A new Supreme Court decision has changed the risks of international travel for lawful permanent residents — even if you have traveled before without any problems. On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called Blanche v. Lau that quietly changes the rules for green card holders who leave the country and come back. At Bilbao Law, we want every one of our clients and community members to understand what happened — and why we are now urging caution before any international trip. The short version: if you are a lawful permanent resident (LPR) and you have any criminal matter in your past — even an old one, a minor one, or one you thought was finished — please speak with an immigration attorney before you travel. What the Supreme Court decided When a green card holder returns from a trip abroad, the law normally treats you as someone who is already admitted to the United States. You are not treated like a brand-new visitor asking to be let in. That protection comes from the immigration statute (INA § 101(a)(13)(C)), and it matters a great deal, because someone who is “already admitted” is much harder to remove than someone who is “seeking admission.” There is an exception, however. The government can treat a returning resident as “seeking admission” if that person committed certain crimes — including a category the law calls a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Before this decision, the federal appeals court in New York (the Second Circuit) had said that an officer at the airport or port of entry needed clear and convincing evidence that the traveler actually committed such a crime before downgrading them to “seeking admission.” The Supreme Court reversed that. Writing for a 6–3 majority, Justice Thomas held that the law does not require a border officer to have that strong level of proof at the port of entry. The Court described a two-step process: At the port of entry — the airport, land crossing, or seaport where you arrive: the officer only needs a basis to believe you committed a qualifying offense in order to treat you as “seeking admission.” There is no high evidence standard at this stage. Later, in immigration court: the government still has to prove its case to actually remove you — but by then you may have already been detained, paroled in, or left in legal limbo for a long time. In dissent, Justice Jackson (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) warned that the ruling hands the government “a massive blank check,” allowing it to place a resident’s status in limbo based on suspicion or a pending charge, and to justify that decision only after the fact. Why this matters even if you’ve traveled before with no problems This is the part we most want our community to hear. The fact that you have traveled in the past and returned without any issue does not mean you are safe now. The legal landscape has shifted, and officers at airports and ports of entry now have far more latitude to stop a returning resident, take the green card, and start the process — based on much less than before. A trip that was routine a year ago may not be routine today. Who is most at risk You should be especially careful if you are a green card holder and any of the following is true: You have a past arrest, even if you were never convicted. You have an old conviction, even one from many years or decades ago. You have a pending criminal charge. You have a matter you believe was dismissed, expunged, or resolved long ago. You took a plea deal that kept you out of jail but may still count against you under immigration law. Whether a particular offense counts as a “crime involving moral turpitude” is a technical and often-disputed legal question. A case that looked small in criminal court — a shoplifting charge, a theft, a fraud allegation, certain assaults — can still create serious immigration consequences. Ordinary traffic tickets generally are not CIMTs, but please do not assume your situation is harmless. This is exactly the kind of question an immigration attorney should review before you book a trip. What is still uncertain The Supreme Court did not spell out the minimum a border officer must have before acting. It is therefore genuinely unclear how aggressively this will be applied — for example, whether a years-old arrest that never led to a conviction could be used against you on your way back into the country. That uncertainty is one of the biggest reasons we are advising caution: when the rules are this open-ended, the safest course is to know your own risk before you travel. What this can mean in practice If an officer at the airport or port of entry decides to treat you as “seeking admission,” you could face some combination of the following: Being sent to secondary inspection for extended questioning. Having your status changed to that of an applicant for admission , where the burden shifts toward you to show why you should be allowed to keep your status. Being detained — please read the important warning below. Being paroled into the country on a temporary basis while your case plays out. Being placed in removal (deportation) proceedings on inadmissibility grounds. The biggest risk: mandatory detention This is the consequence we most want you to understand. Once you are treated as an applicant for admission , you are generally subject to mandatory detention — meaning the government is not required to release you on bond while your case is being decided. In recent practice, the government has been applying this very aggressively and has frequently refused to release people. In plain terms: if you are stopped on your return, you could be held in detention for the entire length of the legal fight — and these cases can take months, or even longer , to resolve. Even if you eventually win, you may spend that whole time detained and separated from your family, your job, and your home. This is why the decision about whether to travel should be made carefully, and with an attorney, before you leave. Bilbao Law’s advice right now Because the risks are real and the rules are unsettled, our guidance is straightforward: If you are a lawful permanent resident with any criminal matter in your past — no matter how old or how minor — we strongly recommend that you do not travel internationally at this time until you have spoken with an immigration attorney about your specific situation. If you do need to travel, talk with us first so you understand your risk, know your rights at the port of entry, and carry the documentation that may help you. The right preparation can make a meaningful difference. Your green card represents years of work and sacrifice. Please do not let a single trip put it at risk before you have all the facts. We are here to help If you have a green card and a past arrest, a pending charge, an old conviction, or simply questions about how this decision affects your travel plans, call Bilbao Law at (904) 300-0825 to schedule a confidential consultation. We will review your situation, help you understand your rights and responsibilities, and advise you on whether — and how — to travel safely. Bilbao Law LLC 301 W. Bay Street, Suite 1449, Jacksonville, FL 32202 Call us: (904) 300-0825 bilbaolaw.com  Please stay safe.

A federal judge has blocked the Trump Administration’s policy authorizing (ICE) officers to arrest individuals at immigration courts nationwide.

Attorney Vilerka Bilbao speaks to the Associated Press on surging Florida immigration arrests, warning how local police traffic stops quickly lead to ICE custody.

Bilbao Law partners with Sanctuary of the South to provide legal representation for individuals in immigration custody at the Alligator Alcatraz facility

A habeas corpus case is a federal lawsuit that asks a federal judge to review whether the government has legal authority to continue detaining someone.

USCIS screening updates may mean continued delays for some immigration cases. Learn what’s changed, what’s unclear, and your options if your case is pending.

Good news for many affirmative asylum applicants: some cases may finally start moving U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services ( USCIS ) recently announced updates regarding its strengthened screening and vetting process . USCIS already requires asylum applicants to go through background and security checks, and the agency has signaled a continued focus on those reviews. Why this may be good news For many people with affirmative asylum cases , this may mean that cases that were sitting in limbo could begin moving forward again — especially for applicants who are not from the countries currently receiving heightened scrutiny or pause-related treatment under recent policy changes. Some advocates have reported that certain asylum and related benefit cases have been delayed for individuals from a limited group of countries, which means applicants outside those groups may begin seeing movement sooner. What you should expect If your case is pending with USCIS, you should begin preparing now for the possibility of an asylum interview notice . That means your case should be organized, updated, and ready to present clearly . How to prepare your Affirmative Asylum Case Make sure you have the following ready: A detailed personal declaration explaining why you are seeking asylum Updated country conditions evidence Expert witness reports , if applicable Medical records or reports showing injuries, trauma, or treatment Police reports or other supporting evidence, if available Any new or updated evidence since you first filed Review your I-589 and related forms to make sure all information is still accurate and current Make sure any required filing fees or related submissions have been addressed, where applicable to your filing posture Organize your evidence in a clean and logical way Bottom line If USCIS begins moving these cases faster, you do not want to be caught unprepared. A strong asylum case is not just about telling your story — it is about proving it with organized, credible, updated evidence . If you have a pending affirmative asylum case in Tampa, Florida , and need help preparing for your case or possible interview: 📞 Call Bilbao Law at 904-300-0825 to schedule an initial consultation.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced the creation of a new USCIS Vetting Center, a specialized unit designed to strengthen national security screening and enhance fraud detection across the immigration system. The center—headquartered in Atlanta—will centralize advanced vetting operations and apply a broader range of intelligence and law-enforcement tools to review both pending and previously approved immigration applications. This is one of the most significant operational changes USCIS has made in years. It will affect how applications are reviewed across multiple immigration categories, including family-based, employment-based, humanitarian, and naturalization processes. Why USCIS Is Creating the Vetting Center USCIS leadership cited recent security incidents and the need for a more coordinated approach to immigrant screening. The intention is to: Strengthen the nation’s ability to identify individuals who may pose security or public-safety concerns, Detect fraud, identity inconsistencies, or deception more effectively, and Respond quickly to emerging risks tied to global events or specific countries. Once fully operational, the Vetting Center will conduct enhanced vetting using both classified and non-classified tools, artificial intelligence, national databases, and coordination with other DHS components. What the Vetting Center Will Do USCIS has outlined that the center will: Conduct supplemental national security vetting on immigration filings; Prioritize reviews involving applicants from “countries of concern”; Evaluate both pending applications and already-approved cases; Coordinate closely with law enforcement agencies and intelligence partners; Use modern technology, including AI, to analyze patterns and verify information. This means immigration filings will undergo more rigorous, detailed, and technology-supported screening than in prior years. Part of a Larger National Security Strategy This initiative supports broader national security efforts under Executive Order 14161, which include: Allowing USCIS to consider negative country-specific risk factors in adjudications; Temporarily pausing affirmative asylum decisions; Expanding hiring of USCIS homeland security personnel; Proposing stricter screening before certain individuals receive employment authorization extensions; Establishing USCIS special agents with investigative and arrest authority for immigration-related offenses. The message is clear: USCIS is shifting toward more intensive and security-driven adjudications across benefit categories. What This Means for Immigrants and Applicants Applicants should expect several practical impacts: 1. More Security Checks and Requests for Information Expect more in-depth background checks, especially if you have lived in multiple countries, previously received immigration benefits, or come from a designated country of concern. 2. Possible Processing Delays for Certain Applications As screening expands, some cases may move more slowly, particularly those requiring complex identity or background verification. 3. Increased Expectation of Accuracy and Transparency Any inconsistencies between past applications, public records, or digital presence may prompt additional scrutiny. 4. Potential Review of Old Cases The new center will have authority to re-examine already approved applications if new information becomes available or if a country’s threat landscape changes. How Immigrants Can Protect Themselves Immigrants can take proactive steps to strengthen their applications and prevent misunderstandings. 1. Ensure Every Application Is Accurate, Consistent, and Complete Even minor inconsistencies can raise questions in a more rigorous vetting environment. 2. Maintain Transparency About Your Background Be honest and forthcoming about travel, employment, education, and past immigration history. USCIS will have access to more data sources than ever before. 3. Keep Your Online Footprint Aligned With Your Real-Life Facts and Values In today’s environment, an individual’s online presence may be reviewed indirectly through publicly available information, open-source data, or cross-referenced records. Applicants should ensure that: Their online presence accurately reflects who they are, There is no content that could be misinterpreted, Their public statements or activities do not contradict the requests they are making to the government, and Their accounts are cleaned up, reviewed, and aligned with the image they are presenting in their application. Now more than ever, your public image, digital footprint, and stated intentions should be consistent and professional. 4. Review Social Media Privacy Settings and Public Accounts Applicants should assume that publicly accessible information can be viewed or evaluated in the context of security and fraud prevention. Make sure: Public posts reflect your true values and do not create confusion, You avoid posting contradictory information about work, travel, marriages, or identity, You are not unintentionally sharing details that conflict with the official story in your application. 5. Respond Quickly to USCIS Requests Delays in responding to Requests for Evidence (RFEs) or Notices of Intent to Deny (NOIDs) can harm your case. 6. Work With Experienced Immigration Counsel An attorney can help: Identify red flags before you file, Ensure documents are consistent and accurate, Prepare you for questions or security screenings, Reduce the risk of delays or denials during heightened vetting, Protect your interests if your case receives additional review. Bottom Line The new USCIS Vetting Center represents a major expansion of the agency’s security and fraud-prevention mission. While most immigrants have nothing to fear, everyone should be more intentional about accuracy, transparency, and consistency—both in their applications and in their public-facing digital presence. Having a knowledgeable immigration attorney guide you through this evolving landscape can make a critical difference in protecting your case, avoiding delays, and ensuring your story is presented clearly and credibly.

On November 19, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through USCIS, published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility” (DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0304). The proposal would rescind most of the 2022 Public Charge regulations and give immigration officers much broader discretion to decide when an applicant is “likely at any time to become a public charge.” For immigrants seeking a green card through family-based or employment-based petitions, this signals a more searching review of financial stability, self-sufficiency, and prior use of public benefits—both for the applicant and, indirectly, for their financial sponsors. 1. Quick Refresher: What Is the Public Charge Rule? Under INA § 212(a)(4), a person can be denied a visa or green card if an officer believes they are “likely at any time to become a public charge.” This ground of inadmissibility applies to many people applying for: Immigrant visas through U.S. consulates abroad Adjustment of status (Form I-485) inside the United States The 2022 Public Charge Final Rule (under the prior administration) took a relatively narrow approach. It focused on whether a person would be primarily dependent on: Certain cash assistance for income maintenance, or Long-term institutionalization at government expense, and limited which public benefits counted against an applicant. The new 2025 proposal undoes that framework and moves back toward a much more flexible, officer-driven approach. 2. What USCIS Is Proposing to Change a. Rescinding the 2022 Regulatory Framework The NPRM explicitly proposes to remove the core 2022 public charge regulations at: 8 C.F.R. § 212.20 (applicability), § 212.21 (definitions), § 212.22 (public charge determination), and § 212.23 (exemptions and waivers). DHS states that the 2022 rule “straitjacket[s] DHS officers’ ability” to make decisions consistent with Congress’s welfare and immigration policies, and that it used narrow definitions and limited which benefits officers could consider. Instead, DHS wants officers to: Consider all mandatory statutory factors in INA § 212(a)(4)(B), Weigh all individualized, case-specific facts, and Use “any empirical data relevant to an alien’s self-sufficiency” as part of a totality-of-the-circumstances test. DHS also makes clear that rescinding the 2022 rule will “restore ultimate discretion” to officers to consider any information they deem relevant to public charge. b. Moving Away From a Narrow “Primary Dependence” Standard The proposal would move away from a bright-line “primary dependence” standard and remove limitations that focused only on cash assistance and long-term institutionalization. The NPRM explains that under the 2022 rule, officers could not easily find someone inadmissible even if they were using multiple means-tested benefits to meet their needs, because the rule’s definitions were too restrictive and did not fully capture whether a person was truly self-sufficient. Under the new approach, officers would be allowed to consider a broader range of public resources as indicators of future dependence. c. Considering Any Current, Past, or Future Use of Means-Tested Public Benefits One of the most significant pieces of the NPRM is how it treats means-tested public benefits (for example, programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and certain other income- or resource-tested benefits): DHS states that any past receipt of means-tested public benefits can be “a key gauge” of the likelihood of future dependence, even if the person received those benefits while in a status that was exempt from public charge at the time. Officers could also consider the fact that someone is trying to receive, or has been approved or certified to receive, means-tested benefits in the future, because this is relevant to whether they are likely to rely on those benefits later. DHS proposes that “any means-tested public benefit received by an alien should be considered” for applicants adjusting in a category that is not exempt from public charge, regardless of the person’s prior status. In plain terms: any connection to means-tested public benefits—past, present, or future—can become part of the officer’s analysis if you are applying for a visa or green card in a category subject to public charge. d. Affidavits of Support: No Longer a Guaranteed Favorable Factor Under the 2022 regulations, a sufficient Affidavit of Support (Form I-864) from a qualifying sponsor had to be treated as a favorable factor in the public charge analysis. The new proposal explicitly states that, if the 2022 regulations are removed, officers would no longer be required by regulation to treat a sufficient Affidavit of Support as a positive factor. Instead, they will decide whether and how to consider it, case by case and in the totality of the circumstances. The rule also reminds the public that, separately, an I-485 must still be denied if a required Affidavit of Support is missing or insufficient under the statute—but a “sufficient” form will not automatically tip the scales in your favor. e. Public Charge Bonds DHS also proposes changes to public charge bonds at 8 C.F.R. § 103.6: Receipt of any means-tested public benefit, or failure to comply with any condition of the bond, would be treated as a breach of that bond. DHS would remove language allowing USCIS to cancel a bond simply because the person is “not likely at any time to become a public charge.” f. DHS Expects Reduced Use of Public Benefits DHS’s own economic analysis predicts that the proposal could lead many immigrants and mixed-status families to disenroll from or forgo enrollment in public benefits, resulting in an estimated $8.97 billion per year decrease in federal and state transfer payments. Advocacy and policy groups have warned that such changes could create strong “chilling effects” on healthcare and safety-net use in immigrant communities. 3. What This Means for Green Card Applicants Family-Based Applicants (Inside and Outside the U.S.) If you are applying for a green card through a family petition, whether through consular processing abroad or adjustment of status inside the U.S., public charge has always been a factor. Under this proposal: Officers would have wide latitude to review your entire financial picture, including income, assets, debts, work history, education, and health as they relate to self-sufficiency. Any past or current use of means-tested benefits, or even an application to receive them in the future, could be treated as a negative factor in the public charge analysis if your category is not exempt. Your sponsor’s Affidavit of Support will still be required where the law demands it, but it may not be enough by itself to overcome other concerns about self-sufficiency. Officers will not be obligated to treat a “sufficient” I-864 as a positive factor. In practical terms, sponsors may be expected to demonstrate stronger, well-documented financial capacity—stable income well above 125% of the poverty guidelines, consistent tax filings, and credible proof of assets—to reassure officers who have more discretion to say “no” when they believe an applicant may rely on public benefits in the future. This interpretation flows from DHS’s emphasis on broad discretion and totality-of-the-circumstances review, even though the NPRM does not itself re-write the I-864 statute. Employment-Based Applicants Employment-based applicants are also subject to INA § 212(a)(4) Public Charge unless specifically exempt. Under this proposal, officers will be empowered to look beyond the job offer alone and examine: The stability and level of the offered wages, The employer’s ability to pay (as already required in other contexts), and Your own prior use of benefits, health, and financial history as indicators of long-term self-sufficiency. This may result in closer questioning and a more aggressive review of the “total picture” for both family- and employment-based green card applicants. 4. Why Careful Financial Planning — and Legal Counsel — Matters A public charge denial of a visa or green card is not a minor issue. It can: Result in denial of your immigrant visa or adjustment of status, and If you are inside the U.S. and do not have valid underlying status, a denied green card application can place you at risk of being placed into removal (deportation) proceedings in immigration court. Given the expanded discretion outlined in the NPRM, it is more important than ever to: Review all financial documents carefully before filing. Tax returns, W-2s/1099s, pay stubs, bank statements, asset documentation, and evidence of employment stability should be consistent, accurate, and complete. Analyze household and sponsor benefit use. If you, your sponsor, or your household have used means-tested public benefits, you should understand how that may be viewed and prepare a coherent explanation and risk strategy before filing. Avoid guessing or self-diagnosing eligibility. Because officers will be allowed to consider any relevant facts and interpret them under internal “policy and interpretive tools” that are not yet public, it is risky to rely on outdated assumptions about what “counts” as public charge. Work with an experienced immigration attorney. A lawyer can help you: Identify red flags in your financial and benefit history, Strategically prepare your Affidavit of Support and supporting evidence, Present a clear, consistent narrative of self-sufficiency, and Protect your interests if a denial could lead to removal proceedings. 5. Final Note: This Is Still a Proposal This 2025 public charge rule is currently a proposed rule, not yet in effect. DHS is accepting public comments and may make changes before issuing a final rule. However, the proposal makes the administration’s direction clear: More officer discretion, Broader consideration of public benefits, Likely expansion of immigration bonds to issue Green Cards, and A renewed focus on ensuring that immigrants are seen as self-sufficient and financially stable when applying for permanent residence. If you are planning to apply for a green card—whether through family, employment, or another pathway—this is the time to review your financial profile and strategy with counsel before you file.