US court backs removal order, Indian family faces uncertainty
Administrative removal speeds deportation, leaving non-citizens convicted of serious crimes without a court hearing or chance to plead.
Washington: A US federal appeals court has upheld a final administrative removal order against an Indian national, closing the door on his attempt to challenge the process and underscoring the limited legal options available to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes.
In a nonprecedential order issued on December 15, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied the petition filed by Karanpreet Singh, ruling that the procedural flaws he alleged did not cause him any actual harm.
What began as a short-term stay later took a dramatic turn. In April 2024, Singh pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, a serious federal offense. A US district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison, a punishment that also carried severe immigration consequences.
Following his conviction, the Department of Homeland Security moved quickly. In December 2024, DHS served Singh with a notice of intent to issue a final administrative removal order, charging that his drug conviction qualified as an aggravated felony under US immigration law. Such a classification triggers some of the harshest penalties in the system, including mandatory removal and sharply limited avenues for relief.
Singh responded just three days later. In his filing, he said he wished to be removed to Canada, where he holds permanent resident status, rather than to India. He also argued that his case should be heard by an immigration judge instead of being handled through the expedited administrative removal process. Additionally, he urged the government to issue an immigration detainer rather than a final removal order, saying this would allow him to seek earned time credits under the First Step Act while serving his prison sentence.
About ten weeks later, DHS issued the final administrative removal order. The order directed that Singh be removed to “India and or Canada or to any alternate country prescribed” under US immigration law, leaving the ultimate destination to government discretion.
In reviewing the case, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged Singh’s claims of procedural error but concluded that none of them affected the outcome. The judges emphasized that to succeed, Singh needed to show not just a mistake in the process, but real prejudice caused by that mistake.
The court called this claim “meritless,” noting that eligibility for earned time credits has no bearing on whether a person is removable under immigration law.
Administrative removal allows US authorities to rapidly deport non-citizens convicted of aggravated felonies without a hearing before an immigration judge. Courts have repeatedly held that individuals in this category are barred from most forms of discretionary immigration relief.
For many immigrants, cases like Singh’s highlight how a single criminal conviction can swiftly unravel years of lawful status. Once labeled an aggravated felon, legal defenses narrow dramatically, and removal often becomes a matter of when, not if.