Blanche v. Lau · ¶53

Critical here (and elided in the majority’s reasoning) is the distinction between the border officer’s initial decision whether an LPR should be classified as “seeking an admission” and an immigration judge’s later decision, at the removal hearing, whether the LPR is ultimately admissible. The admissibility determination comes after the LPR is deemed to be “seeking an admission.” But the Court’s analysis conflates these two distinct determinations. It thereby allows the Government to “satisf[y] its burden” for the initial decision (which, logically, must happen at the border) with later-accrued evidence, i.e., backfill its justification. Ante, at 7. For the reasons I have just laid out, that conclusion cannot be squared with §1101(a)(13)(C)’s core mandate directing the Government not to “regar[d an LPR] as seeking an admission into the United States.”

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