A US federal appeals court has upheld a final administrative removal order against an Indian national, ruling that alleged procedural shortcomings during the deportation process did not prejudice his case or affect the outcome.

In a nonprecedential decision issued on December 15, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a petition filed by Karanpreet Singh, an Indian citizen and Canadian permanent resident, who challenged an order issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directing his removal from the United States.

Singh entered the US from Canada in November 2021 on a visitor visa. In April 2024, he pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He was subsequently sentenced to 60 months in prison, a conviction that qualifies as an aggravated felony under US immigration law.

Following the conviction, DHS served Singh with a notice of intent to issue a final administrative removal order in December 2024. The agency charged him as removable based on his aggravated felony conviction, which allows immigration authorities to pursue expedited deportation without a hearing before an immigration judge.

Singh responded to the notice within three days, stating that he wished to be removed to Canada rather than India. He also argued that his case should be heard by an immigration judge and requested that DHS issue an immigration detainer instead of a final removal order. Singh contended that a detainer would allow him to apply for earned time credits under the First Step Act, a federal law aimed at reducing prison sentences for eligible inmates.

Approximately ten weeks later, DHS issued a final removal order stating that Singh could be removed to India, Canada, or another country permitted under immigration law.

In his appeal, Singh claimed that DHS violated his procedural rights in several ways. He argued that authorities failed to provide him with a list of free legal service providers, did not translate the removal notice into Punjabi, denied him additional time to respond, and failed to honor his request to be removed exclusively to Canada.

The appeals court acknowledged that procedural errors may have occurred but emphasized that courts will not overturn agency decisions unless such errors result in actual prejudice. The judges noted that Singh did not dispute his aggravated felony conviction, which made him conclusively removable under US law.

The court further ruled that Singh’s argument regarding his preferred country of removal was premature. It observed that DHS had not yet made a final determination on the destination and that any alleged harm remained speculative at this stage.

The panel also dismissed Singh’s claim that the removal order interfered with his eligibility for First Step Act time credits, finding that the issue was unrelated to his removability and therefore not grounds for vacating the deportation order.

Administrative removal procedures allow US authorities to swiftly deport non-citizens convicted of aggravated felonies without formal immigration court proceedings. Federal courts have repeatedly upheld the legality of this process and have ruled that individuals convicted of such crimes are generally barred from discretionary immigration relief.

By denying Singh’s petition, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed the government’s authority to carry out expedited removals in cases involving serious criminal convictions, underscoring the limited scope of judicial review available in such matters.