South Texas nun still at risk of third-country removal following ICE check-in, attorney says
Sister Leticia Ugboaja, a Nigerian Catholic nun and nurse, faces possible third‑country removal after a July 28 ICE check‑in in Harlingen, Texas, according to her lawyer. Her attorney noted that although she has protection from removal to Nigeria, she remains under a final removal order and could be deported to another country, a situation he finds concerning. The nun was briefly detained on June 28 while walking to Mass, released the same day, and has not missed any immigration appointments; her next check‑in is set for Jan. 28, 2027. Her lawyer expressed relief that she was not detained or required to wear an ankle monitor during the check‑in, but said they are exploring all legal alternatives. Catholic Charities, local church leaders, and Rep. Henry Cuellar highlighted the emotional impact on the nun and helped secure her release.
about 2 months ago
Sister Leticia Ugboaja, a Nigerian Catholic nun and registered nurse who has lived in the United States for nearly two decades, remains under a final order of removal despite having been granted protection from removal to Nigeria under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. After a routine ICE check‑in on July 28 2026 in Harlingen, Texas, her attorney warned that the government could still pursue “third‑country removal,” a possibility that keeps her immigration future uncertain 1 2.
Sister Leticia Ugboaja is a member of the Daughters of Mary Mother of Mercy and works as a nurse at South Texas Health System. In 2019 an immigration judge denied her asylum claim but later granted her protection from removal to Nigeria, citing a substantial risk of torture if she were returned 1. This protection bars deportation to Nigeria but does not cancel the underlying final order of removal, leaving open the possibility of being sent to a third country 2.
Sister Norma Pimentel, executive director of Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley, described the situation as “very difficult” for Sister Ugboaja, noting her emotional distress and the strong support from the local Catholic community. Prayer vigils, rosary gatherings, and public statements have been organized, with clergy such as Father Isaac E. Erondu leading prayers at the ICE office 1 2.
Rep. Henry Cuellar (D‑TX) intervened after the initial June 28 2026 detention, helping secure her same‑day release 1. Pimentel and other advocates have called for a more humane immigration process, emphasizing that the case does not involve criminal activity 2.
While Sister Ugboaja is currently free to continue her nursing and ministry work, the threat of third‑country removal remains. Her legal team is assessing options, and the community continues to rally in support, hoping to influence ICE’s decision before the next check‑in in early 2027 1 2.*
Assess Catholic doctrine on sanctuary versus U.S. immigration law
Catholic doctrine does not give a one-size-fits-all political endorsement or condemnation of “sanctuary” in the civil-legal sense. Instead, it evaluates actions by (1) the human right/duty to protect persons in danger, (2) the duty to respect the rule of law, and **(3) whether measures are pursued justly and humanely (including respect for due process) rather than by hostility or indifference.
Catholic social teaching emphasizes that a person “in danger” who appears at a frontier has a right to protection, and that this posture helps undercut policies that would limit asylum by “the sole criterion of national interest.”
Pope Francis likewise insists that welcoming the stranger is a direct Gospel demand—“in welcoming the stranger we welcome him” (cf. Mt 25:35)—and he notes Benedict’s practice of welcoming guests “like Christ.”
In a U.S. bishops’ migration-policy summary, Catholics are explicitly described as serving newcomers “affirming the inalienable rights and dignity of every person,” including those who are forced migrants.
Doctrinal implication: Pastoral hospitality that shields vulnerable people from harm (especially those fleeing persecution) can align with Catholic charity and the Church’s understanding of protection.
The U.S. bishops’ summary states that the “element of persecution, threat or danger… gives rise to a human right to seek protection through irregular means” rather than ordinary visa channels.
Also, Catholic teaching in the Catechism holds that “the more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner” seeking security and livelihood they cannot find at home, and that public authorities must respect the natural right that “places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.”
Doctrinal implication: If “sanctuary” functions as protective cover for people whose lives or safety are truly at stake (e.g., asylum seekers facing persecution), Catholic doctrine gives moral support for prioritizing protection.
The Catechism states that public authorities may regulate immigration “for the sake of the common good,” and that immigrants are obliged “to respect with gratitude” the heritage of the receiving country, to obey its laws, and “to assist in carrying civic burdens.”
Likewise, the U.S. bishops’ migration materials affirm the “rule of law,” encourage lawful immigration pathways, and explicitly say that Catholics work to respond to migrants “without violating civil law.”
Doctrinal implication: Even while charity demands protection, Catholic doctrine does not treat “sanctuary” as a blanket justification for disregarding civil authority. It calls for humaneness plus legality, not hostility or contempt for law.
The U.S. bishops’ materials repeatedly acknowledge the right and responsibility of governments to control borders and protect citizens, while insisting those rights must be exercised with moral obligation toward humanitarian needs.
They also summarize the Church’s position that countries “have the right to take measures against irregular immigration, with due respect for the human rights of all.”
Doctrinal implication: Catholic teaching is not anti-enforcement as such; it is anti-unjust enforcement—especially approaches that undermine humanitarian protections, family unity, or due process.
Because you asked specifically about the tension between sanctuary and U.S. immigration law, the most faithful Catholic approach (from these sources) is to judge concrete sanctuary practices by the moral criteria the Church supplies:
Catholic teaching prioritizes compassion—close, merciful accompaniment—especially for those fleeing war, violence, persecution, or disasters.
So sanctuary that is fundamentally pastoral rescue and humane protection (e.g., sheltering while asylum claims and safety needs are addressed) fits well with the Gospel mandate to welcome and protect.
The U.S. bishops’ migration summary points to “religious and social service providers who, without violating civil law, attempt to respond” to migrants.
It also stresses that immigrants are obliged to obey the laws of the receiving country.
So, from a Catholic perspective, sanctuary practices that intentionally obstruct lawful processes or operate in a way that disregards civil authority in general may be harder to square with this teaching—even if the intention is charitable.
The U.S. bishops describe a need to receive refugees and asylum seekers while also assuring security of citizens, and they emphasize due process concerns at the border.
They also oppose detention “for purposes of deterrence or punishment,” advocating alternatives to detention and community-based approaches.
So a Catholicly consistent sanctuary is likely one that supports orderly, lawful pathways (or at minimum does not undermine due process), while pushing for humane treatment.
If you describe the specific sanctuary practice you have in mind (e.g., sheltering inside church property, helping people contact immigration counsel, refusing certain cooperation requests, etc.), a more precise Catholic moral assessment can be given—within the limits of the sources provided here.**