US Supreme Court eases deportation process for green card holders accused of certain crimes
Washington DC, June 24
The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a ruling making it easier for border authorities to deport lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, accused of crimes involving "moral turpitude".
In a 6-3 ruling authored by US Justice Clarence Thomas in Blanche v. Lau, the court held that immigration officials do not need to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that a returning green card holder committed a disqualifying offence before denying admission.
Instead, authorities need only establish that there is "reason to believe" such an offence may have been committed.
"The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement," Thomas wrote in the majority opinion issued following the ruling.
The decision effectively strengthens the powers of border agents to deny entry and initiate removal proceedings against lawful permanent residents arriving at US ports of entry if they are suspected of involvement in crimes involving "moral turpitude".
According to ABC News, the ruling marks a setback for petitioner Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national and US green card holder.
Lau was initially deemed inadmissible at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 after returning from China, while facing New Jersey state charges related to trademark counterfeiting. He was conditionally allowed re-entry at the time.
US immigration law generally permits green card holders who travel abroad for short periods to re-enter the country but includes exceptions if the individual is convicted of, or admits to, committing a "crime involving moral turpitude", as reported by ABC News.
Lau later pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was subsequently ordered deported.
He continued to challenge the removal proceedings, arguing that the offence did not qualify as one involving "moral turpitude".
In the dissent note, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said the government should bear the burden of first proving that a green card holder actually committed a disqualifying offence before revoking their status.
"I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check," Jackson wrote. She further noted that "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."
— ANI
Reader Comments
It's sad but predictable. US immigration laws keep getting harsher. For educated Indians doing honest jobs, this is a wake-up call. Even minor legal trouble on a trip home could mean not being allowed back. My cousin in Chicago is rethinking his permanent residency plans after this. 😕
Okay, I'll say what others won't - if you're a permanent resident and you commit crimes involving moral turpitude, you knew the risks. The US is not India. They have strict laws. The problem isn't this ruling, it's people taking visas for granted. Do your time, follow the law, or face consequences. Simple.
As an American, I'm pretty ashamed of this ruling. The "reason to believe" standard can be abused easily. What if you're falsely accused? Green card holders have families, jobs, lives here. They should get due process. Justice Jackson's dissent is the only sane voice here.
Typical US Supreme Court - more power to border agents, less rights for immigrants. "Moral turpitude" is such a colonial-era term too. What constitutes moral turpitude? Cheating on taxes? Traffic violations? It's a slippery slope. Indian professionals working in tech should be very concerned.
I'm an immigration attorney. This ruling is a massive shift. The burden of proof has effectively shifted to the green card holder. Before, the government had to show clear evidence. Now, just "reason to believe" is enough. For Indians in the US, I'd advise
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.