2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-12-2009 

# Euge ne Eb e ne B i le v

. Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3792

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Eu g e ne Ebe ne B i le v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 828. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/828NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 3792 EUG ENE EBEN E BI LE,

Pet i t i oner v . A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 88- 645- 774) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e W al t erA . D ur l i ng Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J U N E 17, 2009 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , A M B R O and G R E E N B E R G , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: A ugus t12, 2009)

OP I NI ON P E R C UR I AM E ugene Ebene Bi l e pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on Ap p e a l s ( BI A) . F o rth e r e a s o n s b e l o w, we wi l l d i s mi s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.2

O n February10, 2006, B i l e, a nat i ve of Cam er oon, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es us i ng a f ra u d u len t F re n c h p a ss p o rt. In M a rc h 2 0 0 8 , h is a p p lica tio n f o r a sy lu m w a s re f

e rre d to a n I mmi g r a t i o n J u d g e ( I J ) . On J u l y2 , 2 0 0 8 , th e I J d e n i e d Bi l e ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n f o ra s y l u m, w i thh oldi ng of rem ov al , and rel i ef un der the C on ven t i on A gainstT orture. T he IJ al so found B i l e’ s appl i cat i on t o be fr i vol ous . A l though he had w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l dur i ng hi s hear i ng befor e the I J , B i l e appe al ed t o the B I A . A ft ernot i ng thatB i l e had b e e n a d v ise d o f

h is rig h t to a p p e a l an d h a d w a iv e d it, th e B IA d ism iss e d th e a p p e a l. B ile t i me l yf i l e d a p r o s e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. T he governm entar gues thatB i l e fa i l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es by fi l i ng an appe al t o t he B I A i ns t ead of a mot i on t o r eopen w i th the I J . C i t i ng M att erof Shi h, 20 I & N D ec. 697 ( B I A 1993) , the B I A concl uded thati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on over B i l e ’ s a p p e a l b e c a u s e h e h a d wa i v e d h i s r i g h tt o a p p e a l . I n Ma t t e ro f P a t i n o , 2 3 I &N D e c . 7 4 , 7 6 (B IA 2 0 0 1 )(e n b a n c ), th e B IA h e ld th a t an a lien c o u ld c h a llen g e th e v a lid ity of an a ppeal w ai verbyfi l i ng an appe al di r ect l yw i th the B I A and thatthe B I A r et ai ned juri sd ict ion to co n side r th e v ali d ityo f th e w aive r. H o w ev er, B il e d id n o t argu e to th e B IA thathi s w ai verw as notknow i ng and i nt el l i gent , and the B I A di d notaddr es s thi s i s s ue s ua s pont e. See Li n v. A t t orneyG ener al , 543 F. 3d 114 ( 3d C i r . 2008) . I n fac t , B i l e has notaddr es s ed hi s w ai verof appe al i n hi s br i ef be for e us . N ordi d he fi l e a r epl ybr i ef w hen the governm entr ai s ed the i s s ue i n i t s br i ef. E ven undera l i ber al exhaus t i on s t andar d, w e ca nnotconcl ude thatB i l e putthe B I A on not i ce thathe w as chal l engi ng t heT he governm entar gues thatB i l e w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l forhi s ow n s ubs t ant i al 1 b e n e f it. H o w e v e r, itis n o t cle a r to u s h o w B ile b e n e f itt e d f ro m w a iv in g h is rig h t to 3 val i di tyof hi s w ai ver . See H oxha v. H ol der , 559 F. 3d 157 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( hol di ng thatan issue raised in a n o ti ce o f a p p ea l t o the B IA is suf ficien t fo r pu rpo ses o f e x h au sti o n . ) B eca us e B i l e fa i l ed t o exhaus thi s admi ni s tr at i ve r emedi es , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overt he p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W h il e the m erit s o f th e p eti ti o n are n o t bef o re u s, w e d o n o te th at th e IJ’s d e sc rip tio n o f

th e f riv o lo u s f

in d in g w a s m isle a d in g . T h e IJ to ld B ile, “ I’m a lso g o in g to f in d th a t y o u f

iled a f riv o lo u s a p p lica tio n in th a t y o u k n o w in g lyp ro v id e d f a lse o r h ig h ly m i s l eadi ng t es t i m onyt oday . I f thati s uphel d on appea l , thatw oul d pr eventy ou fr om ever gett i ng anyl egal s t atus i n the U nit ed S t at es forever. N ow , aft er I ’m t el l i ng y ou al l of thi s, do y ou w antt o appea l m ydeci s i on ornot ?” C . A . R . at282- 83. B i l e pr ot es t ed thathe had b e e n te llin g th e tru th a n d s a id th a t h e w a s tir e d a n d d id n ’t k n o w if h e w a n te d to a p p e a l. W hen he i ndi cat ed thathe di d notunder s t and the appe al s pr oces s , the I J pr ovi ded a br i ef e x p lan a tio n a n d a sk e d a g a in if B ile w a n ted to a p p e a l. B ile s tate d th a t h e d id n o t w a n t to a p p e a l. T h e IJ th e n f

o u n d th a t B ile h a d k n o w in g lya n d in tellig e n tlyw a iv e d h is rig h t to a p p e a l. T h e IJ s tate d th a t B ile w o u ld b e b a rre d p e rm a n e n tlyf ro m o b tain in g a n ysta tu s in the U ni t ed St at es ever“i f [the fr i vol ous fi ndi ng] i s uphel d on appea l . ” Thi s coul d have l ed B i l e, w ho w as pr ocee di ng pr o s e, t o bel i eve thatthe fr i vol ous nes s fi ndi ng w oul d not b a r h im f ro m e v e r o b tain in g sta tu s u n les s th a t f in d in g w a s a f

f irm e d o n a p p e a l. 1appea l the deni al of r el i ef a nd the fi ndi ng thathe had f i l ed a f r i vol ous appl i cat i on. 4 M or eover , i tappea r s thatB i l e w as notw arned of the cons equenc es of fi l i ng a fr i vol ous a p p l i c a t i o n wh e n h e f

i l e d h i s a s y l u m a p p l i c a t i o n , a s r e q u i r e d b y8 U. S . C. § 1158( d) ( 4) ( A ) , orgi ven an opportuni tyt o acc ountforanydi s cr epanc i es i n hi s t es t i m ony oranyi m pl aus i bl e as pect s of hi s cl ai m . See Luci ana v. A t t orneyG ener al , 502 F. 3d 273, 2 8 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). Forthe above r eas ons , w e w i l l di s m i s s the pet i t i on forr evi ew forl ack of ju risd ictio n . S e e 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (d )(1 ) (A c o u rt m a yre v iew a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l o n ly if “the ali en h as e x h au sted all ad m inistrati v e re m ed ies av ail ab le t o the a li en as o f righ t. ”) H o w e v e r, u n d e r th e c irc u m sta n c e s o f th is c a se , w e stro n g lye n c o u ra g e th e re sp o n d e n t to req u est th e IJ to re co n side r sua sp o n te his d ec isi o n in o rde r t o rec ti fythe e rrors s urr oundi ng the fr i vol ous fi ndi ng, s om e of w hi ch mayhave a ffe ct ed B i l e’ s w ai verof a p p e a l.

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge, D i s s ent i ng B e c a u s e I w o u ld d e te rm in e th a t w e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r B ile ’s a p p e a l, I r es pect ful l ydi s s ent . U nl i ke the maj or i ty , I bel i eve Bi l e exha us t ed hi s admi ni s tr at i ve r e me d i e s . I n myv i e w, th e BI A su a sp o n te deci ded w hetherB i l e’ s appel l at e w ai verw as vol unt aryand i nt el l i gentbydi s cus s i ng j ur i s di ct i on and w ai ver . See Li n v. A t t orney G ener al , 543 F. 3d 114, 119, 123 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( det erm i ni ng thatthe appe l l at e courthadI not e thatthi s cas e conc erns an or al w ai veron the r ecor d i n the cont extof a a s y l um 2 pr ocee di ng, r atherthan a s i gned, w r i t t en w ai ver . T hus , ourr ece ntdeci s i on, R i char ds on v. U ni t ed St at es , 558 F. 3d 216, 219–220 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( di s cus s i ng that , i n a r emoval pr ocee di ng, the al i en bea r s the bur den of pr ovi ng val i di tyw hen the w ai veri s w r i t t en, and d istin g u ish in g U n ited S tate s v . L o p e z -V a sq u e z , 1 F .3 d 7 5 1 , 7 5 3

– 5 4 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ), in w hi ch the N i nth C i r cui tC our tdet erm i ned thatthe G overnm entbear s the bur den w hen the w a iv e r i s o ra l) , d o e s n o t a p p ly h e re . 5 j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth e a p p e a l b e c a u s e th e BI A su a sp o n te con si dered t he IJ’ s adverse cr edi bi l i tydet erm i nat i on) . I tdi s m i s s ed the appe al beca us e B i l e “w as pr evi ous l yadvi s ed of hi s r i ghtt o appea l and cl ear l yel ect ed nott o do s o. ” ( A pp. 2. ) T hus , the cons i der at i on a n d a f f ir m a tio n o f

v a lid ity w a s n e c e s s a ri ly in c lu d e d in its d e c is io n . C o n seq u en tl y , the IJ’s ru li n g that B il e’s w aive r of h is r igh t t o ap p ea l w as v o lun tary and i nt el l i gentw as nots uppor t ed bythe r ecor d befor e the I J . T hus , I w oul d det erm i ne 2 thatB i l e’ s w ai verw as i nval i d and he s houl d notbe depr i ved of a ppel l at e r evi ew . See U ni t ed St at es v. M endoza - L opez, 481 U . S. 828, 840 ( 1987) ( “B eca us e the w ai ver s of [re sp o n d en ts’ ] ri g h ts t o ap p ea l w ere n o t con side red o r i n tel li g en t, resp o n d en ts w ere depr i ved of j udi ci al r evi ew of thei rdeport at i on pr ocee di ng. ”) . A s the maj or i tyexpl ai ned, the I J ’ s des cr i pt i on of the ef fec tof i t s fi ndi ng of fr i vol ous nes s i f uphel d on appea l

— t hat B i l e w oul d be barr ed perm anent l yfr om gett i ng l egal s t atus i n the U ni t ed St at es — w as m i s l eadi ng. I ti s nota s tr et ch t o concl ude thatB i l e, w ho pr ocee ded pro se befo re the IJ, coul d have i nt erpr et ed the I J ’ s s t at ement s as a w arni ng aboutthe cons equenc es of fi l i ng an appe al and that , i n turn, i f he di d notappea l , he w oul d notbe barr ed perm anent l yfr om p o ssiblyo b tai n ing lega l st atus o n the U n it ed S tat es. T h is m isgu ided v iew o f th e B IA6

a p p e a ls p ro c e s s w o u ld c e rt a in ly g iv e a p e titio n e r p a u s e a b o u t p u rs u in g h is c a s e o n a p p e a l. M or eover , I al s o agr ee w i th the maj or i ty ’ s as s es s m entthat“B i l e w as notw arned of the cons equenc es of fi l i ng a fr i vol ous appl i cat i on w hen he f i l ed hi s as y l um appl i cat i on, as r equi r ed by8 U . S. C . § 1158( d) ( 4) ( A ) , orgi ven an opportuni tyt o acc ountforany d isc re p a n c ies in h is te stim o n yo r a n yim p lau sib le a sp e c ts o f h is c laim .” B ile a d m itt e d ly d id n o t un d erstan d the a p p ea ls pro ce ss, exp lai n ed h e w as ti red , an d ex p resse d to the IJ that h is t esti m o n yw as truthf u l. T h ese erro rs cit ed b ythe m ajorityu n d ersc o re tha t B il e’s app el l at e w ai ver w as not kno w i ng and vo l un t ary , and perhap s that the IJ’ s adverse c re d ib ili tyd e ter m in a tio n w a s a n e rro r a s w e ll. G iv e n m yp o sitio n o n w a iv e r, I w o u ld send the case back t o the B IA for con si derat i on of the m eri t s of B i l e’s app eal i n the fi rs t i ns t ance . H oxha v. H ol der , 559 F. 3d 157, 163 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( s t at i ng thatthe courtw as “u n ab le t o rev iew [a n ex h au sted issue ] be ca u se th e B IA fa il ed to ad d ress it ”). B eca us e the maj or i tydoes nots har e myvi ew r egar di ng j ur i s di ct i on t o r eac h the ques t i on of w ai ver , I s uppor ti t s di r ect i on t o r eques tthatthe I J r eopen the ca s e t o cons i der thes e issu es. S ee 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 2 3 (b)(1 ).