1

 Chief District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 20, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 02-60449

_______________________

ZEBA MOIN, et al,

Petitioners

v

JOHN ASHCROFT, U. S. Attorney General,

Respondent

______________________

Petition For Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals

______________________

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges, and KAZEN, Chief District Judge.1

KAZEN, Chief District Judge:

Zeba Moin and her minor son, Moiz Ullah, appeal the ruling of the Board of Immigration

Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge’s holding that Zeba Moin abandoned her

lawful permanent resident status and is, therefore, an inadmissible alien subject to exclusion and
2 Ullah’s status as a lawful permanent resident, without a formal visa, is derived from his mother’s status

as a permanent resident alien. Therefore, if Moin loses her status as a permanent resident, so too would Ullah.

3

 Moin’s mother is also a permanent resident; however, Moin’s admission into the United States was

apparently based solely on her father’s status. Moin’s father has since become a United States citizen. 

2

deportation.2 We AFFIRM. 

I.

In August 1991, Zeba Moin, a native and citizen of Pakistan, was lawfully admitted for

permanent residence in the United States as the unmarried daughter of a permanent resident

father.3 Two months later, in October 1991, she left this country to return to Pakistan. Over the

next fifty-four months, Moin made several trips between the two countries. During that period,

her total stay in this country was approximately six months. On February 2, 1996, Moin returned

to the United States from her latest trip, accompanied by her son, Moiz Ullah. She had left

Pakistan on a round-trip airline ticket with a return date of May 29, 1996. Upon her arrival in the

United States, she presented her permanent resident card and Pakistani passport to the primary

immigration officer at Houston Intercontinental Airport. She was then referred to secondary

inspection to process her son for admission. The secondary officer deferred her inspection to the

INS Houston District Office because of the length of time she had spent outside the United

States. An INS inspector ultimately concluded that Moin had abandoned her status as a lawful

permanent resident and was therefore inadmissible to the United States. After hearing several

days of testimony from the INS inspector, Moin, and Moin’s family, an immigration judge agreed

that Moin had abandoned her lawful permanent resident status in October 1991 and ordered Moin

and her son excluded and deported from the United States. This order was affirmed by a single

member of the BIA, without opinion, in May of 2002. This timely petition for review followed.
4

In Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2003), this Court held that BIA’s streamlined

procedures, which allow for single member of the BIA to summarily affirm an immigration judge’s opinion, do

not violate the due process rights of aliens. 

3

II.

 Although this Court generally reviews decisions of the BIA, not immigration judges, it

may review an immigration judge’s decision when, as here, the BIA affirms without additional

explanation. See Mikhael v. INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). In either case, this Court 

must affirm the decision if there is no error of law and if reasonable, substantial, and probative

evidence on the record, considered as a whole, supports the decision’s factual findings. See

Howard v. INS, 930 F.2d 432, 434 (5th Cir. 1991). Conclusions regarding an alien’s intent are

essentially factual and are reviewed for substantial evidence. See Chavez-Ramirez v. INS, 792

F.2d 932, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1986). This Court will not reverse a BIA decision unless the petitioner

provides evidence “so compelling that no reasonable fact-finder could conclude against it.” 

Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS, 78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 112

S.Ct. 812, 817 (1992). 

Moin argues that this standard of review is too deferential to the BIA in this case, because

the BIA issued no opinion and review was conducted by only one member of the Board.4 Instead,

Moin asks this Court to formulate some “new, less deferential standard of review” in such cases,

but she offers no authority for that request nor does she articulate a proposed standard. The

Administrative Procedure Act, as a general proposition, mandates substantial evidence review of

administrative agency fact findings, and at least one circuit has applied the substantial evidence

standard where the BIA’s streamlined procedures were used. See 5 U.S.C. § 706; Albathani v.
5

In Albathani, the First Circuit reviewed, under a substantial evidence standard, the denial of petitioner’s

application for asylum, which was affirmed without opinion by one member of the BIA. 

4

INS, 318 F.3d 365 (1st Cir. 2003).5 Further, given that the substantial evidence test requires

review of the entire administrative record, irrespective of whether or not BIA issued an opinion,

we see no reason to apply any other standard in this case. 

III.

 The issue of whether or not an alien has abandoned her lawful permanent resident status

is one of first impression in this circuit, but decisions of the BIA and sister circuits give guidance. 

“[T]o qualify as a returning resident alien, an alien must have acquired lawful permanent resident

status in accordance with our laws, must have retained that status from the time that [she]

acquired it, and must be returning to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence after a

temporary visit abroad.” Matter of Huang, 19 I. & N. Dec. 749, 753 (BIA 1988) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). The instant case turns on whether Moin’s extended trips

to Pakistan constituted “temporary visits abroad.” 

“Temporary” in this context is not merely an antonym of “permanent.” A trip is a

“temporary visit abroad” if (a) it is for a “relatively short period, fixed by some early

event; or (b) the trip will terminate upon the occurrence of an event that has a reasonable

possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.

Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512, 1514 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 286 F.3d 611,

613 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam).

Moin argues that her trips to Pakistan were “temporary visits abroad” for two reasons. 

First, she notes that no trip exceeded two years, and she obtained a reentry permit valid for two

years. However, “temporary visits” are not defined in terms of elapsed time alone. See Ahmed,
5

286 F.3d at 613; Huang, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 753. Also, a reentry permit, in and of itself, does not

prevent a finding that an alien has abandoned her permanent residency status. “A reentry permit

does not guarantee [an alien’s] return if he or she is found inadmissible on seeking reentry.” 3

Gordon and Mailman, Immigration Law and Procedure, § 35.02[1]. A reentry permit merely

serves as evidence of an alien’s intent to return, which the Government may refute by clear,

unequivocal, and convincing evidence. Id. at § 35.02[3]. Moin cites Saxbe v. Bustos, 95 S.Ct.

272, 277-278 (1974), for the proposition that an alien granted permanent residency status has the

privilege of living in this country but is not required to do so. Saxbe, however, involved alien

commuters who lived abroad but would return to the United States to work, either on a daily or

seasonal basis. Id. at 278. Unlike Moin, they were returning regularly to the United States after

short visits abroad, with their return triggered by some identifiable event, i.e. the need to return to

work at some determinable time. Alien commuters have established business affiliations in the

United States that demonstrate their “intent to return...within a relatively short period.” Singh,

113 F.3d at 1514. Moin has no such affiliations, and her various returns to the United States from

Pakistan were not linked to any identifiable triggering event occurring within a reasonably short

time frame.

Second, Moin argues that she always intended to reside permanently in the United States. 

“The relevant intent, [however], is not the intent to return ultimately, but the intent to return to

the United States within a relatively short period.” Singh, 113 F.3d at 1514. “Factors to be

considered in evaluating the intent of the alien include: the alien’s family ties, property holdings,

and business affiliations within the United States, and the alien’s family, property, and business

ties in the foreign country.” Id. at 1514-1515. An applicant’s desire to maintain her status as a
6

permanent resident, without more, is insufficient; the alien’s intent must be supported by her

actions. Id. at 1514-15. 

IV.

The immigration judge concluded from the Singh factors that Moin demonstrated a lack of

intent to return to the United States within a relatively short time after her various absences. He

based that conclusion on the following evidence. 

In October 1991, two months after arriving in this country, Moin returned to Pakistan at

her parents’ urging, to consider several marriage proposals and obtain a husband. She expressed

an intent to be away from the United States for only a few months, but instead stayed in Pakistan

almost a year. While in Pakistan, Moin soon married Mohammad Rashid. The wedding

ceremony and related cultural events extended for a period of three months. Moin’s stay in

Pakistan was further extended when she became pregnant with her first child, born September 6,

1992. She remained in Pakistan throughout the pregnancy because she was occasionally sick and

because her husband was not able to come with her to the United States. Moin finally returned to

this country in October 1992, leaving her husband and newborn child in Pakistan. Here, she filed

a visa petition for her husband and obtained a re-entry permit for herself that was valid for two

years. Approximately two months later, in December 1992, she returned to Pakistan because her

husband asked that she do so to care for her child, who was ill. The child ultimately died in

October 1993. Moin did not return to the United States until November 1994, explaining that she

had become emotionally distraught following the death of her child and that her doctors had

advised her not to travel. She ultimately returned to the United States shortly before her re-entry

permit was to expire. Moin stayed in this country for approximately two more months and then
7

left again on February 1, 1995, after receiving telephone calls from her husband, expressing his

loneliness and desire that she return. She had intended to stay in Pakistan only a month or two

but actually stayed until February of 1996. In the meanwhile, she became pregnant with her

second child, Moiz Ullah, who was born on November 9, 1995. She claimed that this second

child was also sickly, which required her to wait three months after his birth before returning to

the United States.

The evidence also reflected that Moin lived with her parents most of the time that she was

in this country, with one short stay at a brother’s house. Moin had only a few personal items at

her parents’ home and owned no real property in the United States. She had no verified

employment, although she claimed to have performed some brief babysitting chores, and she had

paid no income taxes in the United States. During the same time period, Moin was listed as joint

owner with her husband of two shops and an apartment in Pakistan; her husband purchased a car

for her in Pakistan; and her husband bought a home in Pakistan while Moin was in the United

States. Further, although Moin initially entered the United States in 1991 on a one-way airline

ticket, her later entries were always with round-trip tickets, including the last entry in February of

1996. Moreover, the immigration judge noted evidence that, in the Pakistani culture, a wife is

expected to abide by her husband’s wishes, and it is unacceptable for a wife to live apart from her

husband absent extraordinary circumstances. The immigration judge also expressed concern over

the lack of documentation as to the nature and extent of the illnesses of both children. Finally, he

perceived certain inconsistencies between the testimony of Moin and her relatives, and also

between her testimony and her earlier sworn statement given to immigration officials.
6

 Moin takes issue with the immigration judge’s conclusion that she abandoned her status as a lawful

permanent resident as of October of 1991. She argues that if this conclusion is correct, it would follow that she

should have been placed in exclusion proceedings upon her return to the United States in October 1992; the INS

should not have issued her a reentry permit in December 1992; she should not have been permitted to reenter on

the permit in November 1994; and the American Consulate in Pakistan should not have issued her husband a visa

to join her in the United States in July 1996. While this argument has a superficial appeal, the issue in this case is

not how long it took the INS to realize that Moin never possessed the requisite intent to maintain her permanent

resident status. Instead, the issue is the legitimacy of Moin’s original expression of intent to permanently reside in

this country, viewed in the light of her subsequent conduct over several years. 

8

V.

In sum, the immigration judge concluded that, very shortly after obtaining permanent

resident status in this country, Moin returned to her native land under direction of her parents to

marry, did marry, and then spent the overwhelming majority of the next several years in Pakistan,

attending to her husband and children. He recognized that Moin wanted to preserve her

permanent resident status, but her various trips to Pakistan were never for relatively short periods,

fixed by particular events likely to occur within a relatively short time frame. On the contrary, he

drew from the evidence the picture of a person living in Pakistan while taking a few rather short

trips to the United States.6

We appreciate the predicament which confronts immigrants who marry non-citizens

abroad. Because temporary visas are often unavailable and processing marital visas may take

years, they must choose to live apart or risk losing their permanent resident status. See Singh,

113 F.3d at 1516 (Reinhardt, dissenting). Moin’s situation was especially problematical because

of her pregnancies. We also do not necessarily endorse all of the immigration judge’s findings. We

are particularly troubled by his skepticism as to the seriousness of the first child’s illness,

protesting a lack of documentation, even though the child died after barely one year. 

Nevertheless, we must be guided by the totality of the record and not any single finding. From
9

that perspective, we cannot say that the evidence is so compelling in Moin’s favor that no

reasonable person could have made the same findings and conclusions as the immigration judge. 

We, therefore, AFFIRM the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

AFFIRMED