We will hear argument this morning in case 25-429, Blanche v. Lowe. Mr. Joshi.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, when respondent arrived in the United States in June of 2012,

he had, in fact, already committed a crime involving moral turpitude. That meant under the INA,

he was, in fact, seeking an admission, and thus was, in fact, eligible for parole

and correctly charged within admissibility. And what's more, the government proved everything

I just said by clear and convincing evidence in Respondent's removal proceedings. Yet Respondent now

seeks to vacate his removal order on the ground that immigration officers at the airport in June of 2012

did not themselves, in that moment, possess that clear and convincing evidence.

That makes no sense.

Burdens of proof and evidentiary burdens are things that apply in adversarial proceedings before a decision-maker,

not at the airport

where non-lawyer immigration officers are processing hundreds, maybe thousands of

arrivals a day. Unsurprisingly, respondent has identified no text, no historical practice,

and no precedent imposing, and at the borderborder clear-and-convincing

evidentiary requirement. Instead, Respondent largely focuses on a distraction. He says that

DHS immigration officers can't parole him without first determining that he's seeking

an admission. We agree, and officers did that here, just not with the clear and convincing evidence that he prefers.

So Respondent's argument really just begs the question in this case.

Similarly, he says the clear and convincing evidence that DHS presented in the removal proceedings amounts to post-talk justification.

But again, that assumes the conclusion that the border officers needed

clear and convincing evidence in the first place. Now, we have other arguments that

parole decisions are not reviewable and that even an incorrect parole can't be treated as an

...