Green-Card Holder With a Pending Charge or an Old Conviction: Can You Travel Abroad and Come Back?

You may be let back in, but not necessarily as a returning resident. Since the Supreme Court’s June 23, 2026 decision in Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, 609 U.S. 1 (2026), a border officer acting on a pending charge may treat a returning permanent resident as “seeking an admission” without clear and convincing proof of the crime at the airport, and that person can then be paroled in, as Lau was, detained or turned away. Whether you can then be removed turns on what is proved later, usually in the criminal case you left behind.

Our case analysis of Lau explains the holding and the dissent. This guide is about the decision to travel.

Why the trip itself changes the stakes

A permanent resident who stays in the United States can be removed only on a deportability ground, which the government must prove. A resident who is treated as seeking admission on return faces the inadmissibility grounds instead, and must prove he is admissible. For the grounds at issue in Lau, a qualifying conviction at any time can make an applicant for admission inadmissible, while a resident who stays admitted can be deported for a single such crime only if it happened in the first five years after admission. In our reading, a conviction that would not support deportation if you stayed home can support removal if you travel first.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C), a returning resident is not treated as seeking admission unless an exception applies. The one at issue in Lau is clause (v): The resident “has committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2),” which includes crimes involving moral turpitude and controlled-substance offenses, unless relief under § 1182(h) or § 1229b(a) has since been granted.

What to check before you book

• The exact charge and its status. Get the charging document and the docket. A pending charge was enough for the officer to stop treating Lau as admitted.
• Whether the offense is in § 1182(a)(2). Lau assumed, without deciding, that Lau’s conviction was of a crime involving moral turpitude and sent that question back. Classification of your offense is a question for counsel, not a given.
• The likely outcome and the plea terms. For a crime involving moral turpitude, inadmissibility requires a conviction or an admission. The petty-offense exception in § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii) covers one such crime with a maximum penalty of one year or less and a sentence of no more than six months. Your criminal defense lawyer and immigration lawyer should compare notes before any plea.
• The other exceptions. An absence over 180 days, or departing while removal or extradition proceedings are pending, is a separate exception under § 1101(a)(13)(C)(ii) and (iv).
• A case that ended before April 1, 1997. If your plea or conviction predates the 1996 law, an older rule may still govern short trips; see our Fleuti analysis.

What can happen at the airport

A resident treated as seeking admission can be turned away, detained or paroled, the dissent explained. Lau was paroled “pending the resolution of his criminal case.” A paroled resident is physically inside the country but has not been admitted; the majority described it as a way to defer inspection without detention, which § 1225(b)(2)(A) would otherwise require. Parole is discretionary under § 1182(d)(5)(A); nothing in Lau promises it.

Three details from the dissent’s account of the record are worth planning around:

• Your green card may be taken. Officers kept Lau’s green card and gave him an I-94; for the next 14 years, that form was all he had to show he was a resident. Keep a copy of your card and every document you are given.
• What you say is evidence. Lau gave a sworn statement at a border interview, and, as the dissent notes, officers may administer oaths and take evidence about a resident’s right to reenter. Because an admission can itself supply inadmissibility, prepare with your lawyers before you travel: A resident treated as an applicant for admission generally has no right to a lawyer in primary or secondary inspection under 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b). Read anything you are asked to sign.
• Carry the court papers. In our view, certified copies of the charge, docket and next court date are worth carrying: They document the case accurately and let a lawyer act quickly.

After parole: the Notice to Appear

Lau pleaded guilty about a year after his trip, and the government began removal proceedings nine months after that. The dissent noted that the Notice to Appear came about two years after parole. The government carries the first burden at the removal hearing. A Board rule, which the Court noted without approving, requires clear and convincing evidence that the exception applies. Lau’s guilty plea did that. Then the resident bears the burden of proving admissibility.

The reverse also follows. If the paroled resident is acquitted, the dissent observed, a removal effort resting only on that offense will fail, though the person may have spent years in limbo first.

When waiting is the safer choice

If the charge could be a crime involving moral turpitude or a drug offense and the criminal case is still open, the outcome that decides your immigration case has not happened yet. In our view, the cautious course for most people is to finish the criminal case, have the final disposition reviewed for immigration consequences, and only then decide on travel. If a trip cannot wait, for a family emergency for example, get both lawyers’ advice first and travel with the documents above.

Sources

• Blanche v. Muk Choi Lau, 609 U.S. 1 (2026) (official preliminary print; opinion of the Court and dissent)
• 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(B)–(C)
• 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A), (d)(5)(A)
• 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b) (eCFR, current as of Nov. 9, 2026)