Blanche v. Lau · ¶32

The Second Circuit derived its clear-and-convincingevidence requirement not from the statutory text, but from inapposite Board of Immigration Appeals precedent. The Board says that the Government must establish that a lawful permanent resident is an applicant for admission by clear and convincing evidence. App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a. But, the Board imposes this burden on the Government, correctly or not, only “at the time of the removal hearing,” not at the border. Matter of Valenzuela-Felix, 26 I. & N. Dec. 53, 57, 64 (BIA 2012). And, here, the Government satisfied its burden at the hearing based “on the evidence produced at the hearing,” § 1229a(c)(1)(A): Lau's guilty plea was clear and convincing evidence that, before he attempted to reenter the country, he had committed the crime in question. We decline to read into the INA an additional clear-and-convincingevidence burden on border…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.