MEMORANDUM **
Mohit Mohit petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the immigration judges denial of his motion to reopen his in absentia removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction over such petitions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review them for an abuse of discretion, reversing the BIAs factual findings “only if the evidence compels a different result.” Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890–91 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). We deny the petition.
To reopen his removal proceedings, Mohit needed to show that “exceptional circumstances,” like a “serious illness,” prevented his attendance. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), (e)(1). But even accepting his evidence at face value, it does not compel the conclusion that he suffered from a statutorily serious illness at the time of his May 20 hearing. The doctors note, dated May 23, cursorily states “off work May 18–24.” Mohits declaration relates only that he had difficulty breathing, standing up, and walking, and that he relied on Surender Kumar, a roommate, for care. Kumars declaration is similarly vague, stating that Mohit had a “cough and temperature” and was “unable to stand and walk.” Kumar adds that the doctor described Mohit as “disabled” and provided him with “pills and medicine.” And while Mohit declares that he was under the doctors “care and supervision” from May 18–24, Kumar notes only two visits to the doctor, one on the 18th and the other on the 23rd.
Given the lack of detail, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in deeming Mohits evidence insufficient. See Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 890–92 (denying a similar petition even though the petitioners affidavit stated he experienced a severe asthma attack that rendered him unable to leave the house); In re J-P-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 33, 34–35 (BIA 1998) (requiring detailed, rather than conclusory, evidence of an illnesss cause, severity, or treatment). Mohit, moreover, never notified DHS of his illness or inability to attend his hearing, which undermines his claim. See Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 892. Finally, we do not consider Mohits notice-related arguments because he failed to exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED.