1225 (2d Cir.2002)). However, in our 2009 decision, we did not discuss the probative value of the evidence untainted by error, nor did we limit our remand in any way. Thus, since it cannot be said that we expressly or implicitly ruled on the remaining evidence, the law of the case doctrine does not foreclose reconsideration of Singh’s removability. Singh also argues that the agency’s finding that he knew that Bedi was inadmissible is not supported by substantial evidence. When removal proceedings are brought against a noncitizen who has been admitted to the United States, the government bears the burden of establishing that the alien is removable by clear and convincing evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(3)(A); see also Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 286, 87 S.Ct. 483, 17 L.Ed.2d 362 (1966) (<HOLDING>). To find Singh removable under §
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 fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding that an award for punitive damages must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding that because congress did not specifically state that deportation terminates supervised release it remains intact even after an aliens deportation