US federal court upholds removal order against Indian national

Washington, Dec 17 (IANS) A US federal appeals court has denied a petition by an Indian national challenging a final administrative removal order issued by the Department of Homeland Security, ruling that alleged procedural errors did not cause him any prejudice.

In a nonprecedential order issued on December 15, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said petitioner Karanpreet Singh “has not demonstrated any prejudice arising from the alleged errors,” and therefore denied his request to vacate the removal order.

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 a federal district court sentenced him 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 based on his conviction for an aggravated felony.

Singh responded three days later, saying he wanted to be removed to Canada, arguing that his case should proceed before an immigration judge rather than through expedited administrative removal, and urging the government to issue a detainer rather than a final order so he could apply for earned time credits under the First Step Act.

Ten 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 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, failing to grant additional time to respond, and failing to order removal solely to his designated country. The court said that even if procedural errors occurred, Singh could not obtain relief without showing prejudice.

“Courts … do not set aside agencies’ decisions unless mistakes cause prejudice,” the panel said, adding that Singh did not dispute his aggravated felony conviction and was therefore “conclusively presumed to be subject to removal.”

The judges also rejected Singh’s claim that the order improperly ignored his request to be removed only to Canada, noting that the Department has not yet determined his country of removal and any alleged harm was “speculative.”

Finally, the court said Singh’s argument that the removal order deprived him of First Step Act time credits was “meritless,” as it did not relate to his removability.

Administrative removal allows US authorities to expedite the deportation of non-citizens convicted of aggravated felonies without a hearing before an immigration judge. Courts have consistently held that such individuals are barred from most forms of discretionary immigration relief.