If you hold a green card and have any criminal history — even an old or minor one — a new Supreme Court decision makes international travel riskier. Here is what changed, and how to protect your status.

The short version

On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Blanche v. Lau. The decision makes it easier for a border officer to treat a returning green card holder as someone seeking to enter the country — rather than as a resident simply coming home.

The distinction sounds technical. Its consequences are not. It can determine who bears the burden of proof, whether you can be detained with little recourse, and whether you continue to live and work normally while your case is resolved.

If you hold a green card and have any criminal history — including an arrest that never led to a conviction — consult an immigration attorney before you book international travel. A short conversation now can prevent years of difficulty later.

How green card holders normally travel

A green card holder is a lawful permanent resident, or LPR. Ordinarily, when you return from a trip abroad, the law treats you as already admitted — a resident coming home, not a newcomer seeking entry. That protection is valuable: a border officer generally cannot require you to re-establish your right to be in the country.

The protection has limits. The government may treat a returning resident as an applicant for admission — someone seeking entry — if the person committed certain offenses, including a crime involving moral turpitude. That is the legal term for conduct involving fraud, dishonesty, or serious wrongdoing, such as theft or counterfeiting. Blanche v. Lau concerned how confident an officer must be that such a crime occurred before invoking that exception.

What the Supreme Court decided

The case involved a green card holder who was charged with a crime, traveled briefly abroad, and was stopped on his return. The officer had no conviction — only a pending charge — yet declined to treat him as a returning resident, instead paroling him into the country (a conditional, temporary entry) as an applicant for admission. His conviction came a full year later.

A federal appeals court found this improper, holding that the officer needed clear and convincing evidence of the crime first. The Supreme Court reversed. Border officers, it held, do not need that level of proof. And — the detail that most concerns immigration lawyers — the Court declined to say what proof is required instead. It left that question open.

Two further points deserve attention:

• “Committed” is not “convicted.” The government may treat you as an applicant for admission based on the alleged conduct itself, before any conviction. Here, the conviction arrived only after the border encounter, and the Court found that sequence acceptable.

• The border decision and the courtroom decision are now treated as separate steps. At the border, an officer decides which category you fall into. Much later, an immigration judge decides whether you are actually removable. The Court allowed the government to make the border classification first and supply its justification afterward — precisely the sequence the three dissenting Justices rejected.

Why the “applicant for admission” label is so costly

When a returning resident is paroled in as an applicant for admission, the law treats that person as an arriving alien (8 C.F.R. § 1.2) — and that designation changes the entire balance of power:

• The burden of proof shifts onto you. If the government seeks to remove an already-admitted resident, it must prove the case. As an arriving alien, you must prove your right to remain. The same facts become far harder to defend.

• Older and lesser offenses regain relevance. As an arriving alien, a crime involving moral turpitude can count against you regardless of how long ago it occurred. The same offense often could not be used to remove an already-admitted resident at all. How you are classified, in other words, can decide whether a decades-old matter is fatal or irrelevant.

• Detention becomes far harder to challenge. Arriving aliens generally cannot seek release on bond before an immigration judge. The principal avenue to contest prolonged detention becomes a separate federal court action (a habeas corpus petition) — a slower, costlier, and more demanding remedy. By enlarging the group of residents who can be routed into this framework, the ruling makes that exposure a realistic concern for more people.

• Your green card effectively disappears in the interim. In this posture, officers commonly retain the physical green card and issue a stamped document that functions, for only about a year, as proof of work authorization. The downstream effects are tangible: difficulty maintaining employment, opening accounts, securing housing, obtaining insurance, or enrolling in school. The resident in this case spent fourteen years in that limbo.

Who should pay attention — and what to do

Most green card holders with clean records will continue to travel without incident, and this is no cause for alarm. But the calculus has changed for a specific group. Treat international travel as warranting legal review if any of the following describe you:

• You have any criminal record, however old or minor — including convictions you believe were expunged, sealed, vacated, or pardoned. Immigration law does not always honor those outcomes, and the analysis is genuinely technical.

• You have an arrest or charge that never resulted in conviction. After Lau, the alleged conduct alone can trigger applicant-for-admission treatment.

• You have a foreign conviction, a juvenile matter, or a deferred or diverted disposition.

Concrete, attorney-vetted steps:

1. Obtain a pre-travel admissibility review. Before you leave, have an attorney analyze your complete record — the specific statute and the underlying facts — for moral-turpitude or other criminal-inadmissibility exposure. Meaningful defenses and exceptions (such as the petty-offense exception) exist, but they are easy to misjudge without experienced eyes.

2. Address problems before you fly, not after. In some cases the right step in criminal court can change the immigration consequences of an old conviction. This takes time and should be undertaken well in advance.

3. Understand your rights at the port of entry. A border officer cannot revoke your status or order you removed — only an immigration judge can, after a hearing. Never sign Form I-407, which surrenders permanent resident status, under pressure; it is exceedingly difficult to undo.

4. If you are paroled in or served with a Notice to Appear, retain counsel immediately. Proceedings have begun, the burden is on you, and early strategy is decisive.

5. If you are eligible to naturalize, do so. Citizenship is the definitive protection: citizens are never treated as applicants for admission and cannot be removed. For many residents with old criminal issues, the most important response to this ruling is to pursue naturalization — after a careful eligibility review, since some records bear on that process as well.

How our firm approaches these cases

The most valuable work we do for residents who travel happens before departure. We conduct thorough admissibility reviews, identify and document defenses, and — where warranted — coordinate post-conviction relief in advance, so that an old matter never becomes a crisis at the border. For clients already in the Lau posture — paroled in, green card withheld, proceedings underway — we move quickly to challenge the inadmissibility theory, pursue release from detention, and build the affirmative case the shifted burden now requires.

Blanche v. Lau did not change who is admissible. It changed the procedure and the leverage at the border. Cases are increasingly won or lost on preparation — which is precisely where experienced counsel makes the difference.

Frequently asked questions

Can a border officer take my green card at the airport because of this ruling?

No. An officer cannot cancel your status or order you removed; only an immigration judge can, after a hearing. What the decision makes easier is for an officer to classify you as an applicant for admission and initiate a process that is harder to fight.

I have one old conviction from years ago. Is it safe to travel?

Don’t assume so. Whether an offense qualifies as a crime involving moral turpitude is a technical question, and after this ruling it can be raised against you even if it is old. Have it reviewed before you travel.

What does “arriving alien” mean, and why does it matter?

It is the designation applied to someone treated as seeking admission at the border, including a green card holder who is paroled in rather than admitted. It shifts the burden of proof onto you and sharply limits your ability to obtain release if detained.

If I’m classified this way, can I be detained — and how would I be released?

Possibly. Arriving aliens generally cannot obtain a bond hearing before an immigration judge, so the principal route to contest detention is a federal court action. That is a more demanding process than an ordinary bond request, which is why early representation is so important.

What is the strongest long-term protection?

Naturalization. U.S. citizens are not subject to any of this. If you may be eligible, arrange an eligibility review now.

Speak with us before your next trip

If you hold a green card and have any criminal history — or you have already been stopped, paroled, or placed in proceedings as an arriving alien — Blanche v. Lau is not something to navigate alone. The classification made in the first moments at the border can shape everything that follows, and thoughtful preparation beforehand can change the result.

Your green card represents years of effort and a life built in the United States, and protecting it deserves seasoned counsel. The Law Offices of Sabrina Li is dedicated exclusively to immigration and nationality law — led by Sabrina Li, a certified specialist in Immigration and Nationality Law (State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization), alongside a team of accomplished attorneys who focus solely on this field. We represent clients nationwide, with offices in California and Texas. Schedule a confidential consultation to review your record and travel plans before you go: call (213) 375-8096, email info@sabrinali.law, or visit www.sabrinali.law. A short conversation now can prevent years of uncertainty later.

This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration law is complex and changes frequently. For guidance on your specific circumstances, consult a licensed immigration attorney.