Blanche v. Lau

609 U. S. ___ (2026) · 6/23/26

The Immigration and Nationality Act does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Government can remove aliens applying for admission to the country if they are “ ‘inadmissible,’ ” and it can remove aliens already admitted if they are “ ‘deportable.’ ” Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U. S. 447, 451. In this case, respondent Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen, was admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident in 2007. On May 7, 2012, New Jersey charged Lau with trademark counterfeiting. While awaiting trial, Lau temporarily left the United States for China. On June 15, 2012, Lau attempted to reenter the United…

Held: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before deeming the resident an applicant for admission. Pp. 5–9. (a) Removing a lawful permanent resident on a charge of inadmissibility involves two steps: at step one, only commission of the crime is required to show that the alien could be regarded as seeking to be admitted; at step two, conviction or admission is required to show that the alien seeking to be admitted is inadmissible. Lau was…