WASHINGTON, D.C. — A U.S. federal appeals court has upheld a final administrative removal order against an Indian national, rejecting his claim that procedural flaws in the process violated his rights.
In a nonprecedential order issued on December 15, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied a petition filed by Karanpreet Singh, ruling that he failed to show any prejudice resulting from the alleged procedural errors. The court said Singh “has not demonstrated any prejudice arising from the alleged errors,” and declined to vacate the removal order issued by the Department of Homeland Security.
Singh, a citizen of India and a permanent resident of Canada, entered the United States from Canada in November 2021 on a visitor visa. In April 2024, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and was sentenced by a federal district court to 60 months in prison.
In December 2024, the Department of Homeland Security served Singh with a notice of intent to issue a final administrative removal order, charging him as removable due to his conviction for an aggravated felony. Singh responded three days later, stating that he wished to be removed to Canada. He also argued that his case should be heard by an immigration judge rather than handled through expedited administrative removal, and asked the government to issue a detainer instead of a final order so he could apply for earned time credits under the First Step Act.
About 10 weeks later, the Department issued a final removal order directing that Singh be removed to “India and or Canada or to any alternate country prescribed” under U.S. immigration law.
Before the appeals court, Singh argued that the Department violated his procedural rights by failing to provide a list of free legal services, failing to translate the notice into Punjabi, denying him additional time to respond, and not limiting removal to his preferred destination of Canada.
The court said that even if procedural errors had occurred, Singh was not entitled to relief without showing that the mistakes caused actual harm. The judges noted that Singh did not dispute his aggravated felony conviction and was therefore “conclusively presumed to be subject to removal.”
The panel also rejected Singh’s argument that the order improperly ignored his request to be removed only to Canada, stating that the Department has not yet made a final determination on the country of removal and that any alleged harm was speculative at this stage.
In addition, the court dismissed Singh’s claim that the removal order interfered with his ability to earn time credits under the First Step Act, ruling that the issue was unrelated to his removability.
Administrative removal allows U.S. authorities to expedite the deportation of non-citizens convicted of aggravated felonies without a hearing before an immigration judge. Courts have consistently held that individuals subject to such removal are ineligible for most forms of discretionary immigration relief. (Source: IANS)
