Withholding of Removal: ICE Detains USF Nursing Professor

A 2013 court order bars ICE from deporting Ann Lawani to Nigeria. It does not bar detention or removal to a third country, and her case shows the gap.

A grant of withholding of removal kept Ann Lawani from being sent back to Nigeria for 13 years, but it did not keep her out of immigration detention. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested the 39-year-old University of San Francisco nursing professor at her home in Lodi, Calif., on Sept. 16, and eight weeks later she remains in custody in Louisiana while the Department of Homeland Security says it will hold her pending removal. Her case, first reported by The New York Times, shows how far apart a protection from deportation and a right to remain can be.

The timing matters. DHS has signaled that a work permit and a long work history do not take someone off the enforcement list, and the administration has leaned on third-country removals, the one route withholding does not close. Rep. Josh Harder (D-Calif.), whose district includes Lodi, wrote to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin on Oct. 20 that ICE had allegedly tried to deport her to an undisclosed third country, Stocktonia and the SF Standard reported. DHS has not publicly addressed that claim.

Lawani leads USF’s master’s nursing program, according to the SF Standard, and also works as a nurse at John Muir Health. After her arrest she was moved through facilities in Stockton, Bakersfield and El Paso before reaching Louisiana, The Stockton Record reported.

Two accounts, one order

DHS and Lawani’s supporters describe her case very differently, but their accounts fit together. A DHS spokesperson said she entered legally on June 7, 2007, on a temporary basis and overstayed by failing to leave by July 6, 2007. The department told the Record that she “received due process and was issued a final order of removal on August 6, 2013.”

Her attorney, Natalia Vieira Santana, told ABC10 that the judge issued a withholding order the same day, the Record reported. The SF Standard and Stocktonia, citing the Times, reported that the judge denied asylum but ruled she could not be sent to Nigeria because she more likely than not faced persecution there.

Both can be true, because that is how withholding works. An immigration judge enters a removal order and then withholds its execution as to one country. The order stays on the books. Withholding under section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a higher showing than asylum and, once met, is mandatory. But it offers no path to a green card, no status for family members and no permission to travel. Grantees may work under 8 C.F.R. 274a.12(a)(10), and Lawani’s permit runs through 2029, according to her attorney and the Times account relayed by Stocktonia.

A DHS spokesperson told the SF Standard that “work authorization does not confer legal status in the U.S.” That is accurate as a statement of law, and also incomplete: a withholding grantee lacks lawful status but holds a judge’s order the government must honor as to Nigeria.

Where withholding of removal stops

Section 241(b)(2) of the INA lets DHS remove a person to other countries, including any country willing to accept her, and withholding as to Nigeria does not bar that. In June 2025 the Supreme Court, in DHS v. D.V.D., stayed a lower-court order that had required notice and a chance to raise fear claims before third-country removals, letting those deportations resume while litigation continues. Courts are still sorting out the limits, as a recent ruling on a third-country deportation return shows.

The practical constraint is finding a country that will take her. Until DHS does, the question is how long it can hold her. Post-order detention falls under INA section 241(a)(6), which the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) read to allow custody only as long as reasonably necessary to carry out removal, treating six months as presumptively reasonable. After that, a detainee who shows no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future can force the government to justify continued custody. For Lawani, that mark falls in mid-March 2027. In Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (2022), the Court held the statute does not require bond hearings for people held under that provision.

No outlet has reported a habeas petition. Any challenge to her custody would generally have to be filed where she is held, before a federal court in Louisiana rather than California. Harder asked ICE to release her under an order of supervision, the Record reported, a decision that rests with ICE. Outcomes in similar cases vary: a federal judge ordered a UC Berkeley student released after faulting ICE’s procedures, while a University of Maryland valedictorian arrested at a check-in remains detained on a 2021 order.

The open questions are whether DHS names a third country, whether that country agrees, and whether Lawani gets a chance to raise a fear claim about it before any flight. Those answers will matter to other withholding grantees who have treated the order as permission to stay.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds an LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Diego and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts