Washington, Dec 17 (NationPress) A federal appeals court in the United States has rejected the appeal of an Indian national contesting a final administrative removal order from the Department of Homeland Security. The court determined that the alleged procedural missteps did not result in any significant disadvantage to him.

In a non-precedential ruling issued on December 15, a panel of three judges from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit stated that petitioner Karanpreet Singh "has not shown any detriment stemming from the claimed errors," leading to the denial of his appeal to annul the removal order.

Singh, a citizen of India and a permanent resident of Canada, entered the US from Canada in November 2021 utilizing a visitor visa. In April 2024, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, resulting in a federal district court sentencing him to 60 months in prison.

In December 2024, the Department of Homeland Security issued Singh a notice of intent for a final administrative removal order, citing his conviction for an aggravated felony as the basis for his removal.

Singh responded just three days later, indicating his desire to be sent back to Canada. He argued that his case should be heard by an immigration judge instead of following an expedited administrative removal process and appealed for a detainer to be issued, allowing him to apply for earned time credits under the First Step Act.

Approximately ten weeks later, the Department finalized the removal order, mandating Singh’s deportation to "India and/or Canada or any other designated country" as stipulated by immigration law.

During the appeals process, Singh contended that the Department had breached his procedural rights by not providing a list of free legal services, failing to translate the notice into Punjabi, denying him extra time to respond, and not ordering his removal exclusively to his chosen country. The court clarified that even if procedural errors had occurred, Singh could not secure relief without demonstrating actual prejudice.

“Courts … do not annul agency decisions unless errors result in prejudice,” remarked the panel, noting that Singh did not contest his aggravated felony conviction, which meant he was "conclusively presumed to be subject to removal."

The judges also dismissed Singh’s assertion that the order disregarded his request for removal solely to Canada, emphasizing that the Department had yet to finalize his country of removal and any potential harm was merely “speculative.”

Lastly, the court deemed Singh’s claim regarding the removal order affecting his First Step Act time credits as "meritless," since it did not pertain to his removability.

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