(855) 909-3021
Call Us Now
Email Us Now
International Travel Risks for Green Card Holders: Understanding the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau (2026)
For lawful permanent residents (LPRs), commonly known as green card holders, traveling abroad has long been considered a routine benefit of permanent residency. However, a major decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2026, has fundamentally changed how border officials evaluate returning green card holders who have unresolved legal issues or past offenses.
In the case of Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the government does not need “clear and convincing evidence” of a crime at the border before deciding to strip a returning green card holder of their automatic right to re-entry and treating them as a first-time applicant for admission.
For an objective look at the official ruling, you can read the full opinion directly on the Supreme Court of the United States Website.
To help our clients understand the practical reality of this major legal shift without the usual political noise, this post breaks down the law, the facts of the case, and the severe consequences it may have for your future travel plans.
The Core Legal Framework: Admission vs. Deportation
To understand the court’s decision, it is necessary to examine how federal law treats green card holders when they return from a trip abroad.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C), a returning green card holder is legally presumed to be “already admitted” to the United States. This status grants them significant constitutional protections. If the government wishes to remove an LPR who is inside the country, it must initiate deportation proceedings, where the government carries the heavy burden of proving that the individual is deportable by clear and convincing evidence.
However, the statute outlines six specific exceptions to this rule. If an exception applies, the returning resident loses their presumption of being “already admitted” and is instead classified as an “applicant for admission”—essentially treating them as if they are standing at the border trying to get a green card for the very first time.
The specific exception at issue in Blanche v. Lau is found in clause (v), which states that an LPR will be treated as an applicant for admission if they “committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2)”—a section of law that includes “Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude” (CIMTs).
The Background of the Case
The respondent, Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2007. In 2012, while a criminal charge for selling counterfeit trademark goods was pending against him in New Jersey, Mr. Lau took a brief trip to China.
When he returned to a U.S. airport, a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer noted the pending criminal charge. Because of the open charge, the officer refused to treat Mr. Lau as an already-admitted resident. Instead, the officer confiscated his physical green card and “paroled” him into the country—allowing him to physically enter the U.S. temporarily while his legal status remained unresolved.
A year later, in 2013, Mr. Lau pleaded guilty to the trademark counterfeiting charge. Following the plea, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) placed him into removal proceedings, charging him as inadmissible due to a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
Mr. Lau argued that the border official acted unlawfully back in 2012 because, at the exact moment he stood at the airport, he was only accused of a crime, not convicted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with Mr. Lau, ruling that the government must possess “clear and convincing evidence” at the border that a resident actually committed the crime before stripping them of their status. The government appealed, leading to the Supreme Court’s review.
What the Supreme Court Decided
Writing for the 6–3 majority, Justice Clarence Thomas rejected the Second Circuit’s restriction, ruling that the text of the INA does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence of a crime at the moment of entry.
The Court established a two-step framework for how these cases must be handled:
- Step One (At the Border): The government may classify a returning resident as an applicant for admission based on the commission of the offense (such as an arrest or pending charge). The border officer does not need formal, finalized proof at that exact moment.
- Step Two (In Immigration Court): The actual evaluation of whether the person is inadmissible happens later, during a formal removal hearing before an Immigration Judge. The government can satisfy its burden of proof at that later date using evidence—like a guilty plea or a conviction—that didn’t even exist when the traveler stood at the airport.
In short, the Supreme Court ruled that the border officer’s initial decision can be justified retroactively by a conviction that occurs after the trip has concluded.
The Real-World Consequences for Green Card Holders
The Blanche v. Lau decision significantly increases the legal exposure of permanent residents who travel outside the U.S. If you are treated as an applicant for admission rather than an already-admitted resident, several critical changes occur:
1. Shifting the Burden of Proof
In a traditional deportation hearing, the government is the prosecutor and must prove you did something wrong. However, once you are classified as an “applicant for admission,” the burden of proof shifts to you. You must prove to the Immigration Judge that you are legally admissible to the United States.
2. Immediate Loss of Credentials and Practical Hardships
If a CBP officer triggers this rule at the airport, they can immediately confiscate your physical green card and replace it with a temporary paper form (Form I-94) while placing you into “parole” status. This initiates a period of severe legal limbo that can drag on for years. During this time, you may face immense difficulty:
- Renewing or maintaining employment authorization.
- Securing housing or loans.
- Renewing a driver’s license.
- Traveling outside the country again.
3. The Vulnerability of Pending Charges
Under this ruling, you do not have to be found guilty before your travel is disrupted. A pending, unresolved criminal charge can be flagged in border databases, prompting officers to revoke your automatic right to re-entry and place you into removal proceedings before your criminal case is even resolved in state court.
Who is Most At Risk When Traveling?
Following this ruling, international travel carries an elevated level of risk for any lawful permanent resident who falls into the following categories:
- Individuals with Pending Charges: Anyone currently facing an open criminal matter—especially offenses that may be categorized as Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude (such as theft, fraud, forgery, or certain assault charges)—should avoid leaving the United States until the case is fully and favorably resolved.
- Individuals with Old or Dismissed Arrests: Even if a previous arrest did not lead to a conviction, or if the charges were dismissed, the record of that arrest still exists in federal law enforcement databases. Border officers may use that record to question whether an offense was committed.
- Individuals with Expunged Records: Many immigrants believe that an expungement or sealed record in state court wipes the slate clean. However, federal immigration law does not recognize state expungements for most criminal immigration consequences. These records will still appear at a port of entry.
Protect Your Status: Request an Independent Analysis
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Blanche v. Lau serves as a stark reminder that lawful permanent residency is not entirely unconditional, and the intersection of criminal law and immigration law is more volatile than ever.
If you have any history of legal trouble—no matter how minor or how long ago it occurred—or if you have a pending legal matter, do not risk your green card by traveling blindly. Before you book an international flight, give Jarrett & Price a call at (855) 909-3021. We can provide a confidential, independent analysis of your specific circumstances, review your records, and evaluate whether it is safe for you to travel. Protect the life and future you have built here in the United States.
