Definitively answering a long-standing question, the Board held the government bears the burden of proving that a permanent resident returning to the U.S. after travel abroad should be treated as an "applicant for admission." Permanent residents generally are not considered applicants for admission unless one of the exceptions at INA 101(a)(13)(C) applies. If an exception applies, then the permanent resident is subject to additional stricter grounds for removal than would otherwise apply. For example, a single conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude might not make a permanent resident removable unless he is considered an applicant for admission.
The allocation of the burden of proof can be determinative because whether a crime involves moral turpitude often is not clear from the record of conviction. If the noncitizen bore the burden of proof, an inconclusive record of conviction might make him removable. By placing the burden on the government, of clear and convincing evidence no less, Rivens protects permanent residents from loss of their status and removal based on inconclusive evidence.
In a second holding, the Board found that the crime of being an accessory after the fact, 18 U.S.C. § 3, is a crime involving moral turpitude only if the underlying offense involved moral turpitude. The Board found that helping someone after he commits a crime is turpitudinous (base, vile, or depraved) if the crime committed was turpitudinous. This contrasts with the Ninth Circuit's decision in Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca, No. 05-50170, 2011 WL 3506442 (9th Cir. Aug. 11, 2011), although the Board suggested otherwise.
The Board's holding does not stand to reason, though, since an accessory after the fact does not participate in the underlying crime. Rather, being an accessory after the fact is a completely separate crime that should not depend on the nature of the underlying offense.
For example, being an accessory after the fact would include giving your son $100 when you know he is on the run from the police. Does giving your son the money become more or less turpitudinous depending on whether the police are after him for grand theft (a crime of moral turpitude) or possessing an unregistered firearm (not a crime of moral turpitude)? No, in either case the mother is not helping her son commit the crime; she is helping him to avoid standing trial for it. This is a crime and bad parenting, but not vile or depraved.
Read the opinion at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/vll/intdec/vol25/3731.pdf