
    Benilda SAY; Jose Ong, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 05-71872, 05-71873.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
    
    Filed Oct. 6, 2011.
    Brian D. Lerner, Esq., Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioners.
    Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Marion E. Guy-ton, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Benilda Say and Jose Ong, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review for the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petitions for review and remand.

The government requests that we grant Ong’s petition for review and remand to allow the BIA to address in the first instance petitioners’ contention that Ong’s conviction falls within the petty offense exemption at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(h). The government also requests that we grant Say’s petition for review and remand to allow the BIA to clarify whether Say’s application was denied on statutory or discretionary grounds. We agree that remand of both petitions on these grounds is appropriate. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam) (remand appropriate where issues were not considered by the BIA); Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 931-32 (9th Cir.2004) (remand appropriate when it is unclear whether agency relied on a reviewable ground).

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     