
    Maria Bettina SANTIAGO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70474.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007.
    
    Filed June 14, 2007.
    
      Anju Multani, Downey, CA, for Petitioners.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Donald A. Couvillon, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Bettina Santiago and her children, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying then- motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888, 890-91 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Santiago’s motion to reopen for failure to establish “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(b)(5)(C) and 1229a(e)(l). Santiago’s declaration stating that she had chest pain and a medical form reflecting a diagnosis of migraine headaches does not establish that her illness was “serious” within the meaning of the statute. See Celis-Castellano, 298 F.3d at 892 (BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner’s evidence, consisting of a declaration and a medical form, failed to establish that his asthma attack amounted to “exceptional circumstances”).

Santiago’s argument that the IJ did not consider all of the evidence is not supported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     