Ramos Flores v. Holder
**Cancellation of removal-burden of proof**
The BIA applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether Ramos met his burden to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. The IJ and BIA incorrectly relied on Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390 (9th Cir. 1996) and Matter of Ige, 20 I. & N. Dec. 880 (BIA 1994) for the proposition that an alien must submit an affidavit stating that his family will be separated if he is deported in order to establish hardship based on family separation. However, these two cases were later limited by Salcido-Salcido v. INS, 138 F.3d 1292, 1293 (9th Cir. 1998) which held that this per se evidentiary requirement is inapplicable where other evidence adequately shows that the family will be separated. Therefore, the BIA must reconsider whether Ramos has established “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” under the correct standard.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/23/05-72786.pdf
newimmigrationcases
