The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a petition for review from a Bangladeshi national whose asylum application was deemed abandoned by an immigration judge, in a decision that highlights the procedural requirements facing asylum seekers in U.S. immigration courts.
Rimon Hussen, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, had sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. However, an immigration judge found that Hussen had abandoned his applications for relief and ordered his removal from the United States.
The Board of Immigration Appeals subsequently dismissed Hussen's appeal from the immigration judge's decision, prompting Hussen to petition the Fifth Circuit for review of the BIA's ruling.
In his petition, Hussen argued that the immigration judge's abandonment finding was erroneous and violated his due process rights. He contended that he did not receive a "full and fair hearing" on his claim for relief and noted that he was not represented by an attorney during the proceedings.
The Fifth Circuit's per curiam opinion, filed Feb. 2, 2026, in case No. 25-60283, indicates that the three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Davis, Jones, and Ho reviewed both the BIA's decision and the underlying immigration judge's ruling. The court noted that where the BIA adopts and affirms an immigration judge's decision, appellate courts may review both decisions under established precedent.
The case underscores the challenges faced by pro se litigants in immigration proceedings, particularly those seeking asylum and other forms of protection from removal. Immigration law requires strict adherence to procedural requirements, and failure to comply with court orders or attend scheduled hearings can result in applications being deemed abandoned.
Abandonment findings in immigration court typically occur when an applicant fails to appear for scheduled hearings without adequate justification or fails to comply with court directives. Once an application is deemed abandoned, the immigration judge may proceed with removal proceedings based on the charges in the Notice to Appear.
The due process arguments raised by Hussen reflect common challenges in immigration proceedings, where individuals often navigate complex legal requirements without legal representation. The right to counsel in immigration proceedings is not guaranteed by the government, unlike in criminal cases, leaving many asylum seekers to represent themselves or rely on pro bono assistance when available.
Hussen's case also highlights the multi-tiered review process in immigration law. After an immigration judge's adverse decision, individuals may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, a body within the Executive Office for Immigration Review that reviews immigration court decisions. If the BIA affirms the immigration judge's ruling, petitioners may seek review in the appropriate federal circuit court of appeals.
The Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and the court frequently handles immigration-related petitions for review given the significant number of immigration cases that originate in these border states.
While the full text of the Fifth Circuit's reasoning was not detailed in the available court documents, the rejection of Hussen's petition suggests the court found insufficient grounds to reverse either the immigration judge's abandonment finding or the BIA's dismissal of his appeal.
The decision comes at a time when immigration courts face significant backlogs, with hundreds of thousands of cases pending nationwide. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reports that immigration cases comprise a substantial portion of federal court dockets, reflecting ongoing challenges in the immigration system.
For asylum seekers like Hussen, the consequences of abandoned applications can be severe, potentially leading to removal to countries where they claim to face persecution. The Convention Against Torture, under which Hussen also sought protection, prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they would face torture.
The case serves as a reminder of the importance of legal representation in immigration proceedings and the need for asylum seekers to comply with all court requirements and deadlines. Immigration attorneys often emphasize that even seemingly minor procedural missteps can have significant consequences in immigration cases.
The Fifth Circuit's decision in *Hussen v. Bondi* reflects the court's deference to immigration judge findings when proper procedures have been followed and adequate justification exists for abandonment determinations. The ruling reinforces the principle that immigration courts must maintain procedural integrity while also highlighting the challenges faced by unrepresented individuals in these complex proceedings.
Unless Hussen seeks further review through a petition for rehearing or other available remedies, the Fifth Circuit's decision will stand, affirming his removal order and the abandonment of his applications for asylum and other relief.