Blanche v. Lau · ¶56

“[T]he present-perfect tense conveys to a listener that the event in question continues to be true or valid.” Hewitt v. United States, 606 U. S. 419, 429 (2025). It makes sense that the border officer would ask what “has” transpired with respect to a returning LPR when deciding whether that individual should be treated as already admitted or “seeking an admission.” By contrast, it would not make sense for the immigration judge to consider, for example, whether the LPR “has departed” the United States, §1101(a)(13)(C)(iv); by the time of the removal hearing, the LPR is back inside the country. Similarly, why would an immigration judge consider whether the LPR “has been absent . . . in excess of 180 days” by the time of the removal hearing when, by then, the LPR will already have returned to the United States? What matters under §1101(a)(13)(C)(ii) is how long the LPR has been outside the…

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