Blanche v. Lau · ¶32

The Second Circuit derived its clear-and-convincing-evidence requirement not from the statutory text, but from in- apposite 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-convincing-evidence burden on…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.