residents in for the next seventeen years he worked as a restaurant manager for his brother calhoun's restaurant when the great recession hit home and sold his restaurant and moved to canada to open a new and calhoun as united states  stayed in the united states for about a year trying to find suitable employment when he could not he agreed to join his brother in canada on a temporary basis to work in his restaurant until he could find a better opportunity or if his family would open a new restaurant in the united states while he was away he returned to the united states every year the visit family in thing check out employment opportunities in two thousand and thirteen he he married a canadian citizen of lebanese descent in lebanon asked that at that same time his other brother baha was opening up restaurants to new restaurants in the united states mr after the wedding mr mahmoud went back to canada and wanted to settle his affairs and moved to the united states to work from baja however within a few weeks of returning to canada he became gravely ill and nearly died of says he was in hospital for four months in rehab for six months after that period as soon as he was discharged and can travel he attempted to return to the united states where he was stopped and  mission based on the base and to remove all proceedings based on a charge that he had abandoned his permanent residence in order to qualify as a returning lawful permanent resident you must have acquired lawful permanent resident status retained certain formulation is the one that's relevant to this case is that he would still be considered as a returning lawful permanent resident rather than someone seeking admission if his visit would terminate upon the occurrence of an event having a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time but if that event did not care occur within a reasonably sure period of time he would still be a returning off a permanent resident if he a continuous uninterrupted intention to return to the united states during his period of absence mr ellis to roland yes he did it having just summarized the standard is it your position that th misread the burden of proof that's require that the government is required to meet and and i also believe that the various factors to be considered family ties business ties property ties and anything else that's relevant to the saying what the standard of law is that it should be applying five minutes remaining i don't know that they didn't enunciate the standard what they did and however your honor is completely ignoring it and not in not  in reviewing the relevant factors not apply them or properly for example and if i could just say you know on a very very quickly the probably the most important aspect of this petition is the government's burden of proof when a non citizen has a colorable claim to returning off a permanent resident status the government has the burden to to show by the clear unequivocal and convincing evidence standard that facts the great recession of two thousand and eight did not eliminate restaurant jobs including restaurant management jobs until two thousand and thirteen let's assume we'll use that as late two thousand and thirteen as the admin point so what is the evidence in the record that your client  actually was looking for restaurant jobs outside of employment by his brothers should they open a new restaurant well primarily your honor let me just say that is enjoys a presumption of credibility because the there was no adverse credibility finding made and his testimony repeatedly indicated that he was consistently looking for work during that period of time what specifically sometimes he's back just for a weekend sometimes he's back longer what's pacifically did he say other than add general mix he's not required to do so under the relevant standard is his credible testimony is enough and tonight i'm sorry your saying that the subject matter inquiring about are irrelevant because he had no burden of proof whatsoever now no your honor but i think that's burdens event what you please go back and absent my question you put him on the witness stand what did he say about looking for a job over that period of five years absence from the us looking for a job in the us for people working for people other than his family his testimony your honor what was that testimony that i look it on his returns to the united states he did two things he visited with his family and he saw him point he checked into the employment opportunities in the united states and it did he say anything more than i checked 'm sorry the four months i made a series of very short visits and a longer visit is that correct that's correct your honor yes and what was the longest visit i think he lived in canada his purchase of a home there his employment status they are his marriage to a canadian woman even if she was lebanese descent that's all evidence against your client  on i'm sorry what judge which is trying to find out is he we understand that the burden is on the government but we're trying to figure out what evidence you put into the record that way in your favor and you know with the understanding that we we have people these days fan deployment online so there's nothing that prevented him from looking for jobs from canada in the united states and there's no evidence that he himself testified to trips lasted about two weeks or sometimes a month some were sure the time spent outside the country is time that could have been spent finding alternate employment just what judge thompson just said to you so i'm not so sure the record here is one where the i j a just accepted an assertion that he was always looking for jobs it seems that he rather says to the contrary frankly your honor i think we're missing the forest for the trees  the things in his favor if you look at the case law it's almost monolithic in that where abandonment has been found there are ten u s times at best to the united states this man spent seventeen years living with his nuclear family spent seventeen years working for his brother in the united states those are hardly tenuous times aside from that you're wrong he got temporary work permits only he did not want to any type of status in the in canada he had no stake in his brother's business he never saw any other status even after he got married his his consistent credible testimony was that he always intended to return to the united permanently and he did so at the st opportunity as soon as his brother opened opened a new restaurant except for the fact that his illness kept him for almost a year from coming back into the united states and he r were very high and he boarded as an investment as well know that he did not own a home in the united states he didn't need a home in the united states he had lived in this family home for seventeen years and that's a positive equity not a negative temporary visit abroad with respect to the the conclusion that his trips to the united states were not going to for a reasonable search for for employment that to me is rank speculation no one knows we do we know what have much time he spent no one asked him how much time he spent he credibly testify that he was looking for work and that's the most important aspect that the government relies on is the iranians finding by the board that he remained in canada after he his brother opened restaurants the united states wealthy my reply brief does the math on this and he clearly testified that he worked in canada before those restaurants were up in the united states in assoon as they were open he attempted to return to the united states his home counsel  thought the record was actually more ambiguous than that we do know that and i think it's late two thousand and thirteen his brother opened a different brother opens to restaurants but i don't think there was any evidence that as to whether any member of his family had opened a restaurant before that that's one question the  nd question is the picture that's gets painted is he looked for a job within the family assuming they would open new restaurants but he did not look for a job outside of his family can you address both of those points yes the the st point you were on is that his brother didn't open a restaurant before that's the whole point as soon as his brother no i believe what the record shows is that when and two thousand and thirteen the brother opened the restaurant but there's no information that there was no opening of a restaurant before earlier then the government would have a good point why did you stay in canada if your brother opened restaurants and knives that's the fact of the matter is his brother didn't open those restaurants and in the united states until he became sick and couldn't leave the country so that's a huge for me in his favor with respect to your nd point judge i'm sorry oh there's nothing in that there's no evidence in the record that he waited only for his family to reopen a restaurant that's what happened this family was in the restaurant business their whole lives but there's nothing in here to indicate that when he says i searched for employment opportunities the united states that they were limited only to that is that time going on oh i thought i heard ok counsel thank you thank you very much apart his permanent residence here the record supports the agency's conclusion agency appropriately analyzed the factors that this court has said are relevant to a person's intent when they spend a considerable amount of time outside of the united states as mr mom and dad while he was a lawful permanent resident at the agency analyze mr mahmoud's family ties and found that while he did have family ties in the united states beginning in two thousand and eight when he went to canada he began to develop family ties there he is married to a canadian citizen and his son was born in canada and is also a canadian canadian citizen agency also analyze mr mahmoud's property  never owned property in the united states however in two thousand and twelve notably at the time that his canadian work visas were expiring he bought a house in canada and finally mr mahmoud's business ties although mr mahmood worked in the united states between nineteen million twelve thousand and eight also full taxes during this period in two thousand and eight he stopped work in the united states and began working in canada petitioner spends much time indicating mahmood returned to the united states when there was a business opportunity available to him there but as this court has recognized today mr mahmood did not return to the united states as soon as practicable which is the standard an ounce by this court into tevye instead mr mahmood remained outside of the united states until two thousand and thirteen when according to him and his brother opened a restaurant which he began working in in two thousand and fifteen has recognized today the record is not clear that mr mahmoud's brothers did not own any restaurants in the united states prior to two thousand and thirteen there's minimal testimony on this and there is no documentation in the record showing that his brothers did not own a restaurant in the united states prior to two thousand and thirteen additionally there's no evidence in the record that mr mahmood search firm climate other than in his brother's restaurants prior to two thousand and thirteen again this goes back to the practicable standard in kentucky if mr mahmood was truly intending throughout his time in canada to return spin ited states it was reasonable for the agency to brothers or did he say i tried to find a job at the restaurant industry of the united states his testimony is more general and that he claims that he was attempting to look for work in the united states but he also indicates that he only returned to the united states when there was an employment opportunity available at one of his brothers rush past so the testimony on that point i think goes both ways and ultimately he only were trying to the united states when there was a job opportunity available for him at his brother's restaurant as the court has recognized there are many factors here tending against a finding that mr mahmood did not abandon his permanent residence notably his time outside the united states his family ties in canada and his property ties in canada it was reasonable then for the agency to ask him to put on rebuttal evidence to show that his intent was always to return to the united states and the evidence that he put on as we argue in our brief shows that while he may have always hoped to keep open the possibility that he would one day return to the united states it can be found based on this record that between t thousand and thirteen at the time he spent outside the united states in canada he had a continuous and uninterrupted short intent to return to the united states as soon as possible if there are no further questions for those reasons we would urge the court to find that substantial evidence supports the agency's decision that mr mahmood abandoned his lawful permanent residence thank you into the united states well you don't need a reaction permit unless you're out of the country for more than one year he never intended to be out of the country for more than one year as evidenced by the every the fact that every year he came back to the united states we reject an interpretive rule that would require courts invariably to construe all immigration statutes in the most draconian manner that their words conceivably could support if you look at the totality of circumstances in this case the fifteen positive factors i quickly mentioned that the legitimate responses to the suit to what the agency relied upon to find aband in my mind there is no possible way that you could meet that daunting clear convincing unequivocal standard the decision of the board should be reversed in this case in mr and the case that concludes arguments for today the session of the honorable united states court of appeals not recess until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from the meeting