On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will delve into an important and complex issue regarding the rights of lawful permanent residents accused of criminal activity in the case Blanche v. Lau. This hearing will address the crucial question of how immigration law should balance procedural rigor against operational practicality when it comes to potential deportation.
The case involves Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who attained lawful permanent residency in the United States in September 2007. After being arrested and charged with selling counterfeit goods under New Jersey law, Lau left the country but upon his return, faced legal challenges at John F. Kennedy International Airport. Immigration officers, citing his pending counterfeiting charge, declined to admit him under the “moral turpitude” exception.
Under U.S. immigration law, lawful permanent residents are generally entitled to re-enter the country without being regarded as seeking admission unless they have committed certain disqualifying offenses. In June 2013, Lau pled guilty to trademark counterfeiting, which led the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to commence removal proceedings on the basis of his ineligibility for admission.
Initially, an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision to treat Lau as inadmissible. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed that decision, ruling that DHS had not met the necessary evidentiary threshold to classify Lau as inadmissible upon his arrival, emphasizing that officers could not rely solely on charging documents.
Pointing to a conflict between circuit courts, the U.S. Solicitor General has urged the Supreme Court to review whether “clear and convincing evidence” is required at the time of reentry or if subsequent proof during removal proceedings suffices. The ongoing debate raises questions about the discretionary powers of immigration officers and the standards of judicial review, as outlined in the Solicitor General’s petition and brief.
Lau, asserting his rights under the Immigration and Nationality Act, has contended that border authorities are already equipped to assess the criminal histories of entrants and should adhere to the law’s requirements to categorize an offender properly at the time of reentry. The Supreme Court’s decision, anticipated by early July, could significantly impact how immigration laws are applied to lawful permanent residents involved in alleged criminal activities. For further details on the case, see the full analysis on SCOTUSblog.