with the IJ and the BIA that the Truongs were firmly resettled in Italy within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 208.15. The Truongs lived in Italy for eleven years. In Italy, they had a resident status that required annual renewal, but Mr. Truong was able to obtain a job, Martina Truong attended school, and they were free to move around the country. The length of the Truongs’ stay in Italy coupled with the freedom to get a job, go to school, and travel demonstrate their firm resettlement in Italy. See Andriasian v. INS, 180 F.3d 1033, 1043 (9th Cir.1999) (“[A] lengthy, undisturbed residence in a third country may establish a rebuttable presumption that an individual has the right to return to that country and remain there permanently.”); Cheo v. INS, 162 F.3d 1227, 1229-30 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The fact that the Truongs allowed their
holding refusal to turn over property seized prepetition constituted violation of stay once notice of the stay had been given holding judgment in violation of automatic stay void holding that insurance guarantee association stay statute did not suspend limitation period because action was not pending when stay was entered holding that such a stay is appropriate where in the absence of a stay the continuation of the proceedings in the trial court disrupts the arbitration proceedings and can render them ineffective holding that a threeyear stay in malaysia created a presumption of firm resettle merit