Blanche v. Lau · ¶46

Though this isn’t clear from the majority’s opinion, the only question this case presents is one of sequencing: Must the Government determine whether an LPR “has committed” a crime involving moral turpitude, §1101(a)(13)(C)(v), before refusing to deem him already admitted at the border? The majority responds in the negative. The Court now relieves the Government of its statutory burden to determine the applicability of an exception at the border if the Government “satisfie[s] its burden at the [removal] hearing based on the evidence” it accrues by the time of the hearing. Ante, at 7 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted). But under the plain terms of the statute, the removal hearing—which can come months, or even years, after the LPR is demoted to “seeking an admission” status and paroled in—is too late for the Government to carry its burden. The Government needs to have the…

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