- For green card holders, the practical message is straightforward: international travel may carry greater immigration risks if you have pending criminal charges, an unresolved criminal case, or a conviction that could have immigration consequences. Immigration attorneys advise affected residents to seek legal guidance before leaving the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court has made it easier for immigration officials to challenge the reentry of lawful permanent residents, ruling that border agents do not need “clear and convincing evidence” that a green card holder committed a disqualifying offense before treating that person as an applicant for admission.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court said border officers do not need strong proof that a lawful permanent resident committed a disqualifying offense when returning from overseas. Instead, officials only need a “reason to believe” the person committed a crime that could make them removable under immigration law.
The ruling stems from the case of Muk Choi Lau, a lawful permanent resident who traveled to China in 2012 while facing trademark-counterfeiting charges in New Jersey. When he returned to the United States, immigration officials did not admit him as a returning resident. Instead, they paroled him into the country because of the pending criminal charge.
Lau later pleaded guilty and was ordered deported. He argued that immigration officials should have been required to prove he committed a disqualifying crime before stripping him of his status as a returning resident. The Supreme Court disagreed.
The decision means that green card holders returning from international travel may face greater scrutiny if they have pending criminal charges, unresolved criminal cases, or certain past convictions.
Previously, some courts required immigration officials to have clear and convincing evidence that a resident had committed a disqualifying crime before treating them as an applicant for admission. The Supreme Court ruled that federal law imposes no such requirement.
As a result, immigration officers can now classify a returning green card holder as an applicant for admission based on a reasonable belief that the person committed a qualifying offense. Once that happens, the individual can be detained, paroled into the country, or placed into removal proceedings.
The ruling does not mean that green card holders automatically lose their status or are automatically deported. The government must still prove its case during immigration proceedings. However, officials can begin that process earlier and with a lower evidentiary threshold at the border.
The crimes most likely to trigger scrutiny are those classified as crimes involving “moral turpitude,” a broad category that includes offenses such as fraud, theft, and counterfeiting.
The Court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued that the ruling weakens protections for lawful permanent residents by allowing the government to act on allegations before guilt has been established.
For green card holders, the practical message is straightforward: international travel may carry greater immigration risks if you have pending criminal charges, an unresolved criminal case, or a conviction that could have immigration consequences. Immigration attorneys advise affected residents to seek legal guidance before leaving the United States.
