US Deportation Order: Indian National Loses Legal Bid
Washington, Dec 17: A federal appeals court in the United States has dismissed a legal challenge filed by an Indian national against a final administrative removal order issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), holding that the alleged procedural lapses did not result in any actual harm to the petitioner.
In an unpublished ruling dated December 15, a three-member bench of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concluded that Karanpreet Singh failed to prove that the claimed procedural shortcomings caused him prejudice. On that basis, the court declined to overturn the removal order.
Singh, an Indian citizen who holds permanent residency in Canada, entered the United States from Canada in November 2021 on a visitor visa.
In April 2024, he admitted guilt to a charge of conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. Following his conviction, a federal district court sentenced him to five years in prison.
Subsequently, in December 2024, DHS issued Singh a notice expressing its intention to pass a final administrative removal order, citing his conviction for an aggravated felony as grounds for deportation.
Responding within three days, Singh requested removal to Canada and argued that his case should be heard by an immigration judge instead of being processed under expedited administrative removal procedures.
He also urged authorities to issue a detainer rather than a final removal order, stating that this would allow him to seek earned time credits under the First Step Act.
Around ten weeks later, DHS finalized the removal order, directing that Singh be deported to “India and or Canada or to any alternate country prescribed” under applicable immigration laws.
Before the appellate court, Singh contended that DHS violated his procedural rights by not supplying a list of free legal aid providers, failing to translate the notice into Punjabi, denying him additional time to respond, and not limiting the removal destination to Canada alone.
The court, however, ruled that even if such procedural defects existed, relief could not be granted in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.
The judges emphasized that courts do not invalidate agency decisions unless errors have a tangible impact. They noted that Singh did not contest his aggravated felony conviction and was therefore “conclusively presumed” to be removable under immigration law.
The panel also dismissed Singh’s objection regarding his preferred country of removal, pointing out that DHS has not yet made a final determination on that issue and that any claimed injury was speculative at this stage.
In addition, the court rejected Singh’s argument that the removal order interfered with his eligibility for sentence reductions under the First Step Act, stating that such concerns were unrelated to the question of deportability.
Administrative removal procedures permit US authorities to fast-track the deportation of non-citizens convicted of aggravated felonies without proceedings before an immigration judge.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that individuals subject to such removal are ineligible for most discretionary forms of immigration relief. (Edited)
