Facing deportation, Nigerian nun in south Texas speaks out
Sister Leticia Ugboaja, a Nigerian nun and registered nurse, was briefly detained by ICE in McAllen, Texas, on June 28, 2026, and released after intervention by officials. She expressed fear, stress, and hope at a press conference, noting the emotional impact of being stopped while heading to Mass. Her lawyer explained that she had protection from removal to Nigeria under the UN Convention Against Torture, but remains under a final order of removal, causing confusion over her status. Sister Leticia highlighted that others with similar protection face uncertainty and called for the chance to be heard before detention. The incident underscores challenges faced by immigrants with humanitarian relief in the U.S. immigration enforcement system.
2 months ago
Sister Leticia Ugboaja, a Nigerian Catholic nun and registered nurse who has lived and worked in McAllen, Texas for more than a decade, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while walking to Sunday Mass on June 28, 2026 and released a few hours later after intervention by elected officials. She described the encounter as frightening, noting the agents were armed and that she was denied the chance to attend Mass and receive Communion before being taken into custody 1.
Her attorney, Carlos García Moctezuma, explained that an immigration judge denied her 2019 asylum claim but granted her protection from removal under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, finding she would likely face torture if returned to Nigeria. That protection bars deportation to Nigeria, yet she remains under a final order of removal and was targeted for a possible third‑country transfer, a practice currently being litigated in federal courts 2.
Ugboaja emphasized that she has complied with all immigration requirements, holds a valid work authorization, and has never missed a required appointment. She and her lawyer argue she is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest any removal, and they have asked that no ankle monitor be imposed at her upcoming July 28 check‑in with immigration officials 3.
The nun’s detention sparked public outcry. Rep. Henry Cuellar and other congressional members contacted DHS officials, leading to her release, and Cuellar criticized the manner of the arrest, calling it inappropriate for a religious figure 1. Sister Leticia’s press conference on July 23 highlighted that she is not alone; many individuals with similar legal protections are “languishing” without notice or a chance to be heard, and she called for due process before any enforcement action 2 3.
Key Points
Contextual Background
The incident occurs amid heightened immigration enforcement under the Trump administration, including operations near places of worship, and ongoing litigation over third‑country removal practices 1 2.
Investigate Catholic Church’s stance on immigration enforcement
The Catholic Church does not take an “open borders” position, nor does it treat immigration enforcement as an end in itself. Its consistent stance is that governments have a legitimate responsibility to control borders and protect public safety, but that enforcement must be ordered to the common good, must be proportionate and humane, and must never erase immigrants’ equal dignity, due process, and access to protection for refugees.
Catholic teaching affirms that nations have a right to manage irregular migration. The USCCB summarizes this in explicitly Catholic terms: Catholic teaching provides that countries “have the right to take measures against irregular immigration, with due respect for the human rights of all.”
Relatedly, Catholic social teaching recognizes that public authorities have responsibilities tied to the common good, including controlling migration “with a view to the requirements of the common good.”
Even while allowing that some border security can be legitimate, Catholic bodies (notably the USCCB) oppose an approach that prioritizes deterrence and punishment alone. The USCCB states it “maintains no blanket policy of opposing all measures designed to increase border security,” but it “opposes an enforcement-only approach to immigration that prioritizes deterrence and unjust penalties.”
In practice, the USCCB says it evaluates proposals case-by-case and often opposes measures when they:
The USCCB does not reject border security per se. It explicitly cautions against mixing immigration enforcement with other unrelated elements that jeopardize family unity or harm children, and it calls for any border security measures to be “proportional and humanely implemented, with the inclusion of appropriate training and oversight components.”
So the Catholic criterion is not “none at all,” but rather: enforcement must be proportionate (matching threats and needs), humane (respecting dignity), and accountable (training/oversight).
Pope Francis makes the Church’s operational direction very clear: “it is not through more restrictive laws” and “it is not with the militarization of borders” and “not with rejection” that the Church’s humanitarian goals are reached.
Instead, he emphasizes expanding safe and legal access routes and building migration governance based on “justice, fraternity and solidarity,” while combating human trafficking and stopping criminal traffickers.
A key area where “enforcement posture” becomes concrete is detention. The USCCB supports an enforcement system that “defaults to community-based alternatives to detention (ATD), particularly those that utilize case management and direct NGO service provision.”
The moral logic is expressed plainly: “Nearly everyone navigating their immigration case should be able to do so from home with their families and in their community, not behind bars in immigration detention.”
The USCCB connects community-based case management to both humanitarian and procedural goals: it argues that such services improve compliance (reported as “between 96 and 100 percent”), help asylum seekers navigate court processes, reduce backlogs, and “strengthen the integrity of the system.”
(Important term, simplified: case management means structured guidance and support so a person can meet procedural requirements and attend hearings—rather than being warehoused while awaiting outcomes.)
Pope Francis addresses a major moral problem: measures that blur categories—treating “illegal status” as “criminality.” He writes that “the rightly formed conscience cannot fail to make a critical judgment and express its disagreement with any measure that tacitly or explicitly identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.”
Pope Francis also affirms a legitimate public-safety concern: “one must recognize the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes.”
But he draws a second moral line: even when deportation policies are designed under the banner of order, they can inflict grave dignity-harm on people who left due to “extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment.”
In other words: enforcement is morally constrained by what kind of person is affected and why—and by whether the outcome respects human dignity and vulnerability.
Catholic ethics frames this as an authenticity test: “an authentic rule of law is verified precisely in the dignified treatment that all people deserve, especially the poorest and most marginalized.”
He adds that the common good is advanced when government welcomes, protects, promotes, and integrates the most fragile—without abandoning ordered legal migration.
Catholic doctrine also includes duties on the immigrant side. The Catechism states that political authorities may set juridical conditions, and immigrants are obliged “to respect… the heritage of the country that receives them,” to “obey its laws,” and to “assist in carrying civic burdens.”
This underwrites why Catholic approaches do not mean lawlessness or refusal of lawful order.
At the same time, Catholic principles require that vulnerable migrants—especially refugees/asylum seekers—receive protection, and that policies not make access to such protection practically impossible. Pope Francis links the humanitarian critique directly to rejecting “more restrictive laws” and “militarization of borders,” arguing that safer legal routes and justice-based governance prevent tragedies.
From these sources, the Catholic stance tends to recommend enforcement that is:
The Church critiques enforcement approaches that:
Catholic teaching supports real, lawful border control and acknowledges a government’s duty to protect public safety. But it rejects an “enforcement-only” philosophy—especially approaches that are punitive, inhumane, militarized, or that blur unlawful status with criminality—and it insists that policy must uphold dignity, due process, family unity, and access to protection for those fleeing persecution and serious harm.