22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T47e,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. *586 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. 36-3.24:T49e,

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.

*586 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.