
    America Jeannette De Leon COLOCHO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71931.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 27, 2010.
    Enrique Arevalo, Esquire, Gladdys J. Uribe, Law Offices of Enrique Arevalo, South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Edward John Duffy, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Christina Bechak Parascandola, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

America Jeannette de Leon Colocho, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) 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 [Colocho] abandoned [her] lawful permanent residence in the United States.” Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 385 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 Colocho abandoned her lawful permanent resident status because the record does not compel the conclusion that she intended to promptly return to the United States during the seven years she lived in El Salvador. 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”).

We agree with the agency that Khoda-gholian is distinguishable. See Khodagholian, 335 F.3d at 1007-08 (petitioner had a continuous, uninterrupted intent to return to the U.S. based on evidence he sought to sell assets and wind up his affairs while in Iran and during one six-month visit cared for a terminally ill mother and orphaned nephews).

Colocho’s contentions that the IJ applied the incorrect burden of proof and that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider all of the relevant factors is belied by the record.

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