ARTICLE
3 August 2026

Lawful Permanent Residents With Criminal Issues May Face Increased Scrutiny

BT
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

Contributor

In a changing marketplace, Barnes & Thornburg stands ready at a moment’s notice, adapting with agility and precision to achieve your goals. As one of the 100 largest law firms in the United States, our 800 legal professionals in 23 offices put their collective experience to work so you can succeed.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Blanche v. Lau fundamentally changes how lawful permanent residents with criminal histories are treated at the border. What does this mean for green card holders returning from international travel, and how should employers protect their workforce from unexpected immigration consequences?
United States Immigration
M. Mercedes Badia-Tavas’s articles from Barnes & Thornburg LLP are most popular:
  • within Immigration topic(s)
Barnes & Thornburg LLP are most popular:
  • within Privacy and Accounting and Audit topic(s)

On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Blanche v. Lau that CBP officers need not have “clear and convincing evidence” of a disqualifying offense before treating a returning lawful permanent resident (LPR) as an applicant for admission under INA §101(a)(13)(C)(v). As a result, LPRs with pending charges, unresolved arrests, old convictions, or any conduct implicating INA §212(a)(2) inadmissibility grounds face increased risk of being paroled rather than admitted upon return from international travel.

To provide context, generally, LPRs returning from temporary travel abroad are not treated as “seeking admission.” Instead, they are regarded as already admitted and ordinarily do not have to reapply for admission. That default rule is subject to six statutory exceptions listed in INA §101(a)(13)(C)(i)-(vi). The exception at issue in this case applies to LPRs who have “committed an offense identified in section 212(a)(2),” including certain inadmissibility offenses such as a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Although CIMT is not expressly defined by statute, it generally refers to conduct that courts have treated as involving fraud, theft, or other morally reprehensible conduct, depending on the offense and applicable precedent.

The distinction carries significant practical consequences. An LPR treated as an “applicant for admission” may be found inadmissible based on a covered offense committed “at any time,” subject to the statutory requirements and any applicable exceptions.

Barnes & Thornburg encourages employers to advise LPR employees with any open or potentially relevant criminal history to consult immigration counsel before international travel.

For more information, please refer to the prior Barnes & Thornburg alert: When a Green Card Isn't Enough at the Border: What Blanche v. Lau Means for Lawful Permanent Residents With Criminal Issues.

Subscribe to Immigration Insights

This article is part of our Immigration Insights newsletter, which presents highlights on key developments shaping today’s immigration and global mobility landscape, including updates on nonimmigrant and immigrant visas, compliance and enforcement trends, litigation, and regulatory changes. To subscribe, click here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More