Case Name: Hossein SHOKATI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-10
Citations: 285 F. App'x 431
Docket Number: No. 04-76409
Parties: Hossein SHOKATI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 431–431

Head Matter:
Hossein SHOKATI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76409.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 1, 2008.
Filed July 10, 2008.
Marjan H. Bahmani, Esq., Law Offices of Marjan H. Bahmani, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. 'Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Barry J. Pettinato, Esq., U.S. Department Of Justice Civil Div./Office, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hossein Shokati, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review "whether substantial evidence supports a finding by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that [Shokati] abandoned his lawful permanent residence in the United States." Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ's determination that the government met its burden of showing Shokati abandoned his lawful permanent resident status, because the record does not compel the conclusion that he consistently intended to return to the United States promptly. See Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512, 1514 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that "[t]he relevant intent is not the intent to return ultimately, but the intent to return to the United States within a relatively short period" and adding that an alien "may extend his trip beyond that relatively short period only if he intends to return to the United States as soon as possible thereafter"); see also Chavez-Ramirez v. INS, 792 F.2d 932, 937 (9th Cir.1986) (alien's trip abroad is temporary only if he has a "continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the entirety of his visit").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.