former section 212(c) was repealed by IIRIRA in September 1996). Section 212(c) has been interpreted by the BIA “to authorize a n evaluating subjective intent, including the alien’s family ties, property holdings, business affiliations in the United States as well as the alien’s family, property and business in the foreign country. See Singh v. Reno, 113 F.3d 1512, 1514-15 (9th Cir.1997) (“[A]n alien’s desire to retain his status as a permanent resident, without more, is not sufficient; his actions must support his professed interest.”). The court has to determine whether the alien had “an intent to depart in a manner which can be regarded as meaningfully interruptive of the alien’s permanent residence.” Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449, 461, 83 S.Ct. 1804, 10 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1963) (<HOLDING>). ■ ■ Courts have noted that “[conclusions
holding that defendants status as a deportable alien could be considered by the district court at sentencing holding that an innocent casual and brief excursion by a resident alien outside the countrys borders for four hours may not be considered a departure disruptive of his resident alien status holding that departure based on deportable alien status was prohibited holding that adjustment of status was permitted even if deportable alien had entered the country as a lawful permanent resident holding that the phrase resident alien means an alien lawfully residing in the united states