Flores

*222 MEMORANDUM **

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Miguel Ramos Flores’ appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and denied his motion to reconsider. Ramos petitions for review. We have jurisdiction because the petition raises a “colorable” question of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009). Because the BIA applied the wrong legal standard to determine whether Ramos met his burden to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal, we grant the petition for review and remand.

The BIA found Ramos ineligible for cancellation of removal because Ramos failed to demonstrate that his U.S. citizen children or lawful permanent resident parents would experience “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” as a result of his removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).

Ramos testified that, if he were removed, his children would remain in the United States. In evaluating his claim, the BIA and IJ relied on Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390 (9th Cir.1996) and Matter of Ige, 20 I. & N. Dec. 880 (BIA 1994). Those cases hold that, in order to establish hardship based on…