Officials need not prove crime before denying re-entry to green card holders: US SC

The US Supreme Court has ruled that immigration authorities need not prove "clear and convincing evidence" that a green card holder has committed crimes involving "moral turpitude" to deny him or her admission to the country. Instead, stated the court, in a 6-3 ruling, officials only need to prove that there is "reason to believe" that the concerned green card holder has committed such a crime to deport the person.

"The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement," Thomas wrote in the majority opinion issued following the ruling in the Blanche v. Lau case on Tuesday (June 23), reported ANI.

Top court widens powers

With this, the US border agents now have wider powers to deny and initiate deportation proceedings against lawful permanent residents or green card holders accused of such crimes at US ports of entry.

Also Read: DHS says green card applicants will not automatically be required to leave US

The decision represents a legal setback for Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and lawful permanent resident of the US who challenged his deportation case. According to ABC News, Lau was stopped at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 after returning from a trip to China while facing trademark-counterfeiting charges in New Jersey.

Although immigration authorities allowed him to re-enter the country on a conditional basis, they later pursued removal proceedings against him. Under US immigration law, green card holders who travel abroad briefly are generally permitted to return.

Lau's challenge fails

However, that protection does not apply in certain circumstances, including cases involving individuals convicted of, or who admit to committing, a "crime involving moral turpitude."

Also Read: Return to home country and apply: Proposed rule for US Green Card causes anxiety

Lau subsequently pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge. Immigration authorities later ordered his deportation, prompting a prolonged legal battle in which he argued that the offence should not be classified as a crime involving "moral turpitude" under federal immigration law.

The court's liberal wing disagreed with the majority's interpretation. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued that the government should first be required to establish that a green card holder committed a disqualifying offence before stripping that individual of the protections attached to permanent resident status.

Dissent warns of overreach

"I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check," Jackson wrote.

She said the ruling effectively allows immigration authorities to treat lawful permanent residents as applicants for admission before proving they fall within the statutory exceptions.

"With today's decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR to the status of 'seeking admission' upon his entry at the border, so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted. That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the law,” she added.