holders

WASHINGTON, April 22 (UPI) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday whether immigration officers can place permanent residents charged with a crime on parole if they leave and then re-enter the country.

In immigration, parole is a temporary, discretionary permission granted by the Department of Homeland Security that allows a person to enter or remain in the United States, even though they are not formally admitted.

Parole does not cancel a person’s green card, but essentially gives the Department of Homeland Security time to decide whether the person should be admitted or deported based on how the issue is resolved.

The court is poised to hear oral arguments in Blanche vs. Lau, which would determine when immigration officers can demote a permanent resident’s status to parole, a temporary status that can be revoked and result in deportation.

Lau is Chinese immigrant Muk Lau, a permanent resident with a green card. Blanche is Todd Blanche, the acting U.S. attorney general and named defendant in the case.

Typically, permanent residents are allowed to leave and re-enter the United States as they wish, with a few exceptions. If these immigrants have committed certain kinds of crimes, for example, officers can have them placed on parole when they return to the country after going abroad.

The case stems from an event on June 15, 2012, when 69-year-old Lau, who had gained permanent residency five years earlier, landed in a New York-area airport after traveling to China.

He presented his green card and passport to border control. His entry triggered an FBI match because a month earlier, Lau was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting for selling nearly $300,000 of fake designer shorts.

“I was arrested at a warehouse that contained some merchandise I had stored there,” Lau told the Customs and Border Protection agent, according to court documents. “I went to the warehouse to retrieve the merchandise because I had not paid rent, and when I got there, the cops were there and arrested me.”

The agent declared Lau inadmissible as a returning permanent resident due to the crime exception, and decided to let him in on parole, instead. A year later, Lau pled guilty to the counterfeiting, and in 2014, the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against him.

At the time, the Customs and Border Patrol agent did not know whether Lau was guilty — just that he had been charged with a crime. The crux of Lau’s case is whether the CBP agent needed “clear and convincing” evidence of a crime when placing him on parole or whether just charges were enough without such evidence.

Immigrant advocates argue the agent erred.

“Mr. Lau was absolutely, unequivocally, at that time, admissible,” said Jonathan Weinberg, who worked on the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s brief to the court. “He just was. He hadn’t been convicted of a crime. There was nothing else that would render him inadmissible.”

After an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the government, Lau appealed to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court, agreeing with Weinberg’s reasoning, granted Lau’s petition in March 2025.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit advocating for lower immigration rates, also submitted a brief to the court. It argued that the border patrol officer did the right thing by paroling Lau into the country, and that the clear and convincing standard was too high.

“If you’re going to say that the officer in an airport is supposed to have all this information, you’re assigning that individual with an impossible task,” FAIR spokesman Ira Mehlman said. “You have thousands of people coming through the airports every day, and these are decisions that have to be made on the spot.”

Mehlman also said that the decision “shouldn’t be a problem” for green-card holders without any criminal history.

“When you come to the United States as a non-citizen, you are here on a conditional basis,” Mehlman said. “Even if you’re a green card holder, you’re subject to removal if you violate the terms of your presence here in the United States.”

There are nearly 13 million legal permanent residents in the United States. Legal immigrants, including green card holders, commit crimes at lower rates than natural-born citizens, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute. However, Weinberg said the ultimate decision would impact all legal permanent residents, including those who have not been convicted of any crime.

“If the government can admit Lau on parole, then the government can basically admit any returning green card holder on parole if it chooses to,” Weinberg said.

Lau’s case joins several immigration-related issues, including birthright citizenship and temporary protected status, which have made their way to the Supreme Court this spring.

“The immigrant advocacy community is, I think, fighting an uphill battle,” Weinberg said. “But that doesn’t mean you don’t give it your best shot.”

In a busy opening period, neither side could really establish an early foothold on the game.

Cliftonville went close midway through the half when Jonny Addis’ low free-kick from just outside the penalty area brushed the outside of the side netting on its way past.

As the Reds began to gain some form of dominance, Rory Hale’s inch-perfect through ball sent Brian Healy clear of the Dungannon rearguard but Danny Wallace recovered superbly to poke the ball behind for a corner at full stretch.

Dungannon posed little threat to the Cliftonville goal in the opening 45 minutes with Gael Bigirimana’s long-range shot straight at Reds keeper PJ Morrison.

The Swifts first clear-cut opening of the game came just after the hour mark when Dillon’s pinpoint ball from midfield sent full-back Shea Gordon clear behind the Cliftonville defence, but his shot lacked conviction and Morrison was able to save with his outstretched foot.

At the other end, Rory Hale created half a yard of space before finding Liam McStravick with a pass, but the attacker’s tame shot was always straight at Declan Dunne.

Dungannon spurned another big opening late on as Gordon once again got himself into an advanced position and when his initial shocked was saved by Morrison, the ball bounced up but substitute Andrew Mitchell could only loop his header onto the top of the net.

Rodney McAree’s side enjoyed their best spell at the start of extra-time and were rewarded on 98 minutes when Mitchell cut the ball back from the right-hand side of the penalty area into the path of the in-rushing Kealan Dillon, who smashed a shot high into the net past Morrison.

Cliftonville had penalty appeals waved away in the second period of extra time after referee Morrison adjudged that Cahal McGinty had blocked Keevan Hawthorne’s low cross with his body rather than a hand.

But there was one final twist in stoppage time at the end of extra time as Hawthorne’s corner was bundled home at the near post via a combination of Joe Sheridan and defender Danny Wallace with what proved the last action of the game.

In the penalty shootout, Dungannon scored all four of their penalties while Sheridan saw his effort saved and Wilson dragged his effort wide of the post.

Passport holders have been told to act in April if they want to avoid spending more money. Failing to do so could lead to people facing more expensive travel fees this summer

UK passport holders are being urged to take action in April as a costly change is about to come into effect. Whether you’re planning a holiday now or in the future, it’s essential you take note if you want to sidestep a heftier bill.

This is because a change coming into force from April 8 could affect how much you’re forking out to travel. Acting before this deadline could mean you’re able to board a flight at a cheaper rate, which is welcome news when virtually everything else seems to be getting pricier by the day.

This comes as the holiday season truly kicks off following the onset of spring. Brits have been advised to pay close attention to the guidance as a significant passport change is set to take effect this month.

The advice was recently brought to the public’s attention by Simi, known as Miss Personal Finance on TikTok, where she laid out everything people need to be aware of. She regularly shares a wealth of useful money saving tips online.

In the clip, Simi said: “From April 8, the cost of getting a passport in the UK is set to increase by 8%. This means that an adult online passport will be going over the value of £100 for the first time.

“The UK Home Office stated that the increase of these costs is to reduce reliance on taxation funding, while covering the cost to produce the passports.”

Following the video, viewers claimed “everything is going up”; nevertheless, those who fail to act promptly when renewing their passports will find themselves facing steeper fees to travel.

According to the UK Government website, there are several key points to be aware of.

These include:

• The price for a standard online application made from within the UK will rise from £94.50 to £102 for adults and from £61.50 to £66.50 for children
• As well as this, postal applications will rise from £107 to £115.50 for adults and from £74 to £80 for children
• The fee for a premium service (one day) application made from within the UK will jump from £222 to £239.50
• There will also be changes to prices for overseas applications which are detailed on the website

Why is it happening?

According to the government website, there are several reasons behind the fee increases. It explains: “The new fees will help the Home Office to continue to move towards a system that meets its costs through those who use it, reducing reliance on funding from general taxation.

“The government does not make any profit from the cost of passport applications. The fees contribute to the cost of processing passport applications, consular support overseas, including for lost or stolen passports and the cost of processing British citizens at UK borders.”

If you need to renew your passport, applicants have been urged to apply well in advance of any travel plans. You can complete this online.

In 2025, where no additional information was needed, it’s reported 99.7% of standard applications from the UK were completed within three weeks or less.

Passport holders have been urged to avoid wearing a common item of clothing when flying. When travelling on planes, there are certain items you should never wear

Every day, thousands of individuals globe-trot, but passport holders are now being advised to steer clear of a certain popular garment. When jetting off to sunnier climes, it’s only natural to adjust your wardrobe accordingly and prepare for the balmy weather; however, there’s a particular item you should avoid donning when boarding a plane.

You might be surprised to learn that your choice of attire can significantly influence both your travel experience and your safety. That’s why travellers are being urged to refrain from wearing this specific item when embarking on a flight in future, and it’s advice everyone would do well to heed.

The issue was recently spotlighted by Polly Ann, who goes by the handle Travel with Polly Ann on Instagram, and regularly imparts valuable travel tips to her multitude of followers. Unbeknownst to many, certain items of clothing are best stowed away in your suitcase when flying.

Polly Ann enumerates several garments she personally avoids, but one stands out as crucial from a travel safety perspective. It could have serious implications in the event of an emergency.

She divulged what people need to know in a frank post. It’s advice worth heeding, as it could greatly affect your travel experience.

Imparting wisdom to passport holders, she stated: “Things never to wear on a plane. Open-toed shoes.

“Sandals and open-toed footwear are discouraged because aircraft floors and bathrooms aren’t very clean and they don’t protect your feet in case of an emergency.

“Offensive clothing. Anything with profanity, lewd graphics or offensive messaging could lead to being asked to change or even denied boarding under some airline dress codes.”

She proceeds to mention several other items she’d steer clear of but, regarding safety, footwear is particularly crucial. Whilst they’re not typically prohibited on aircraft, travellers are actually discouraged from wearing sandals.

There are several reasons why it’s advisable to avoid them when flying. You might never have considered they can actually present hazards.

Why should they be avoided?

Experts generally recommend passengers avoid wearing sandals or open-toed footwear on flights due to safety risks during an emergency evacuation, the possibility of foot injuries from falling objects and hygiene issues.

If you do choose to wear them, it’s recommended you also wear socks. There are multiple reasons behind this guidance.

During an emergency, such as an evacuation, sandals can slip off, making it challenging to run or walk across harsh surfaces like tarmac, broken glass or wreckage. Additionally, aircraft floors are frequently dirty and chilly, meaning wearing sandals leaves your feet vulnerable to bacteria.

Aeroplanes are typically cold, and feet have a tendency to swell during lengthy flights, rendering the footwear increasingly uncomfortable. You may also be required to remove sandals at security checkpoints, which could extend your time getting through the airport.

Hence, it’s simpler all around if you refrain from wearing them. There are a few reasons why they could land you in a bit of trouble.