Green card holders’ rights under threat: New immigration ruling could increase risks for permanent residents

Green Card Alert: U.S. Supreme Court delivers notable victory for green cards trump card U.S. government rules governing immigration enforcement determine that border officials do not need to have clear and convincing evidence of criminal activity before classifying returning green card holders as individuals seeking to enter the country — a designation that could ultimately lead to deportation proceedings.

In Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, the court ruled 6-3, overturning an earlier lower court ruling that mandated migrant Authorities have more substantial evidence of legal permanent residents re-entering the United States.

The case centers on Muk Choi Lau, a legal permanent resident who was granted immigration parole after a brief trip to China in 2012, during which time he faced counterfeiting-related criminal charges in New Jersey. After his subsequent confession, Department of Homeland Security Deportation proceedings were initiated against him. Liu claimed that immigration officials wrongly classified him as an entry applicant before he was convicted of any crime.

Also read: July US Visa Announcement: Indian job seekers encounter major setbacks, green card applicants change

The ruling sends the case back to a lower court to assess whether Liu’s crime meets the criteria for a crime of moral turpitude, a key classification in U.S. immigration law.

Jackson raised concerns because the court effectively gave the government a “big blank check.” In her dissent, Jackson warned that officials may now classify returning green card holders initially as admission applicants and rationalize that selection at subsequent removal hearings.

Opponents argued that the ruling jeopardized the security associated with permanent residency and caused confusion for legal immigrants when traveling internationally.

Several immigration law experts said a decision in favor of the administration could expand the circumstances under which green card holders are considered applicants for admission after returning from international travel.

Law firm Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP stressed ahead of the hearing that the case could have “significant consequences” for permanent residents by facilitating border authorities’ ability to classify returning green card holders as seeking entry, which could subject them to detention and deportation proceedings, Business Standard reported.

Immigration attorney Cyrus Mehta argued that the 2nd Circuit’s previous ruling provided enhanced protections for permanent residents because it prohibited authorities from classifying returning green card holders as incoming applicants solely because of alleged criminal activity.

Likewise, the Asian American Legal Defense and Educational Foundation (AALDEF), which supports Liu, warned during the legal proceedings that the administration’s stance could reduce permanent residency to the status of being threatened at the border based solely on suspicion.

The progressive group Alliance for Justice said the ruling could create a broader path to revoking green cards.

Instead, Advancing American Freedom, a group founded by former Republican Vice President Mike Pence, said the case was important in promoting the deportation of individuals who “abuse the privilege of obtaining lawful permanent resident status.”

Although Liu’s case began long before Trump became president, the administration has encouraged courts to broadly interpret executive authority, arguing that mere suspicion of criminal activity can justify a lawful permanent resident’s immigration parole pending further legal action.