Supreme Court Allows Returning LPR to Be Treated as Applicant for Admission Based on Commission of CIMT

The Supreme Court has held that the government need not have clear and convincing evidence at the border that a returning lawful permanent resident committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating him as seeking admission under 8 USC 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). The respondent, a lawful permanent resident, temporarily traveled abroad while a New Jersey trademark-counterfeiting charge was pending and was paroled into the United States on return.

The Court held that the government’s burden is satisfied in the later removal proceedings, not necessarily at the port of entry. The respondent’s later guilty plea supplied the necessary proof that he had committed the offense for purposes of the admission classification. The Court vacated the Second Circuit’s decision and remanded, leaving unresolved whether the trademark-counterfeiting conviction is a CIMT.

The full text of Blanche v. Lau can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-429_h3ci.pdf

Fifth Circuit Addresses Whether Adjustment of Status Applicants are Applicants for Admission

In a somewhat convoluted case, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether an individual who had adjusted status in the United States after being admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant could be charged with deportability as a non-citizen inadmissible at the time of adjustment of status because he was not in possession of a valid entry document as defined in section 212(a)(7)(A) of the INA.  The court noted that section 212(a)(7)(A) of the INA only applies to applicants for admission, and concluded that a person already admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant visa, who subsequently applies for adjustment of status, cannot be deemed an applicant for admission, as contemplated in section 212(a)(7)(A) of the INA.  Thus, the petitioner, who adjusted status based on a fraudulent marriage, was not removable as charged, though the court clearly noted that there were likely other charges of removability that could be lodged against him.

The full text of Marques v. Lynch can be found here: 

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-60065-CV0.pdf