told Acquaah he had done — the motion would have been granted. The key issue on appeal is thus whether Aequaah’s good faith but mistaken belief as to the correct date qualifies as an exceptional circumstance. Although this court has not yet determined what constitutes an exceptional circumstance where an alien has received proper notice of a removal hearing, other circuit courts have set a high threshold and are disinclined to view misunderstandings and communication errors as being sufficient. See, e.g., Dominguez-Capistran v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 876, 877-78 (8th Cir.2006) (determining that an attorney’s “poor calendaring and failure to personally remind” the alien of her hearing date was not an exceptional circumstance); Uriostegui v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 660, 663-64 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. INS, 976 F.2d 786, 788-90 (1st
holding that working conditions were not intolerable to the point of coercion where supervisors yelled at employee told her she was a poor manager gave her poor performance evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back holding that relative to the threat that she posed physically separating tina cortez from her telephone taking her by the arm  escorting her from her home taking the keys to her home and locking the door and  placing her in the locked back seat of a patrol car was excessive force as well as an unlawful seizure under the fourth amendment holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that an aliens misunderstanding as to the correct month of her hearing as told to her in spanish her native language by an interpreter was not an exceptional circumstance holding that allegations that employees supervisors yelled at her told her she was a poor manager and gave her poor evaluations chastised her in front of customers and once required her to work with an injured back were insufficient to state title vii claim