
    Eliyahu GOLDSTEIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74520.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 10, 2008.
    Lea Greenberger, Attorney at Law, Encino, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., Ari Nazarov, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eliyahu Goldstein, a native and citizen of the United Kingdom, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) removal order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence whether the government met its burden of showing Goldstein abandoned his lawful permanent residence in the United States. Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512, 1514 (9th Cir.1997). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Goldstein abandoned his lawful permanent resident status, because the record does not compel the conclusion that he continually intended to return to the United States promptly. See id. (“[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) (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”).

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