gloss · the reading room

Blanche v. Lau · ¶74

Right or wrong, that holding has no bearing here. The question whether a noncitizen is eligible for cancellation of removal follows a finding of removability or deportability. See ibid. (“Under the cancellation-of-removal statute, immigration judges must . . . determine whether, after a previously admitted noncitizen has been determined to be deportable, the noncitizen should nonetheless be allowed to remain in the United States” (emphasis added)). So, by the time §1229b(a) kicks in, the propriety of the removability or deportability finding must be taken for granted. By contrast, a border officer performing his duties under §1101(a)(13)(C) is deciding whether a returning LPR will be treated as “seeking an admission”—a necessary step before a removal hearing is set to decide that individual’s removability. That an LPR subsequently commits a crime or is later convicted for criminal…
Read in context ›

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