When A Green Card Isn’t Enough At The Border: What Blanche v. Lau Means For Lawful Permanent Residents With Criminal Issues

• Published date: 09 July 2026
• Subject Matter: Government, Public Sector, Immigration, Criminal Law, Constitutional & Administrative Law, General Immigration, Crime
• Law Firm: Barnes & Thornburg LLP
• Author: Ms M. Mercedes Badia-Tavas and Julia Bialy

Highlights

• In Blanche v. Lau, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held, in a 6-3 decision, that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require CBP officers to have “clear and convincing evidence” at the border that a returning lawful permanent resident (LPR or green card holder) committed a covered offense before treating the individual as seeking admission under INA §101(a)(13)(C)(v).
• Green card holders with potentially relevant criminal-history issues, including pending charges, prior arrests tied to unresolved allegations, prior convictions, or other conduct that could implicate INA §212(a)(2) — may face increased scrutiny and potential immigration consequences when returning from international travel.
• LPRs and employers should consult immigration counsel before international travel when any open or potentially relevant criminal matter exists.

Summary of Blanche v. Lau

On June 23, SCOTUS decided Blanche v. Lau, a case with important implications for LPRs who travel internationally while a criminal charge or other potentially relevant criminal matter is pending or unresolved. In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS held that the INA does not require CBP officers to meet a “clear and convincing evidence” standard at the border before treating a returning LPR as seeking admission under INA §101(a)(13)(C)(v).

As a practical matter, a returning LPR with a pending charge or other potentially relevant criminal issue may be diverted from the default “already admitted” treatment and later placed in removal proceedings on inadmissibility grounds, if the U.S. government establishes the relevant inadmissibility basis. Evidence developed later, including a post-entry conviction, may be used in removal proceedings to support the earlier classification decision and can increase the risk of removal and loss of LPR status.

Legal Permanent Residents and Temporary Travel: The Legal Framework

Generally, LPRs returning from temporary travel abroad are not treated as “seeking admission.” Instead, they are regarded as already admitted and ordinarily do not have to reapply for admission. That default rule is subject to six statutory exceptions listed in INA §101(a)(13)(C)(i)-(vi). The exception at issue in this case applies to LPRs who have “committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2),” including certain inadmissibility offenses such as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Although CIMT is not expressly defined by statute, it generally refers to...