gloss · the reading room

Blanche v. Lau · ¶75

Finally, the Government and the majority maintain that the INA restricts the immigration judge’s review of the border officer’s classification to only “the evidence produced at the hearing,” which they interpret to include evidence accrued after the border officer’s parole decision. Ante, at 7 (citing §1229a(c)(1)(A)). It is puzzling to think that this language—which appears in a section that has nothing to do with the Government’s obligations regarding LPRs at the border—would allow the Government to rely on postparole evidence to prove that it had authority to parole. Section 1229a(c)(1)(A) is about what the immigration judge can consider in determining inadmissibility, not whether an LPR should be at a removal proceeding in the first place. And in any case, that provision is clearly meant to prohibit immigration judges from considering material extraneous to the hearing (e.g.,…
Read in context ›

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