The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied an immigration petition from Oscar Antonio Bermudes-Osorto, a native and citizen of El Salvador who was ordered removed in absentia after missing his scheduled hearing in September 2004. The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to deny his motion to reopen proceedings and rescind the removal order.
The case, filed as No. 24-60645 and decided on Feb. 3, 2026, represents the latest chapter in a decades-long immigration matter. Bermudes-Osorto had petitioned for review of the BIA's decision affirming an Immigration Judge's denial of his 2023 motion to reopen his proceedings and rescind the in absentia removal order.
According to court documents, Bermudes-Osorto was originally ordered removed in absentia in September 2004 when he failed to appear at his scheduled immigration hearing. An in absentia removal order is issued when an individual fails to appear for their immigration proceedings without reasonable cause, allowing the Immigration Judge to proceed with the case and enter a removal order in the person's absence.
Nearly two decades later, in 2023, Bermudes-Osorto filed a motion seeking to reopen his case and rescind the in absentia removal order. His motion was filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), a federal statute that allows individuals to seek rescission of in absentia removal orders under certain circumstances.
The Immigration Judge denied Bermudes-Osorto's motion, prompting him to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA, which serves as the highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, affirmed the Immigration Judge's decision, leading to Bermudes-Osorto's petition to the Fifth Circuit.
In his petition to the federal appeals court, Bermudes-Osorto argued that the BIA abused its discretion when it denied his motion to reopen and rescind the removal order. He also asserted that the BIA committed legal error by failing to consider all of the arguments and evidence he presented in his brief to the board.
The case was decided by a three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Jones, Duncan, and Douglas. The court issued a per curiam opinion, meaning the decision was issued by the court as a whole rather than attributed to a specific judge. The opinion was not designated for publication, as indicated by the court's notation referencing Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, which governs unpublished opinions.
The Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and it frequently handles immigration appeals given the region's proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border. The court regularly reviews decisions from the BIA involving removal proceedings, asylum claims, and other immigration matters.
The case involved U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi as the respondent, representing the federal government's position in the immigration matter. The Attorney General typically serves as the respondent in immigration appeals, as the Department of Justice oversees immigration enforcement through agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
Bermudes-Osorto's case highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking to reopen immigration proceedings years or even decades after initial removal orders. Federal immigration law provides limited opportunities for individuals to challenge in absentia removal orders, typically requiring them to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or that they did not receive proper notice of their original hearing.
The statutory provision cited in Bermudes-Osorto's motion, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii), allows for rescission of in absentia removal orders in specific circumstances, including when the individual demonstrates that the failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances beyond their control or that they did not receive proper notice of the hearing.
While the full details of Bermudes-Osorto's arguments were not disclosed in the available court documents, his petition appears to have challenged both the procedural aspects of the BIA's review and the substantive denial of his motion to reopen. His claims that the BIA failed to consider all evidence and arguments suggest he believed the board's review was inadequate or incomplete.
The Fifth Circuit's denial of the petition means that Bermudes-Osorto's 2004 removal order remains in effect. The court's decision closes this avenue of appeal, though individuals in immigration proceedings may have other potential remedies available depending on their specific circumstances.
This case reflects broader patterns in immigration law, where individuals who missed original proceedings face significant procedural hurdles in attempting to reopen their cases. The substantial time gap between the original 2004 removal order and the 2023 motion to reopen is not uncommon in immigration proceedings, where individuals may remain in the United States for years before immigration authorities locate them or they seek to address their legal status.
The decision was filed on Feb. 3, 2026, and assigned Agency No. A098 120 797 for administrative tracking purposes.