JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. In these three related cases, Plaintiffs—Christian Healthcare Centers, a medical service ministry; Sacred Heart of Jesus, a Catholic school joined by several of the school’s parents; and St. Joseph Parish St. Johns, a Catholic parish operating a school—challenge aspects of Michigan’s antidiscrimination laws. They allege that Michigan’s laws chill their speech and conduct in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed each case for want of standing, reasoning that no Plaintiff had shown that Michigan’s laws arguably proscribed its speech or conduct and that, in the alternative, there was no credible threat that Michigan would enforce its laws against any Plaintiff.

We agree only in part. Michigan’s laws arguably forbid several of Plaintiffs’ pleaded activities. And although the threat of enforcement analysis is more nuanced, we conclude that two Plaintiffs—Christian Healthcare and Sacred Heart—have plausibly established a credible threat that Defendants will enforce against them at least some of the challenged provisions of Michigan’s laws. Finally, we leave to the district court the task of evaluating Plaintiffs’ requests for injunctive relief in the first instance. All told, the district court’s decisions are AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Beky Izamar Mazariegos-Rodas and Engly Yeraicy Mazariegos-Rodas (collectively, the Petitioners) are two sisters who are natives and citizens of Guatemala. The Petitioners, who were left behind in Guatemala as young children after their parents entered the United States without inspection in 2009, fled to this country in 2015 after gang members threatened to maim and kill them. They also entered the United States without inspection, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) placed them into removal proceedings shortly thereafter.

Appearing before an immigration judge (IJ), the Petitioners applied for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158, 1231(b)(3). The IJ denied the Petitioners’ applications, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed their appeal, and the Petitioners filed a timely petition for review with this court. They contend that (1) the IJ’s bias against the Petitioners’ mother violated their due-process rights, (2) the IJ erred in concluding that the Petitioners’ proposed particular social group (PSG) of “Guatemalan female children without parental protection” is not cognizable, and (3) the BIA erred in concluding that there is no nexus between the harm that the Petitioners suffered and their other proposed PSG of “the Rodas family.”

The Petitioners’ arguments regarding due-process and the “Guatemalan female children without parental protection” PSG were not raised before the BIA and are thus unreviewable, but the BIA’s no-nexus determination with regard to “the Rodas family” PSG is inconsistent with this court’s precedents. We therefore GRANT the petition for review in part, DISMISS it in part, VACATE the BIA’s denial of the Petitioners’ application for asylum and withholding of removal, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.