Blanche v. Lau

Muk Choi Lau (defendant), a Chinese citizen, first visited the United States in 2001 and became a lawful permanent resident (LPR), i.e., a green-card holder, in 2007. In 2012, New Jersey charged Lau with third-degree trademark counterfeiting for storing counterfeit shorts. While the charge was pending, Lau went abroad. When Lau returned to the United States, a border officer determined that Lau did not qualify for admission and deemed him an alien seeking admission because the officer believed Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude. The officer’s only evidence was the pending counterfeit charge. The officer paroled Lau into the United States, which meant Lau was allowed to physically enter the country pending a new determination of his admissibility. Lau later pleaded guilty to the counterfeit charge, and the federal government (plaintiff) began removal proceedings. Because Lau had been an LPR for five years, a moral-turpitude crime was grounds for removal only if he had been correctly deemed an alien seeking admission. Lau claimed the border officer’s determination was incorrect because (1) the officer lacked sufficient evidence that Lau had actually committed any crime at that time and (2) Lau’s offense did not qualify as a crime involving moral turpitude. In 2021, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a final order of removal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the removal order, ruling that a border officer may deny an LPR the normal presumption of admissibility only if the officer has clear and convincing evidence that a statutory exception applies. Because a pending criminal charge is not clear evidence that a crime occurred, the Second Circuit concluded that Lau had been improperly treated as seeking admission. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.