FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAHENDRAKUMAR PATEL, aka No. 07-70621
Mahendra Kumar Patel,
Agency No. A091-638-481
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Mahendrakumar Patel, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration
judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RB/Research
review “whether substantial evidence supports a finding by clear, unequivocal, and
convincing evidence that [petitioner] abandoned his lawful permanent residence in
the United States.” Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.
2003). We review de novo due process claims in immigration proceedings. Ram
v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the government
met its burden of showing Patel abandoned his lawful permanent resident status
because the record does not compel the conclusion that he consistently intended to
promptly return to the United States. See Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512, 1514 (9th
Cir.1997) (stating 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”); see
also Chavez-Ramirez v. INS, 792 F.2d 932, 937 (9th Cir.1986) (holding 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”).
Contrary to Patel’s contention, the BIA did not rely on his untranslated
sworn statement in reaching its September 22, 2003, decision, thus his due process
claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000).
RB/Research 2 07-70621
Patel’s remaining contentions lack merit.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
RB/Research 3 07-70621