in denying the motion to reopen. First, Perez did not show that exceptional circumstances beyond his control caused his failure to appear at his removal hearing. He relied on incorrect information from his girlfriend that the hearing had been cancelled and he did not attempt to confirm with his attorney or the court that his hearing had actually been cancelled. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § ■ 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (providing that an in ab-sentia order may be rescinded “if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances”); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(l) (“The term 'exceptional circumstances' refers to exceptional circumstances ... beyond the control of the alien.”); compare Singh-Bhathal v. INS, 170 F.3d 943, 946-47 (9th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>), with Lo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 934, 935-36
holding no exceptional circumstance beyond aliens control where he failed to appear at his hearing not because of illness a death in the family or some similarly severe impediment but because he took the word of an immigration consultant over that of the ins holding that the applicant had not demonstrated the government was unable or unwilling to control the perpetrators where he contended that the police failed to investigate his reports but admitted that he did not give the police the names of any suspects because he did not know any specific names and his wife testified that the police investigated the complaints but were ultimately unable to solve the crimes holding that an aliens mistaken belief that he no longer needed to keep his address current was not an exceptional circumstance because it was not beyond his control that his address on file was inaccurate holding that plaintiff could not show that he was disabled because he conceded that he could do his job despite his impairment holding that the juvenile received inadequate notice of a hearing modifying his probation because he received no notice of the hearing or the reasons for it