What is the standard of proof required to overcome the legal presumption that a defendant was not advised of the potential immigration consequences of a conviction?

We now decide the second issue on which we granted review: What standard of proof must the prosecution meet to overcome the legal presumption that a defendant was not advised of the potential immigration consequences of his convictiondeportation, exclusion from the United States, and denial of naturalizationwhen, as here, the record does not adequately show that the advisements were given? The presumption of nonadvisement is imposed by section 1016.5(b), which states: "Absent a record that the court provided the advisement required by this section, the defendant shall be presumed not to have received the required advisement." Because here no reporter's transcript exists of defendant's 1986 plea hearing, and the minute order of that hearing does not set forth the actual advisements given, both parties agree that section 1016.5(b)'s presumption of nonadvisement applies. The parties also agree that the presumption of nonadvisement is rebuttable. ( People v. Dubon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 944, 954, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 914 (Dubon ).)