A recent Supreme Court ruling has significantly affected the reentry rights of green card holders with criminal records or pending charges — including EB-5 investors — when returning to the United States.
On June 23, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a major 6-3 decision in Blanche v. Lau, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. The ruling makes it easier for the government to channel returning green card holders with criminal histories into the more difficult inadmissibility track, where they can be paroled into the country, detained, or placed in removal proceedings in which the burden of proof falls on the individual rather than on the government.
The case involved Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen who became a lawful permanent resident in 2007. While a New Jersey trademark counterfeiting charge was pending against him, he briefly traveled to China. When he returned to JFK International Airport, a border officer paroled him rather than admitted him, based on the pending charge.
“The decision increases the risk analysis for any permanent resident with a criminal history,” Bernard Wolfsdorf of WR Immigration said. “Even where an arrest was resolved favorably, returning from international travel will now invite greater CBP scrutiny.”
“Past arrest alone does not create change in the risk of international travel by [lawful permanent resident] LPRs,” said Bobi Ahn of Ahn Law Group LLC. “With this ruling, those LPRs who have been arrested and convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude have the risk of being deemed ‘inadmissible.'”
“A past, resolved arrest is not necessarily a problem by itself,” said Yuliya Veremiyenko-Campos, Esq. of YVC Legal. “The key questions are whether there was a conviction, what statute was involved, how the case was resolved, and whether the disposition triggers a ground of inadmissibility. Even a dismissed case can still lead to questioning at the airport if it appears in a database.
What the ruling means for U.S. green card holders
As a rule, a green card holder returning from a trip abroad is treated as already admitted to the United States and is not regarded as “seeking admission.” The law lists six narrow exceptions.
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified that the border classification and the ultimate removal hearing are two separate steps: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers are not required to possess clear and convincing evidence of a disqualifying offense of reentry, but the government must still establish a conviction or admission to the offense to prove inadmissibility at a removal hearing.
The practical consequences of reclassification are significant. It determines which removal track applies, and the two tracks differ significantly. If a returning resident is treated as already admitted, the government may pursue removal only on deportability grounds, where the government carries the burden of proof. If, instead, the resident is treated as seeking admission, the government proceeds on inadmissibility grounds, shifting the burden to the individual to prove admissibility.
However, Wolfsdorf clarified that reclassification does not mean the individual loses permanent residency status. “It means DHS may treat certain returning green card holders as applicants for admission, placing the burden on the government to pursue inadmissibility or removal proceedings rather than simply admitting them as returning residents.”
Ahn added: “They wouldn’t automatically be reclassified. The triggering event would be international travel. If an LPR with a conviction on charges is returning from international travel, they may be deemed an applicant for admission, and at risk for being denied entry/readmission to the U.S.”
It’s important to note the scope of the ruling. The decision does not mean every arrest makes a green card holder inadmissible. The decision also does not affect other exceptions under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), such as abandonment of lawful permanent resident status, absence from the United States for more than 180 days, or departure while removal proceedings were pending. The Supreme Court ruling does not turn every traffic ticket or minor accusation into a green-card crisis. But it does make clear that returning lawful permanent residents with certain criminal issues can face tougher treatment at the U.S. border.
Wolsdorf cautioned U.S. green card holders to assess their situation before traveling. “My advice is don’t board the plane until an experienced immigration attorney has reviewed the criminal disposition. Even minor arrests can present unexpected immigration issues at the port of entry. A pre-travel legal review is far less onerous than being detained or placed into removal proceedings after landing.”
Implications for EB-5 investors with a criminal history
For EB-5 investors who have received their green cards and have a criminal record or pending charges, any international travel carries heightened risk. Pending criminal charges involving a possible crime of moral turpitude represent the highest-risk scenario under Blanche v. Lau.
“This decision has no bearing on pending EB-5 applicants with a criminal record,” Ahn noted. “However, having a criminal record (depending on the severity and whether involving CIMP) will most definitely affect the applicant’s chance of having their EB-5 applications denied.”
A pending charge can create risk of secondary inspection and scrutiny at reentry, and under the Court’s holding, the government can satisfy its evidentiary burden at a later removal hearing rather than at the border.
“If a returning EB-5 investor is treated as an ‘applicant for admission,’ that does not automatically mean the person has lost permanent residency. But it can place the person in a much more difficult position, including secondary inspection, deferred inspection, parole, possible detention and removal proceedings,”
As an example, an EB-5 applicant’s pending criminal history could be reviewed before filing the I-485 or attending consular processing. “The I-526/I-526E stage is mostly focused on the investment and lawful source of funds, but criminal issues can still affect credibility, admissibility, and later green card eligibility,” she said.
Prior convictions for offenses that may qualify as crimes of moral turpitude — including many fraud offenses, theft with intent to deprive, and offenses involving intentional harm or deception — also carry elevated risk. The analysis is highly fact-specific; a minor sentence or no jail time does not necessarily mean the offense falls outside this category.
If there is any arrest, pending charge, plea, conviction, probation issue, DUI, drug case, fraud case, theft case, or false-document issue, immigration-law advice should come before any international travel.
The same considerations apply to EB-5 investors with a criminal history who are still awaiting their green cards. Even if a criminal matter was resolved or appears minor, it could still affect the application process and any future reentry into the United States. Consulting qualified immigration counsel before traveling internationally is essential.
“Nothing in this decision changes the statutory admissibility requirements for EB-5 applicants,” Wolfsdorf says. “However, applicants with pending charges, convictions, or even complex arrest histories should expect heightened scrutiny and should resolve immigration consequences well before filing or before leaving the United States.”
As to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) reviewing its assessment of criminal disclosures during the initial I-526E or I-485 application stages, Wolfsdorf and Ahn do not expect a fundamental change in the process, as USCIS has always implemented high scrutiny on criminal records of all EB-5 petitioners and other applicants for permanent residence.
Veremiyenko-Campos concluded: “Do not travel until the exact criminal record has been reviewed by immigration counsel. If travel is unavoidable, the client should carry certified court records showing the final disposition and should never sign anything abandoning permanent residence without first speaking to an attorney.”
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are solely the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the publisher, its employees. or its affiliates. The information found on this website is intended to be general information; it is not legal or financial advice. Specific legal or financial advice can only be given by a licensed professional with full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances of your particular situation. You should seek consultation with legal, immigration, and financial experts prior to participating in the EB-5 program Posting a question on this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. All questions you post will be available to the public; do not include confidential information in your question.
