Mahmoud v. Barr
981 F.3d 122
1st Cir.2020Background
- Petitioner Wissam Mahmoud, a Lebanese citizen, was admitted as a U.S. lawful permanent resident in 1991 and lived with family in Rhode Island through 2008.
- In 2008 Mahmoud moved to Edmonton, Canada on a temporary work visa, later purchased a house in Canada (2012), paid Canadian taxes, married a Canadian citizen (2013), and had a child registered in Canada (2014).
- From 2008–2014 he returned to the U.S. sporadically (7–10 visits totaling ~110 days); he did not own property, have employment, or pay U.S. taxes during that period.
- Mahmoud was advised by U.S. officers in 2013 to apply for a reentry permit but delayed doing so; he became seriously ill in late 2013–2014, which limited travel, and was paroled into the U.S. for deferred inspection in December 2014.
- An Immigration Judge found Mahmoud abandoned his LPR status based on extended foreign residence, Canadian ties, short U.S. visits, and delay in seeking reentry documentation; the BIA affirmed. The First Circuit denied review under the substantial-evidence standard.
Issues
| Issue | Mahmoud's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mahmoud abandoned his LPR status during his time in Canada | He always intended to return to the U.S. once he secured employment; professed intent suffices | His prolonged residence in Canada, purchase of a home, employment and family ties there, and brief U.S. visits show abandonment | BIA/IJ finding of abandonment affirmed; substantial evidence supports conclusion that intent to return was not continuous |
| Burden and sufficiency of evidence to prove abandonment | Burden is on government; Mahmoud need not produce job-search proof because he testified he looked for work | Government met its burden with clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence of Canadian ties and lack of U.S. ties; it was not required to disprove his unsupported testimony | Government met its burden; petitioner’s conclusory testimony was insufficient to compel contrary result |
| Effect of post-2014 actions (listing Canadian house for sale, taking U.S. job, petitioning for family) | These actions show intent to reestablish U.S. residence and negate abandonment | Post-return conduct does not negate years of conduct showing abandonment | Post-return changes do not undo prior abandonment; BIA decision stands |
| Alleged factual error about timing of brother’s restaurant opening | Mahmoud contends the BIA/IJ relied on an incorrect chronology, undermining the decision | Any confusion about which brother was referenced does not materially alter the record supporting abandonment | Any factual imprecision was not material; overall record supports the BIA/IJ findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Katebi v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 463 (1st Cir. 2005) (government must prove abandonment by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence)
- Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512 (9th Cir. 1997) (factors for assessing abandonment include reliance on family residence)
- Arias-Minaya v. Holder, 779 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2015) (review of tiered BIA/IJ decisions as a unit)
- Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2003) (analysis of temporary visit abroad and factors for return intent)
- Chavez-Ramirez v. INS, 792 F.2d 932 (9th Cir. 1986) (distinguishing fixed short visits from contingent, prolonged visits requiring continuous intent)
- Aleem v. Perryman, 114 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 1997) (discussing nebulous nature of "temporary visit abroad")
- Elias-Zacarias v. INS, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (substantial-evidence standard)
- Albathani v. INS, 318 F.3d 365 (1st Cir. 2003) (reversal requires evidence that not only supports, but compels, contrary finding)