With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen proceedings in which she was removed in absentia. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. de Martinez v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 759, 761 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Metzala’s motion to reopen because she failed to establish “exceptional circumstances.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (b)(5)(C)®; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). Metzala’s contention that she and her attorney both misread the date of the hearing is unavailing. See Valencia-Fragoso v. INS, 321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Garcia v. INS, 222 F.3d 1208, 1209 (9th

A: holding that the exceptional circumstances test does not apply to declaratory judgment actions
B: holding that confusion as to a hearing time does not amount to exceptional circumstances
C: holding in a twopage unpublished opinion without supporting caselaw that exceptional circumstances existed where an alien misunderstood a court interpreter to say that his hearing date was a week later than the date of the actual hearing
D: holding that the mechanical failure of the petitioners car on the way to the hearing did not constitute exceptional circumstances where petitioners returned home instead of finding transportation to the hearing and made only a cursory effort to contact the court
B.