22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T47f,MEMORANDUM Reina Isabel Fuentes-Chavarria, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We grant the petition for review. The IJ found that petitioner demonstrated that she was a member of a particular social group consisting of her husband’s family. But, the IJ also found that petitioner failed to establish persecution on account of a protected ground because she did not demonstrate that she and the other members of her husband’s family had a “shared, immutable characteristic.” Because the IJ’s two findings appear incompatible, we remand for clarification. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1194 (9th Cir.2005) (remanding because “[w]e will not guess at the theory underlying the IJ’s ... opinion”) (internal quotations omitted). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4ac,

MEMORANDUM

Reina Isabel Fuentes-Chavarria, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We grant the petition for review.

The IJ found that petitioner demonstrated that she was a member of a particular social group consisting of her husband’s family. But, the IJ also found that petitioner failed to establish persecution on account of a protected ground because she did not demonstrate that she and the other members of her husband’s family had a “shared, immutable characteristic.” Because the IJ’s two findings appear incompatible, we remand for clarification. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1194 (9th Cir.2005) (remanding because “[w]e will not guess at the theory underlying the IJ’s ... opinion”) (internal quotations omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.