Green CardJun 23, 2026·2 min read·🔥 High relevance

Supreme Court: Border Officers Need No Heightened Proof to Treat Returning Green Card Holders with Criminal Issues as Seeking Admission

Murthy Law Firm

Jun 23, 2026

Supreme Court: Border Officers Need No Heightened Proof to Treat Returning Green Card Holders with Criminal Issues as Seeking Admission

Summary

In a decision with real consequences for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who travel internationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on 23.Jun.2026, that a border officer does not need clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder committed a crime before treating that person as an applicant for admission. Kennedy International Airport, the CBP (border protection agency) officer did not treat him as already admitted. Lau later pleaded guilty, and the government placed him in removal proceedings on inadmissibility grounds. The Supreme Court reversed course on that point. It determines which removal track applies, and the two tracks are very different. As a practical matter at the airport, a resident reclassified in this way may be paroled into the country, issued temporary evidence of status in place of the physical green card, detained, or referred to immigration court. For green card holders, the key cautions are these. Green card holders with any criminal history are strongly encouraged to seek individualized legal advice before international travel. Readers should consult a qualified immigration attorney regarding their specific circumstances.

From the source

In a decision with real consequences for lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who travel internationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on 23.Jun.2026, that a border officer does not need clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder committed a crime before treating that person as an applicant for admission. The 6-to-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, No. 25-429 , makes it easier for the government to channel returning green card holders with criminal histories into the more difficult inadmissibility track, where they can be paroled into the country, detained, or placed in removal proceedings in which the burden of proof falls on the individual rather than on the government. Background As a general rule, an LPR returning from a trip abroad is treated as already admitted and is not regarded as “seeking an admission” to the United States. The law lists six narrow exceptions. One of them, subsection (C)(v), allows the government to treat a returning LPR as seeking admission if the person

Read the full article

Published by Murthy Law Firm on murthy.com

Open on murthy.com ↗

Green Card freeze unlawful: Indian-origin US judge on Trump's 75-country order

An Indian-origin US federal judge has ruled that the Donald Trump administration's policy of freezing Green Card processing for applicants from 75 countries is unlawful, while holding that the State Department exceeded its legal authority by taking away visa decision-making powers from designated consular officers. This comes even as the US Labor Department is also planning changes that could increase the cost of sponsoring foreign workers for H-1B work visa visas and employment-based Green Cards . The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), meanwhile, which was passed in 1952, governs visas, Green Cards, citizenship, deportation proceedings, and the grounds on which foreign nationals may be denied entry or permanent residence. He wrote that the January policy freezing Green Card processing for applicants from 75 countries, gave US State Secretary Marco Rubio the power to control individual visa decisions, despite the fact that the INA Act had restricted that responsibility to consular officers who are required to evaluate each Green Card application on its own merits. Bloomberg Law reported that the ruling came in a lawsuit filed by a Brazilian national, whose Green Card Application under the EB-5 immigrant investor visa programme was put on hold because of the policy. Justice Mehta agreed, saying the policy wrongly took away consular officers' authority to independently decide visa applications by effectively deciding outcomes in advance. He also ruled that the case could be reviewed by the court because it challenged a broader State Department policy, not just an individual visa decision. As part of his order, Mehta barred the State Department from applying the public charge policy to the plantiff's application and directed officials to adjudicate his immigrant visa once a consular officer determines that the application is complete. The decision is the latest legal challenge to the administration’s immigration policies. The rules allow US immigration authorities to deny certain visa or Green Card applications if they determine an applicant is likely to rely heavily on government benefits, reflecting the administration’s broader push for stricter immigration screening.

Adding a Spouse or Child to a Principal Applicant’s Green Card Process

When an individual applies for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status (commonly, a green card) in the United States, certain family members also may qualify for LPR status as derivative beneficiaries. Both employment-based and family-preference category green card processes allow for derivative beneficiaries to be included in the principal applicant’s process. For example, if an LPR files a petition for a spouse in the second-preference family-based category, then the spouse’s eligible child can be included as a derivative on the parent’s petition. For employment-based green card cases, it is a common misconception that a spouse or child must be included in the principal’s green card process during the PERM (labor certification for green card) labor certification or Form I-140 (green card petition) immigrant petition stage. In truth, for both employment-based and family-preference category green card processes, a spouse or child can be included as a derivative beneficiary if the qualifying family relationship existed before the principal applicant obtains permanent residence. Where a derivative beneficiary can be added to a principal’s green card process, the derivative can choose whether to “accompany” and apply for a green card or immigrant visa at the same time as or within six months of the principal applicant, or to “follow-to-join” and immigrate at a later date than the principal applicant. It is important to keep in mind that even where a child is initially included as a derivative beneficiary in a parent’s green card process, the child may be at risk of aging out of the parent’s petition, unless the child is protected by the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), as explained in the MurthyDotCom NewsBrief, Child Status Protection Act Basics, Part 1 and Part 2 . Understanding when a spouse or child can be included in a principal applicant’s green card process is essential to ensure that a family can immigrate to the U.S. as a single unit. Given the complexity of these requirements, individuals are strongly encouraged to schedule a consultation with an experienced immigration attorney to navigate the process effectively. While some aspects of immigration have changed significantly in the years since MurthyDotCom began publishing articles in 1994, much remains relevant.

Supreme Court: Border Officers Need No Heightened Proof to Treat Returning Green Card Holders with Criminal Issues as Seeking Admission

From the source

More in Green Card

Green Card freeze unlawful: Indian-origin US judge on Trump's 75-country order

Adding a Spouse or Child to a Principal Applicant’s Green Card Process

US Immigration authority's Green Card update: EB-1 visa category may become unavailable