The Board of Immigration Appeals has held that it will not apply the Ninth Circuit's rule that factual averments in an affidavit supporting a motion to reopen must be accepted unless they are inherently unbelievable, because the rule conflicts with the Supreme Court's decisions in INS v. Abudu and Garland v. Ming Dai. The Board explained that it generally follows circuit precedent but must follow Supreme Court precedent when the two conflict. Applying that standard, the Board found no exceptional circumstances excusing the respondent's failure to appear. DHS had personally served him with a notice to appear containing the hearing date and time and explained its contents to him in Spanish, so his declaration that he expected a later hearing notice was inconsistent with the record and not credible.
The full text of Matter of J-E-D-C- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1466896/dl?inline