Muna Mohamed Shegow; v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MUNA MOHAMED SHEGOW; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71785
Agency Nos. A075-640-466
A075-640-467
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010 **
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
APR 12 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71785 2
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 Leposki 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 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --