Blanche v. Lau · ¶35

Lau argues that border officers had to determine that he was “seeking an admission” based on some standard, §1101(a)(13)(C); accord, 130 F. 4th, at 49; post, at 2, 4–5 (JACKSON, J., dissenting), and that the same clear-and-convincing-evidence standard that the Board applies at the removal proceeding should apply for both purposes. Brief for Respondent 14–15, 31. But, as the Government points out, border “officers did determine that he was seeking an admission” when they paroled him. Reply Brief 2. And, as we have already explained, there is nothing in the INA that suggests that those officers had to have clear and convincing evidence to do so at that time. Lau argues that the Government “expressly” conceded that it had that burden. Brief for Respondent 15, 18. But, the Government conceded that it had the burden only “in removal proceedings,” not at the border. Brief for Petitioner 16…

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