
    Muna Mohamed SHEGOW; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71785.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 5, 2010.
    
    Filed April 12, 2010.
    Valerie Curtis-Diop, Esquire, Law Offices Of Valerie Curtis-Diop, Katherine Lesley Curtis, Adila Law Group, Los An-geles, CA, for Petitioners.
    David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, OIL, Ana T. Zablah-Monroe, Esquire, Trial, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Michael Christopher Heyse, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C. CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, I & NS, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Muna Mohamed Shegow, a native and citizen of Somalia, and Salma Abdulkadir Omar, a native of Kenya and citizen of Somalia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying their motion to reopen deportation proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review, and remand.

Although Petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed outside the 180-day period for motions to reopen due to “exceptional circumstances,” that period may be equitably tolled by a showing of ineffective or deceptive legal representation. See Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1193 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). Here, the IJ rejected Petitioners’ ineffective assistance claim against attorney Leposki on the grounds that Leposki failed to file a notice of appearance with the immigration court. We remand for the IJ to consider Petitioners’ evidence that they had in fact hired Lepo-ski to represent them before the immigration court and that Leposki’s failure to enter an appearance was itself evidence of his ineffectiveness.

On remand, the IJ should also consider the conflicting evidence regarding attorney Paek’s purported ineffective assistance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

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.
     