
    Khalid IQBAL, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-60986
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 16, 2003.
    
      Imran B. Mirza, Quan, Burdette & Perez, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.
    David V. Bernal, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, US John Ashcroft, Barry Joseph Pettinato, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Hipólito Acosta, Houston, TX, Caryl G. Thompson, District Directors Office, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Khalid Iqbal appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’s summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) determination that he had abandoned his lawful permanent resident status and was therefore deportable. We review the decision of the IJ, see Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir.2003), and will reverse only if the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.2003).

As an initial matter, we will not disturb the IJ’s finding, based on witness credibility, that Iqbal left the United States and stayed in Pakistan for over two years for purposes of securing gainful employment. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78-79 (5th Cir.1994). After considering Iqbal’s connections with the United States, his employment history, and his dealings with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, we hold that the evidence does not compel a finding that Iqbal intended to return to the United States “within a relatively short period” or that his visit terminated “upon the occurrence of an event that had a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.” See Moin, 335 F.3d at 419 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Therefore, the IJ’s determination that he had abandoned his lawful permanent resident status is supported by substantial evidence.

PETITION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     