Eugene Bile v. Attorney General United States, 693 F. App'x 170

Eugene Ebene Bile, a Cameroonian national, entered the U.S. in 2006 using a fraudulent French passport and applied for asylum alleging political persecution.
In July 2008 an Immigration Judge (IJ) found Bile not credible, denied asylum/withholding/CAT relief, and found his asylum application frivolous; the IJ reported Bile waived appeal.
Bile appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which dismissed the appeal based on the appellate waiver; Bile’s subsequent Third Circuit petition was dismissed in 2009 for failure to exhaust the waiver challenge.
The Third Circuit suggested Bile seek sua sponte reopening from the IJ because the IJ’s description of the frivolous finding was potentially misleading.
Six years later (October 2015) Bile filed a motion to reopen; the IJ denied it, and the BIA dismissed the appeal as untimely and for lack of exceptional circumstances given Bile’s unexplained six-year delay.
The Third Circuit dismissed Bile’s petition for review, finding no legal error in the BIA’s discretionary denial of sua sponte reopening.

Issue	Bile's Argument	Government/BIA's Argument	Held
Whether the court can review BIA denial of sua sponte reopening for legal error	Bile contended the BIA relied on incorrect legal premises and thus review is permitted	BIA argued sua sponte reopening is committed to its unfettered discretion and is normally unreviewable	Court: Limited review permitted only to detect legal error; none here, so dismissal for lack of jurisdiction
Whether alleged due process errors surrounding the frivolous finding constitute "exceptional circumstances" warranting sua sponte reopening	Bile asserted IJ errors and the misleading description of the frivolous finding created exceptional circumstances meriting reopening	BIA acknowledged possible error but emphasized discretion and the need for diligence; Bile’s delay undermined equitable relief	Court: Due process concerns do not compel sua sponte reopening; BIA permissibly weighed them and denied reopening for lack of due diligence
Whether Bile’s six-year delay barred equitable relief (timeliness/due diligence)	Bile did not adequately explain the six-year delay after the Third Circuit’s suggestion to seek reopening	BIA argued the unexplained delay showed lack of due diligence and justified denial	Court: BIA properly considered the delay; unexplained six-year lapse justified denial of sua sponte reopening

Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472 (3d Cir.) (BIA’s decision to reopen sua sponte is committed to its unfettered discretion)
Pllumi v. Attorney General, 642 F.3d 155 (3d Cir.) (court’s review of BIA denial of sua sponte reopening is limited to detecting legal error)