
    Kfeir LEVY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71966.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 16, 2010.
    Daniela Koiman, Law Office of Daniela Koiman, Woodland Hills, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Francis William Fraser, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Justin Robert Markel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kfeir Levy, a native and citizen of Israel, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “[W]e review for whether substantial evidence supports a finding by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that [Levy] 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 agency’s determination that the government met its burden of showing Levy abandoned his lawful permanent resident status because the record does not compel the conclusion that he consistently intended promptly to 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 982, 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”).

Levy’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     