
    Dilbagh Singh DILBAR; Gurpreet Singh, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-73990.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 19, 2010.
    Pardeep S. Grewal, Esquire, Law Offices of Pardeep S. Grewal, Castro Valley, CA, for Petitioners.
    Jesse Lloyd Busen, James Arthur Hu-nolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Emily Anne Radford, Carl H. Mcintrye, Esquire, T. Bo Stanton, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Dilbagh Singh Dilbar and Gurpreet Singh, natives and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we grant and remand the petition for review.

The BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where the record indicates that petitioners’ first attorney failed to properly notify petitioners of their hearing date. See Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (equitable tolling available where petitioner is prevented from filing because of “deception, fraud, or error”); see also AR 20-21. We therefore remand for further proceedings.

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.
     