INA 101(a)(13)(A) subjects an LPR to the grounds of inadmissibility if the foreign national engaged in illegal activity after having departed the United States. The Second, Sixth and Ninth Circuits have put the burden on the government to prove the ground of inadmissibility. See, e.g., Matadin v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2008); Hana v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 472, 476 (6th Cir. 2005) ("Our task in this case ... is to determine whether we are compelled to conclude that, contrary to the Board's finding, the record does not contain clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that [the petitioner] abandoned her LPR status in the United States."); Khodagholian v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003). The Attorney General, in a footnote in Matter of Silva-Trevino, assumes a different standard, but fails to distinguish or, even discuss, any of these cases. The circuit courts cite to pre-IIRAIRA BIA decisions such as Matter of Becera- Miranda, 12 I. & N. Dec. 358 (BIA 1967) and Matter of Kane, 15 I. & N. Dec. 258, 264 (BIA 1975). There are older cases that can be read to suggest the requirement is constitutional. See, e.g., Chew v. Rogers, 257 F.2d 607 (D.C. Cir. 1958). Thanks to Dan Kesselbrenner.