Case Name: Olivia HERNANDEZ-GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-21
Citations: 324 F. App'x 585
Docket Number: No. 07-70353
Parties: Olivia HERNANDEZ-GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 585–586

Head Matter:
Olivia HERNANDEZ-GUERRERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70353.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2009.
Filed April 21, 2009.
Carlos Ramirez, Esquire, Law Office of Noemi G. Ramirez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Tracie Nicole Jones, Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Olivia Hernandez-Guerrero (Hernandez-Guerrero) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of her appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. Hernandez-Guerrero specifically sought to rescind the removal order entered against her in absentia.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hernandez-Guerrero's motion to reopen. Hernandez-Guerrero overslept and missed her removal hearing as a result of her late-night work schedule and prescription medication. This evidence does not compel the finding that Hernandez-Guerrero's failure to appear was the result of "exceptional circumstances." See Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 891-92 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that the BIA acted within its discretion in denying a motion to reopen supported only by general evidence of an asthma attack).
Given our disposition, we need not address Hernandez-Guerrero's request for cancellation of removal.
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.