decision); id. at 451-52 (rejecting the argument that removal violated the Equal Protection Clause because of a difference in the timing and location of proceedings); id. at 452 (finding an argument based on international law waived). Rather, he contends that “summary decision on this case would result in overlooking legal arguments” that were not presented in Salazar-Regino. The relief Petitioner seeks would require us to act contrary to prior precedent. However, one panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel decision. See id. at 448 (court obliged to follow the panel decision in Hernandez-Avalos); Dahl v. Akin, 630 F.2d 277, 282 n. 4 (5th Cir.1980) (“[I]n this Circuit, one panel cannot overrule another”); Williams v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc., 598 F.2d 1371, 1374 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Because we are obliged to follow
holding ajbsent en banc reconsideration we are bound by prior decisions of this circuit recognizing that a later en banc court may overrule an earlier en banc opinion holding that we are bound by prior panel opinions until they are overruled or abrogated by the supreme court or this court sitting en banc holding that one panel of this court is bound by the precedent of an earlier panel absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision of the supreme court holding that circuit court decisions bind circuit unless and until overturned by the court en banc or by higher authority