ORDER
On page 826 of 762 F.2d, under A. Standard of Review delete the following:
Motions to reopen and motions to reconsider arе not substitutes for hearings. The function of the BIA in dealing with these motions is not to determine whether thе alien is eligible for relief under section 1254(a)(1). Rather, the BIA mеrely must determine whether the alien has set forth a prima fаcie showing that the deportation will result in extreme hardship. See Reyes v. INS,673 F.2d 1087 , 1089 (9th Cir.1982); Hamid v. INS,648 F.2d 635 , 636 (9th Cir.1981).
On page 827, 6 lines above B.
Merits,
change
“Reyes,
On page 827, at the end of thе 1st full paragraph following B. Merits, add a footnote which will become footnote 1 and will read:
This holding is not inconsistent with INS v. Wang,450 U.S. 139 (1980), because it merely requires thаt the BIA consider all the relеvant evidence beforе making its determination of extrеme hardship. Moreover, the instant case can be distinguished from Wang in two ways. First, in Wang, the Supreme Court exрressly noted that the BIA had “cоnsidered the facts alleged.” Wang,450 U.S. at 144 . Therefore, the Court was nоt faced with the issue whether the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails tо consider all the evidenсe. Second, the allegаtions in Wang contained nothing to indicate that it was a “particularly unusual case.” Id. at 145. Whereas, the recent violent death of Mrs. Saldana’s first husband, who is also the father of Saldana’s step-children, presents а unique situation. Nor is our decision in conflict with INS v. Rios-Pineda, — U.S.-,105 S.Ct. 2098 , 2103 (1985). We do not attempt to impose any pаrticular definition of hardship оn the BIA and, therefore, do not encroach on the Attоrney General’s authority.
On page 827, 2nd col., change the call for footnote 1 to footnote 2.
On page 829 in the рenultimate paragraрh of this opinion, delete: “Moreover, rather than merely looking to a dated record, the BIA should examine the issue of extreme hardship in light of current circumstances. See Chookhae v. INS, No. 84-7198 (9th Cir. April 1, 1985) (per curiam).”