, opting instead to parole him into the United States. Subsequently, Lau pleaded guilty to the charges, which paved the way for the government to initiate proceedings to revoke his green card and deport him.
At the heart of this case is a procedural question about immigration enforcement: Is it enough for immigration officials to consider someone as having committed a crime merely based on pending charges? This question has arisen because, according to federal immigration law, the admission status—whether admitted or paroled—determines the permanency of the presence of LPRs in the U.S. and their vulnerability to deportation. Lau’s plea came more than five years after he became a green card holder, a detail that would have protected him from deportation if he had been admitted rather than paroled.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit delivered a unanimous decision arguing that Lau, as a permanent resident, should have been permitted entry under the Immigration and Nationality Act because he had not been convicted at the time of his return to the United States. This interpretation diverges from rulings by the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, which have supported the government’s view that criminal charges allow refusals of admission.
The upcoming Supreme Court decision could have wide-ranging implications. If the court sides with the Second Circuit, it will limit immigration enforcement actions based solely on accusations, requiring robust evidence of a crime before denial of admission. Conversely, affirming the government’s stance would empower immigration officers to take definitive actions based on accusations alone, a move that could increase the number of deportations ahead of formal criminal convictions. The court’s decision will also address whether immigration agents require “clear and convincing evidence” that a crime has been committed before assigning parole instead of admission.
The Supreme Court’s decision could shape the landscape of immigration law enforcement in significant ways, potentially altering how charges affect the legal standing of lawful permanent residents in the U.S. For further information, see the full discussion on SCOTUSblog.