US appeals court rejects drug trafficker Sandeep Singh’s deportation challenge
Washington: A US appeals court has rejected a challenge by Sandeep Singh, a convicted drug trafficker, to his removal from the United States.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Singh’s petition on January 9. The court held that alleged procedural errors by immigration authorities did not affect the outcome of the case.
Singh had challenged a final administrative removal order issued by the Department of Homeland Security. He argued that the department violated immigration rules during the process.
The court disagreed. Judges said agency decisions cannot be overturned unless errors cause prejudice. Singh failed to meet that standard, the court said.
Singh is a permanent resident of Canada and holds an Indian passport. He entered the United States from Canada in November 2021 on a visitor visa.
In April 2024, Singh pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. A federal court in Michigan sentenced him to 60 months in prison.
Following the conviction, immigration authorities initiated expedited removal proceedings. Singh was charged as removable based on an aggravated felony conviction.
Singh objected. He said his case should go before an immigration judge, not be decided administratively. He also asked to be removed to Canada instead of India.
He further requested that authorities issue only a detainer. That, he said, would allow him to use time credits under the First Step Act for early release.
The department rejected those requests.
It issued a final removal order in December 2024. The order initially listed India as the destination. The department later amended it to name Canada.
Singh did not dispute his drug conviction. Because of that conviction, the court said, he is conclusively removable and barred from discretionary relief.
Under US immigration law, noncitizens convicted of aggravated felonies are subject to fast-track removal procedures that limit judicial review and bar most forms of discretionary relief. Federal courts have repeatedly held that procedural errors alone are insufficient to overturn such orders unless the individual can show that the errors changed the outcome of the case.