by counsel was not absolved of responsibility for a missed hearing date because she “could have double-checked the date after the hearing when it was set, or ... could have left instructions with her attorney to call her a day or two before the hearing to make sure that all necessary preparations were in place”). In addition to Kaweesa being distinguishable, the weight of authority generally, as noted above, holds that a mistaken belief as to the correct hearing date does not rise to the level of being an exceptional circumstance. Acquaah has not shown that his mistake as to the correct date for the hearing was in any way beyond his control or of an extraordinary nature comparable to the exceptional circumstances specified by statute. See, e.g., Kasyupa, 252 Fed.Appx. at 108 (<HOLDING>); Chen v. INS, 85 Fed.Appx. 223, 226 (2d
holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal holding that chapter 91 barred assessment appeal by property owner who did not respond because of his mistaken belief that his property was nonincomeproducing holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to require disclosure of witness address because personal safety exception applied noting that defendant knew victims prior address thereby limiting value of victims most current address 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 defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live