The case centers on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who became a lawful permanent resident in September 2007. In May 2012, Lau was arrested and charged in New Jersey for allegedly selling nearly $300,000 worth of counterfeit Coogi shorts. He briefly left the U.S. and returned in June 2012.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, lawful permanent residents are typically granted admission upon returning from short international trips. However, their admission can be questioned if they have “committed” a crime involving moral turpitude.
Immigration officers determined that Lau’s pending counterfeiting charge triggered this exception. Rather than being admitted, Lau was paroled to enter the country temporarily “to face prosecution for his counterfeiting offense.” He pleaded guilty to trademark counterfeiting in June 2013.
Because Lau was paroled, the Department of Homeland Security pursued his removal on the ground that he was ineligible for admission. If Lau had been admitted, DHS would have needed to pursue deportation on the ground that he was “of a crime involving moral turpitude committed within five years” of his admission.
The distinction matters significantly for the government’s burden of proof, which is higher in deportation proceedings than in removal proceedings based on inadmissibility.