Singh
Singh v. Ashcroft
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
The record does not compel the conclusion that there was a lack of “clear, un *629 equivocal, and convincing evidence that [Nirmal Singh] abandoned his lawful permanent residence in the United States.” Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.2003).
Singh may not gain re-entry as a returning lawful permanent resident (LPR) after his twenty-three month visit to Fiji, because Singh was not “returning to an unrelinquished lawful permanent residence after a temporary visit abroad.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). A trip abroad is considered a temporary visit if: “(a) the permanent resident’s visit is for a period relatively short, fixed by some early event, or (b) the permanent resident’s visit will terminate upon the occurrence of an event having a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.” Id. at 1106-07 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Singh’s twenty-three month trip abroad cannot be considered a “relatively short” visit. See Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512, 1514 (9th Cir.1997) (holding that an eight-month trip abroad “could not be described as ‘relatively short’ ”).