Supreme Court hears migrant parole case

Lau eventually returned to the U.S. and an immigration officer admitted him on parole. Once he returned, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings for the Chinese national.

According to the 1990 Immigration and Nationality Act, an immigrant admitted on parole is required to prove that they are admissible into the United States.

The justices will argue over whether the government had to establish clear evidence when Lau returned to the United States that he had committed a crime or if his later conviction proved that point. The justices will also likely decide how much authority federal courts have when reviewing parole determinations.

Lawyers for Lau argued that the United States cannot use charges of a crime to make a determination on how an immigrant can enter the United States.

“No one thinks that a pending criminal charge is clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the charged crime,” lawyers for Lau wrote. “To the contrary, criminal charges are not evidence at all.”

The Trump administration argued that Lau was subject to removal at any time because he was admitted on parole by an immigration officer.

“The government was able to prove his inadmissibility by offering his state-court conviction for trademark counterfeiting,” lawyers for the administration wrote to the high court.

The justices will debate whether it is the responsibility of the government or an immigrant to prove admissibility into the United States.

James Rogers, senior counsel at America First Legal, said the court’s decision could have a significant impact on the use of parole for immigrants entering the United States. The Center for Immigration Studies estimated the Biden administration granted parole for 2.86 million people.

“The parole statute is supposed to only allow a narrow exception where a DHS officer is allowed to admit aliens on a case-by-case basis if the DHS officer determines that there’s a significant humanitarian need or significant national benefit to letting the alien in,” Rogers said.

He said the justices largely expand or contract legal requirements for allowing an immigrant into the country on parole.

“This can make it significantly harder in the future to challenge left-wing administrations attempts to open the borders and use parole again to let in aliens because there would be no review of those decisions in court,” Rogers said.