Should I review for a new journal whose publisher is unjustifiably listed in Beall's list of predatory publishers?

I received a review request from an open access journal, which is brand new. It has published about 10 articles so far. The articles seem to be of mediocre quality but do not seem to plagiarize other articles. The journal has all important sections and features in place (review/editorial process, ethics, editorial board, wave waiver policies, working DOIs and article metrics, etc.). However, the publisher of such journal is in Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. As it is the case of many publishers listed there, the publisher is unjustifiably included in the list. There are no posts (as far as I know) explaining why it ended there. Most of Beall's criteria for determining predatory open access publishers do not seem to apply in this case.

By judging the name of the journal, the aims and scopes, and the abstract of the article, it seems that the review request per se is legit.

I looked at related questions, e.g., Should I accept review requests from dubious journals?, Is it a good idea to cite paper from publisher listed in Beall’s list, and How to identify predatory publishers/journals. The present question seems novel enough to me--it looks different from the one in the first link. Even though I am quite sure about what to do, I am asking this question with the hope that it (and the answers) will be beneficial for the visitors.