Opinion ID: 612582
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Abandonment of LPR Status

Text: The government maintains that, by the time Khoshfahm sought reentry into the United States, he had abandoned his LPR status. When an applicant has a colorable claim to returning resident status, the government has the burden of proving he is not eligible for admission to the United States. Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512, 1514 (9th Cir.1997). The government must establish by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that this status has changed or been abandoned. Id. On its face, abandonment of immigration status appears to be a legal inquiry. We have held, however, that, because whether a petitioner has abandoned his LPR status is an intrinsically fact-specific question, we review the BIA's determination as to abandonment under the substantial evidence standard. Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Thus, in reviewing the BIA's decision, we must determine whether there is (1) substantial evidence that (2) the government has offered clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence of (3) the ultimate finding necessary to support the abandonment of lawful status. See Singh, 113 F.3d at 1517 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting). We now consider what the government must prove by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence in order to establish abandonment of LPR status. [I]n order to 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 he acquired it, and must be returning to an `unrelinquished lawful permanent residence' after a `temporary visit abroad.' Singh, 113 F.3d at 1514 (quoting Matter of Huang, 19 I. & N. Dec. 749, 753 (1988)). 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. Id. (citation omitted). If the alien's trip abroad is not relatively short, it is a temporary visit abroad only if the alien has a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States during the entirety of his visit. Id. (citing Chavez-Ramirez v. INS, 792 F.2d 932, 937 (9th Cir.1986)). In other words, a legal permanent resident may extend his trip beyond that relatively short period only if he intends to return to the United States as soon as possible thereafter. Id. Thus, because it is the government that has the burden of proof with respect to abandonment of status, id., it must show by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the petitioner's trip abroad was not relatively short and that the petitioner did not maintain a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the United States, thereby abandoning his status. We review for substantial evidence the BIA's conclusion that the government met this burden.