to remand that does not simply articulate the remedy sought on appeal will be held to the substantive standards applicable either to a motion to reconsider or to reopen.” Id. Cancellation of removal requires, inter alia, a showing that the alien’s “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). However, petitioners failed to provide any detailed evidence regarding their U.S. citizen son’s medical condition or treatment. The BIA therefore did not err in concluding that they failed to demonstrate a likelihood that their application for cancellation of removal would succeed on the merits. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104, 108 S.Ct. 904, 99 L.Ed.2d 90 (1988) (<HOLDING>); see also In re MS-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 349, 357
recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous holding that the bia may deny a motion to reopen on the ground that the movant has not established prima facie eligibility for the underlying relief sought recognizing that failure to offer evidence establishing a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief sought is a proper ground for denying a motion to reopen holding that a movants failure to establish a prima facie case for the underlying substantive relief is a proper ground for the bia to deny a motion to reopen recognizing that bia may deny motion to reopen where movant has not established prima facie eligibility for relief sought