good morning daniel p hanlon appearing for the petitioner conny fun scase arises from my appeal of a final order of removal entered by the board of immigration appeals against miss fung based on their conclusion that she abandoned her lawful permanent resident status or green card due to an extended absence outside of the country and evaluation of certain factors that were identified or they concluded over the difference between the standard of review in this case however which would be substantial evidence and the government's burden which was to prove that the petitioner abandoned her residence by clear convincing and unequivocal rational trier of fact so decide ok well assuming well let's look at it under that standard it is essentially a factual inquiry and the most factually analogous case to this case that is in precedent is the shallows ramirez case and that's the case that set forth the standard whether of a visit abroad is in fact temporary when it goes beyond what would be deemed short based upon  person showing that there are their stated intention was that their visit abroad would terminate upon the occurrence of an event that has a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period in the c oh it's clearly not that and i think that we identified the the issue and the legal rule clearly i don't know that the government agrees that that is based on their brief the ruling case however so in the united states in his recuperation she was of the petitioner was applying for medicare benefits for some reason she didn't push through with the application it was taking too long she knew she could get medical care in hong kong because she and her husband were residents and born or had been born in hong kong for five dollars a visit so she went there she there is ample evidence of ongoing medical treatment in the certified digestive tract ailments as well as rhinitis now that might not sound so severe of a given situation and the surgeries we underwent when he was born i think it's substantial and and there is a be fun fails who has to explain why he still needed treatment it's in the record she presented medical documentation that he had been seeing these doctors in hong kong it only cost her five dollars a visit process was taking too long it was unfamiliar to her and she knew and that day if she went to hong kong for five dollars a visit this kid would be taken care of like she had it before or ditching did she have many killed before now and there's that i can only make that assumption well a lot of times you and it sound like she was getting many kalak i gathered from what the records said she didn't have private insurance so she must have been getting insurance of somewhere i mean i know hospitals are really neat but most of them want money correct and again it's not in the record but i can only assume because these were serious life threatening deformities that it was available on an emergency basis and the follow up care she that's the problem it seemed like she just didn't bother bother might be the wrong word maybe it was mysterious or although i think she was working as a clerk or something she worked as a clerk at a bank here in a bank so she she probably wasn't completely unfamiliar with dealing with paper but anyway it looked like she just never filled out the forms right and that's what they told her and their final let's assume she made the decision to go to hong kong she did it because she knew she i mean she neglected to follow through with the medicare application she went wrong because she knew she could get care for five dollars for a child and i think if you look at the honor but that's not in the record and she presented evidence you know as a sort of make sense i mean what i understand what makes sense to me is that you if you have a sick child you want but that does not mean she did not hold an interrupted intention of returning to the united states it doesn't mean that it is just but the i j a is looking at but is a call example she's still here right now right yes buy a house and find a job is the reason she came back and when she she kept her things that's what she stressed but it looks like it was for a look at the object of things that she does if she gets rid of just about everything she has here looks to me like sort of closing up shop and turning out the light of your way out and then two years later of whatever is just come now maybe maybe we will construct things differently if we is supported by substantial evidence well just one last point she when she was working in hong kong she made she maintain her bank account here all her paychecks were deposited here she renewed or california driver's license in  hundred seven she maintained an automobile insurance in california she kept her belongings here if she were to if she were objective lee you to be abandoning her residence status why didn't she liquidate everything she kept at a friend's house ok there's nothing for that i thank you for your time assist the court even more still particularly when you look at the reason the prosecution why the petitioner left the united states is that she wanted her son to meet his grandparents she needed help  caring for him after the three surgeries that he had here in the united states and because she couldn't get health insurance in the united states i was in my circuits relevant inquiry those are the only occurrence of events we're not sure when they're going to acquire occur or they have to occur in the relatively short period of time well she left in november of ninety five he met his grandparents she didn't come back they helped her to care for him during that time she didn't come back she didn't have health insurance in the united states d she make any effort to try to get that health insurance in the united states no i think what's important here is to put this within the rubric of the sharpest ramirez paradigm none of the reasons that she process for leaving i need to see the requisite level  and they are aligned actually in favor of that it is certainly understandable that she wanted to go and live with her family while her somewhat recovering i think it's important to focus on the medical treatment here for instance his last of the three surgeries occurred in six then she returned five months later in april of ninety six for three weeks she's the child with her he was ok to travel on a cross country flight from asia and in france can be amazed that he had sufficiently recovered with the help of this family when she was here for those three weeks as petitioners just argue to you as is the record as in the brief her reason for coming back in its best possible light was to find employment and a place to live with the fast also indicate that it was in some ways  summing up packing up the things she had here leaving the apartment that she'd been staying in and putting her stuff in a closet at a friend's house but even if you take it in the light most favorable to her which as it is acknowledge the standard of review does not require you to do to find hong kong and stayed there for another two years of course it's understandable if she could get medical treatment in hong kong to watch medical care for her child at five dollars that makes sense just because it makes sense doesn't mean that she has not changed the factually specific continuous uninterrupted intention to become to say a legal permanent resident in the united states i think if you carefully look at the medical records in this case they don't have anything to do with the three surgeries that he underwent the last one being in six hundred ninety five friends since the first one that i could find after she went back in april of ninety six i could find an emergency room visit in ninety seven where he was throwing up i found and made a record about i think a year later in ninety eight where he was suffering from coughing understandable but that she would want this medical care if the alleged reason was that to get medical care for her son after these three surgeries him was the surgery took place in the last excuse me june of ninety five hillary are in january of ninety eight and she's getting medical treatment for a cough nothing to do with the three surgeries having to do with the unfortunate circumstances h law of this circuit demonstrates that the board's decision here should be you have the specific kinds of contacts i mean baby that's horribly sec i'm going over there to get the support not one what's wrong with now that you sort of focus my attention on that because it sounds to me like what talking about well i'm not sure what i might have said that was inconsistent that i think it actually this is an extraordinary event i mean it's not like you're talking about a sick child like a cough but the way this child who was a s citizen started life was extraordinary and the kind of difficulties a child would face having started like that and what she describes me she came back from three weeks in terms of screaming all night in the neighbors complaining for me to visualize a young woman saying i just can't cope in his infancy while he's going through that i need more help this is what i want to learn but for the time being i need some help and so for the next couple years well as an infant i'm going to go have to go get the help what specific inquiry as to whether she maintained the math question she says she maintained the intent but the case was clear that you look instances i mean keeping things in storage when you look at the circuits president and the