permanent resident alien with a lawful un-relinquished domicile of seven consecutive years to apply for a discretionary waiver of deportation.” St. Cyr, 533 U.S. at 295, 121 S.Ct. 2271 (citations omitted). The issue of whether petitioner was a permanent resident alien with a lawful, unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years depends on whether he meets the requirements of a “returning resident immigrant.” Chavez-Ramirez v. INS, 792 F.2d 932, 933 n. 2 (9th Cir.1986). Such an immigrant must be “lawfully admitted for permanent residence ... returning from a temporary visit abroad.” Id,.; 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(A). The INS bears the burden of proving abandonment by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence. See Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 286, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966) (<HOLDING>).. The IJ must review several objective factors
holding that an award for punitive damages must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding that no deportation order may be entered unless it is found by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true recognizing detention during deportation proceedings as a constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process holding that because congress did not specifically state that deportation terminates supervised release it remains intact even after an aliens deportation