Case ID: f-appx_109/html/0877-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Albino ARAIZA OLMEDO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73911.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2004.
    
    Decided Sept. 21, 2004.
    Albino Araiza Olmeda, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    Kenneth Aid, Cerritos, CA, Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Deborah N. Misir, Luis E. Perez, Linda S. Wendtland, Peter D. Keisler, Mary Jane Candaux, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       We amend the caption to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the only proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this caption.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Albino Araiza Olmedo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, grant the petition for review, and remand for further proceedings.

By referring repeatedly to a requirement of unconscionability, the IJ applied an incorrect standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001) (en banc) (“we do not find that an ‘unconscionable’ standard is an appropriate one to apply in evaluating a respondent’s eligibility for cancellation of removal”). We therefore remand the proceedings, as “[w]e will not adjudicate the case de novo. The BIA must be given the opportunity to evaluate petitioner’s ... claim under the proper legal standard.” Martinez-Sanchez v. INS, 794 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir.1986); see also Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1021 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.