Ann Lawani ICE Detention, Why a USF Nursing Professor With Deportation Protection Is Still Being Held in Louisiana

Dr. Ann Lawani, a 39-year-old University of San Francisco nursing professor and Bay Area nurse, remains in federal immigration detention nearly eight weeks after ICE agents arrested her at her California home, despite a 2013 immigration court ruling protecting her from deportation to Nigeria.

Lawani was taken from her home in Lodi on September 16, 2026, and transported through multiple detention facilities before arriving at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center. Her family says they struggled for days to locate her because she was not appearing in ICE’s public detainee database.

The central legal dispute is unusual: Lawani has a valid federal work permit reportedly extending through 2029 and an immigration judge’s protection against removal to Nigeria, but she also has a final deportation order that the Department of Homeland Security says remains enforceable.

Her attorney has filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging her detention. A judge reportedly blocked her deportation while that case proceeds but has not ordered her release.

California Congressman Josh Harder, the University of San Francisco and nursing advocates are demanding that Lawani be returned to California. DHS maintains that her work authorization does not grant immigration status and says she is being detained pending removal.

The allegations and characterizations in this story come from her family, her supporters, public officials and DHS. They have not been resolved by a court.

Ann Lawani ICE Detention: Latest Confirmed Facts

Detail	Information
Name	Dr. Ann Lawani
Age	39
Nationality	Nigerian
Residence	Lodi, California
Employer	University of San Francisco
Additional work	Registered nurse at John Muir Health
ICE arrest date	September 16, 2026
Detention location	South Louisiana ICE Processing Center
Immigration ruling	Withholding of removal to Nigeria, granted in 2013
Final removal order	Issued in 2013, according to DHS
Work permit	Reportedly valid through 2029
Criminal history	None reported by her family or Congressman Harder
Court action	Federal habeas petition filed September 18, 2026
Deportation stay	Reportedly ordered September 29 while habeas proceedings continue
Released?	No release confirmed as of November 12, 2026

Latest development: Congressman Harder publicly renewed his demand for her release on November 10, while local and national reporting on November 11 confirmed that Lawani remained detained.

Who Is Ann Lawani, and Why Is Her ICE Detention Drawing Attention?

Ann Lawani is a nursing educator and registered nurse who has built a career in patient care and healthcare education. She joined the University of San Francisco’s School of Nursing and Health Professions in 2023 and serves as a director within its master’s nursing program.

According to Congressman Harder’s October 20 letter, she oversees approximately 230 nursing students, coordinates 51 faculty members and manages relationships with 38 clinical training locations.

Her professional responsibilities extend beyond teaching. Lawani works at John Muir Health, including in cardiovascular and stroke care, reportedly on weekends. Her academic background includes a doctorate in nursing from the University of San Diego, and her clinical expertise includes hospice, palliative care and end-of-life transitions.

She has also spent years caring for her elderly father, who is 83. According to published reports, he has cancer and has been hospitalized.

Lawani has lived in Lodi for approximately 13 years. Reports describe her as having lived in the United States for about two decades (some accounts say roughly 21 years), although accounts differ on her original arrival date.

University officials have described her as an integral part of the community. Her absence has disrupted the nursing program, curriculum work, student mentorship and clinical partnerships, and it has removed a healthcare worker from a region that faces staffing shortages.

The attention surrounding her case arises partly from her professional and family responsibilities. The more important legal issue, however, is whether the government may continue detaining someone who has longstanding protection against removal to a particular country.

What Happened When ICE Arrested Ann Lawani at Her Lodi Home on September 16, 2026?

Federal immigration agents arrived at Lawani’s home in Lodi on September 16. According to her family and local reporting, she was taken into custody while her 83-year-old father was inside the home.

Lawani was reportedly restrained, with reports describing shackles, and transported to an immigration holding facility in Stockton, California. From there, her family says she was moved to El Paso, Texas, before being transferred to Louisiana. Her relatives initially received a telephone call from her, but later struggled to determine where she was being held. She eventually contacted them from Louisiana.

Why couldn’t Ann Lawani’s family find her in the ICE detainee locator?

Lawani did not appear in ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System when her family and attorney attempted to locate her. They reportedly spent approximately three days without knowing her precise detention location. Her attorney, Natalia Vieira Santanna, subsequently learned that she had been transferred to Louisiana.

The missing detainee information became a major issue because families and attorneys often need to know where someone is held to arrange legal representation, gather records or challenge detention.

A separate federal lawsuit, Greater Boston Legal Services v. Mullin, challenges a policy allegedly introduced around September 15 that stopped displaying certain individuals with final removal orders in the public locator system. For more on that distinct case, read ICE Detainee Locator Lawsuit, Four Legal Aid Groups Sue DHS Over Policy Hiding Detainees With Final Removal Orders.

Lawani’s case illustrates the practical difficulties raised by that policy, although her individual habeas petition and the broader locator-policy lawsuit are separate legal proceedings.

Why Did ICE Detain Ann Lawani if She Had a Valid Work Permit?

This is the most important question in the case. Lawani’s immigration history involves two legal decisions that can exist simultaneously: a final removal order and protection from removal to a specific country.

What happened in Ann Lawani’s 2013 immigration case?

Lawani previously applied for asylum in the United States. According to reporting about her immigration records, an immigration judge denied asylum in 2013 and issued a removal order.

However, the judge also granted withholding of removal to Nigeria, finding that she faced a sufficient likelihood of persecution if returned there. Her congressman has said the judge found she would “likely face persecution” in Nigeria.

That protection allowed Lawani to remain in the United States without being forcibly returned to Nigeria while the protection remained effective. She subsequently obtained federal employment authorization and continued renewing it. Her latest reported work permit remains valid through 2029.

What does DHS say about Ann Lawani’s immigration status?

In a November 11 statement reported by the San Francisco Standard, a DHS spokesperson said Lawani entered the United States legally on June 7, 2007, on a temporary visitor visa for a stay that ended July 6, 2007, and did not depart when required. DHS has described her as an “illegal alien” and characterized the September arrest as a targeted enforcement operation based on her outstanding removal order. DHS has said she will remain in custody pending removal.

The department emphasized that work authorization does not confer legal immigration status. That distinction is legally correct in general. But it does not, by itself, resolve whether her current detention is lawful or whether the government can remove her to a particular country.

Lawani’s supporters argue that she has complied with immigration requirements for years, has no criminal history and should be permitted to return home under supervision while the government addresses any remaining removal issues. They also argue there is no public-safety justification for her detention or for her transfer thousands of miles from her home and family.

What Is Withholding of Removal, and Why Does It Matter for Ann Lawani?

Withholding of removal is a protection under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). It generally prohibits the federal government from removing a person to a country where their life or freedom would more likely than not be threatened because of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

It differs from asylum.

Legal question	Asylum	Withholding of removal
Protection against return to persecution	Yes	Yes, for the protected country
Can a final removal order coexist with protection?	Different procedural framework	Yes
Automatic green card eligibility	Potential pathway after meeting requirements	No
Work authorization	Available under applicable rules	Available under applicable rules
Protection against removal to every country	No blanket guarantee	No
Can DHS seek removal to another country?	Depends on status and circumstances	Potentially yes

Under 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(10), someone granted withholding of removal may receive employment authorization. That means Lawani’s work permit and the existence of a final removal order are not necessarily contradictory.

The legal question is whether ICE has authority to detain her now, what removal plan it is pursuing and what procedures are required before removing her.

Withholding under the Convention Against Torture and termination of withholding

Two related rules also matter. Protection under the Convention Against Torture is addressed in 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c) and 1208.17, and deferral of removal is a separate, more limited form of protection. And withholding is not necessarily permanent: under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.24, DHS can ask an immigration judge to terminate withholding in certain circumstances, such as changed country conditions. Nothing reported suggests DHS has sought to terminate Lawani’s withholding.

Can ICE Deport Ann Lawani to Another Country Instead of Nigeria?

Potentially, yes. This is one of the most consequential unresolved questions.

Withholding of removal generally protects a person against deportation to the country identified in the immigration judge’s ruling. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(f), withholding does not automatically prohibit removal to a different country. The process for determining potential countries of removal is addressed in 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b).

Why has Congressman Harder raised concerns about third-country removal?

In his October 20 letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Harder reported that ICE had pursued removing Lawani to an undisclosed third country. He stated that relevant information about the destination and travel arrangements had not been provided to her or her attorney.

That allegation has not been independently established through a complete set of government removal documents. The distinction matters: the fact that another country might legally be considered does not establish that a particular deportation is lawful or that all necessary procedures have been followed.

Could Ann Lawani be sent to a country where she has never lived?

Federal law can permit removal to countries other than a person’s country of citizenship in certain circumstances. But third-country removals can raise serious questions about notice, the destination country’s willingness to accept the person, and the opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture.

Third-country removal has been the subject of significant litigation. In 2025, the Supreme Court stayed a lower-court order in the D.V.D. litigation that had required advance notice and an opportunity to raise fear claims before such removals. Reporting indicates the Supreme Court is considering related national legal questions in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426, with oral argument scheduled for December 9, 2026. That case does not automatically decide Lawani’s individual legal rights.

For a separate example of the issues involved, see US Plans to Deport More Than 150 Afghans Through Pakistan to Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan, Laws, Court Challenges and What Detainees Can Do.

What Did the Federal Judge Decide in Ann Lawani’s Habeas Corpus Case?

Lawani’s attorney filed a federal habeas corpus petition in the Eastern District of California on September 18, two days after her detention began. Habeas corpus allows a person to ask a federal court to examine whether the government is legally authorized to hold them.

The transfer dispute in Lawani’s habeas case

According to reporting about the proceedings, DHS sought to have her case transferred to Louisiana because that was where Lawani was being detained. Her attorney objected, arguing that she could not have known Lawani’s location when the petition was filed because the government had transferred her without providing accessible location information.

On September 29, the federal judge reportedly rejected the government’s transfer request, finding that “no diligent attorney could have known” Lawani was in Louisiana. The court also reportedly prohibited her removal while the habeas petition was pending and directed the government to explain why she should not be released.

The critical distinction: the judge blocked deportation during the proceedings but did not order Lawani’s immediate release.

Congressman Harder’s October 20 letter independently confirms that a federal judge had ordered that she not be removed while the habeas petition remained pending.

The complete September 29 judicial order and the case’s exact docket number were not independently retrieved for this article. The procedural details therefore remain attributed to contemporary court reporting rather than presented as a firsthand review of the order.

Why does the location of detention matter in a habeas case?

In Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), the Supreme Court explained that a core habeas petition generally must be filed in the district where the person is confined and name the immediate custodian. Courts also look to Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), under which a court that properly has jurisdiction when a petition is filed generally does not lose it because the government later moves the detainee. That background helps explain why the timing of Lawani’s filing, two days after her arrest and while she was in transit, was central to the transfer dispute.

Can ICE Legally Keep Ann Lawani Detained Indefinitely?

Not without legal limits. Because DHS says Lawani has a final removal order, the detention provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1231 are particularly relevant.

Section 1231(a)(1) provides a 90-day removal period after a removal order becomes final, and § 1231(a)(2) requires detention during that period. Section 1231(a) also addresses custody or supervision while removal is being arranged. Section 1231(a)(6) permits continued detention of certain individuals beyond the initial removal period, but that power has constitutional limitations.

Zadvydas v. Davis: The Supreme Court’s detention rule

In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court interpreted the post-removal detention statute to avoid permitting potentially indefinite detention. The Court recognized six months as a presumptively reasonable detention period. After that period, the individual may raise evidence that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The government then has an opportunity to rebut that showing.

This does not mean everyone must automatically be released after six months. The applicable detention period, exceptions, any judicial stays and the realistic possibility of removal all matter. Lawani’s detention of approximately eight weeks does not, by duration alone, establish a Zadvydas violation. Her attorneys may raise other statutory and constitutional arguments about continued detention.

Do detainees get a bond hearing after six months under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)?

Not automatically. In Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573 (2022), the Supreme Court held that § 1231(a)(6) does not, as a statutory matter, require a bond hearing after six months of detention, while leaving constitutional challenges open.

What do the custody-review regulations provide?

DHS regulations provide for post-order custody review, including 8 C.F.R. § 241.4 (custody review procedures), § 241.13 (determinations that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future) and § 241.5 (conditions of release, including orders of supervision). These regulations are the mechanism through which DHS decides whether someone with a final order should remain detained or be released under supervision.

Could Ann Lawani be released under supervision?

Yes, if legally authorized and appropriate in her circumstances. Section 1231(a)(3) and related regulations provide mechanisms for supervision of certain people who are not detained while removal matters remain unresolved. Conditions may include reporting to immigration officials and complying with other written requirements.

Harder’s request specifically calls for supervised release and her return to California. Whether DHS must grant that request is a separate legal question.

Why Is Ann Lawani Missing From ICE’s Public Detainee Database?

Reports about Lawani emerged shortly after the introduction of a controversial ICE locator policy affecting some people with final removal orders. The policy is the subject of a separate lawsuit filed October 28, 2026, in Massachusetts federal court. Four legal-aid organizations allege that withholding locations from the public system makes it harder to contact detained individuals, secure representation and prevent removals before attorneys can intervene. The lawsuit challenges DHS under the Administrative Procedure Act, First Amendment and Freedom of Information Act.

Lawani’s experience illustrates the possible consequences of such gaps. However, not appearing in the public ICE locator does not necessarily mean an individual is missing from government custody records, has been deported or has been released. Her family later established that she was being held in Louisiana.

For families in similar circumstances, timely help from an immigration attorney or accredited legal representative can be especially important.

What Are Ann Lawani’s Family, University, Congressman and State Senator Saying?

Congressman Harder’s October 20 letter requested three principal actions from DHS:

1. Release Lawani under appropriate supervision and facilitate her return to California.
2. Provide the proposed country of removal and supporting travel documentation.
3. Explain the legal basis for her continued detention.

Harder publicly renewed those demands on November 10. California State Sen. Jerry McNerney, whose district includes Lawani’s home, has also condemned the detention, saying in a statement that “ICE disappearing her from her home is an absolute outrage.”

The University of San Francisco has also supported Lawani and assisted her family in obtaining legal representation, saying it is working to ensure she receives due process. Eileen Fry-Bowers, dean of USF’s School of Nursing and Health Professions, described the disruption to students, faculty, curriculum planning and clinical partnerships. Lawani’s brother, Samuel Lawani, has spoken about her dedication to her family, students and patients.

National Nurses United issued a November 11 statement calling for her release and criticizing how immigration detainees can become inaccessible to their families. The union’s statement is an advocacy position; it does not establish that a court has found ICE intentionally concealed Lawani or unlawfully detained her.

DHS’s position, as reported, is that Lawani was arrested in a targeted enforcement operation based on a final removal order and that she remains in custody pending removal.

What Other Federal Laws Protect Immigration Detainees?

Several legal authorities are relevant to Lawani’s case and comparable detention disputes.

Legal authority	Why it matters
8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)	Protects qualifying individuals against removal to countries where they face specified persecution
8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(f)	Addresses possible removal to a different country
8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c), 1208.17 and 1208.24	Convention Against Torture protection, deferral of removal and termination of withholding
8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(a)(10)	Provides an employment-authorization category for people granted withholding
8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)	Governs detention, removal periods and supervision following final removal orders
8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4, 241.5 and 241.13	Post-order custody review, conditions of release and no-significant-likelihood-of-removal determinations
28 U.S.C. § 2241	Authorizes federal habeas corpus challenges to qualifying unlawful custody
Fifth Amendment	Provides due-process protections against unlawful deprivation of liberty
8 U.S.C. § 1362	Recognizes representation rights in specified immigration proceedings, generally at no government expense
8 U.S.C. § 1252	Governs judicial review of removal orders and imposes important jurisdictional limits, including § 1252(g)

The Supreme Court’s Zadvydas decision is also central to the legal boundaries of prolonged immigration detention. Federal judges have addressed related questions in other ICE habeas proceedings, but those rulings do not automatically release Lawani.

For related context, see ICE Re-Arrests Immigrants After Court-Ordered Release, At Least 20 Cases Raise Habeas Corpus Questions.

What Can Families Do if ICE Detains Someone Who Has a Work Permit?

A valid employment authorization document can be important evidence, but families should not assume it prevents detention or establishes permanent immigration status. Practical steps include:

• Search ICE’s official Online Detainee Locator System.
• Contact the relevant ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations field office.
• Obtain copies of the person’s removal order, protection ruling and work authorization.
• Contact a qualified immigration attorney or DOJ-accredited representative immediately.
• Identify whether any federal court has issued a stay or release order.
• Preserve records of transfers, detention notices and communications with immigration officials.
• Ask counsel whether detention review, supervised release, a motion to reopen or habeas relief may be appropriate.

A missing locator result should not be interpreted as proof that someone has already been removed. Families should not rely on unofficial individuals who demand payment in exchange for guaranteed release.

Ann Lawani ICE Detention Timeline

Date	Development
June 7, 2007	DHS says Lawani entered the U.S. legally for a temporary stay that ended July 6, 2007
2013	Immigration judge denies asylum, issues a removal order and grants withholding of removal to Nigeria
2023	Lawani joins University of San Francisco nursing faculty
September 16, 2026	ICE arrests Lawani at her Lodi home; she is taken to Stockton
September 16 to 18	Moved to El Paso, Texas, then Louisiana; family struggles to determine her location
September 18	Attorney files federal habeas corpus petition
September 29	Judge reportedly rejects transfer request and blocks removal during habeas proceedings
October 20	Congressman Harder sends letter demanding release
November 10	Harder renews demands publicly; national coverage expands
November 11	University, nursing advocates and local news outlets report continued detention; DHS statement reported
November 12	No verified release or final habeas ruling established

Frequently Asked Questions About Ann Lawani’s ICE Detention

Who is Ann Lawani?

Dr. Ann Lawani is a University of San Francisco nursing professor and registered nurse who lives in Lodi, California. She directs nursing education and also works at John Muir Health.

Why was Ann Lawani arrested by ICE?

DHS says she has a final removal order stemming from a 2013 immigration case. Her supporters argue that the government has not adequately justified detaining her despite longstanding protection from deportation to Nigeria.

Is Ann Lawani in the United States legally?

She has federally authorized employment and withholding of removal to Nigeria. However, withholding does not itself grant lawful permanent residence or cancel a final removal order. DHS says she remained after her temporary stay ended. Her precise immigration rights must be understood through both decisions.

Does Ann Lawani have a green card?

No green card has been verified. The reported documents concern withholding of removal and employment authorization, which are different from lawful permanent resident status.

Where is Ann Lawani being held?

The latest verified reporting places her at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center.

Has Ann Lawani been released?

No release was confirmed in the reporting available through November 12, 2026.

Is Ann Lawani being deported to Nigeria?

Her 2013 withholding order protects her against removal to Nigeria while it remains effective. Congressman Harder has raised concerns that DHS may be exploring removal to an unspecified third country.

Did a federal judge order her release?

Not in the verified reporting. A judge reportedly barred her deportation while the habeas case proceeds and required the government to explain why she should not be released.

Has Ann Lawani committed a crime?

Congressman Harder and her family report no criminal history. DHS has cited alleged immigration violations and a final removal order, not a publicly identified criminal conviction, as the basis for its action.

Does a valid work permit protect someone from ICE detention?

Not automatically. Employment authorization and immigration status are distinct. Other protections, removal orders and detention statutes must also be considered.

Can Lawani challenge her detention?

Yes. Her attorney has already filed a federal habeas corpus petition. The court must determine the legal issues presented under the applicable statutes and Constitution.

Who is speaking out in support of Ann Lawani?

Congressman Josh Harder, State Sen. Jerry McNerney, the University of San Francisco, National Nurses United, colleagues and her family have all called for her release or return to California.

What happens next in Ann Lawani’s case?

The immediate issues are whether the court orders her release, whether DHS can justify continued detention and whether any proposed removal complies with her protection order and federal law.

What Happens Next for Ann Lawani?

Three issues remain unresolved.

First, the federal court must address the legal challenge to Lawani’s continued detention. Second, DHS may need to clarify whether it has a feasible and legally permissible removal destination. Third, her lawyers and congressional supporters continue seeking supervised release so that she can return to California while the legal dispute proceeds.

The court’s reported temporary protection against deportation is significant, but it is not equivalent to permanent immigration status or an order granting freedom from detention. For the university, her family and her patients, the consequences of her absence are immediate.

For federal immigration law, her case illustrates a difficult distinction: protection from persecution in one country, authorization to work in the United States and the government’s legal authority to detain someone are three different questions.

The ultimate outcome will depend on the immigration record, the detention statutes and further court orders, not simply whether Lawani has a valid work permit or an outstanding deportation order.

Primary Sources and Legal References

Official records and statements

1. Congressman Josh Harder, November 10, 2026: Demand for Ann Lawani’s Release: Official congressional statement, family account and university response.
2. Congressman Harder’s October 20 Letter to DHS Secretary Mullin (PDF): The original letter documenting the immigration protection, detention concerns and requested actions.
3. National Nurses United, November 11, 2026: Nursing organization’s public response.
4. 8 U.S.C. § 1231: Detention and Removal: Statutory rules for removal, withholding and post-order detention.
5. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16: Withholding of removal and third-country removal.
6. 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12: Employment authorization.
7. 28 U.S.C. § 2241: Federal habeas corpus jurisdiction.
8. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001): Supreme Court decision concerning prolonged post-removal-order detention.
9. Additional authorities cited: Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573 (2022); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004); Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944); 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4, 241.5, 241.13, 1208.17 and 1208.24; 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252 and 1362.

Contemporary reporting used to verify disputed and developing facts

• KQED, November 10, 2026: California Lawmaker Calls for Release of USF Nursing Professor
• NBC Bay Area: USF Professor and Bay Area Nurse Detained by ICE
• The San Francisco Standard, November 11, 2026: ICE holds esteemed USF nursing professor for eight weeks
• SFist, November 11, 2026: Family, Colleagues Fight for Release of USF Professor Missing From ICE’s Detainee Database
• KTVU: Congressman calls for release of California nurse detained by ICE

Research note: This article was researched using Congressman Harder’s original letter, federal immigration law, DHS statements as reported by journalists, university statements and contemporary news coverage. The complete individual habeas docket was not independently obtained. Details about the family, the transfers between facilities and the reported hospitalization of her father come from published reports and should be checked against primary sources. Last reviewed November 12, 2026.

Legal disclaimer: AllAboutLawyer.com provides general U.S. legal information, not legal advice. Immigration detention and deportation rights depend on individual records, current law and applicable court orders. People facing removal should consult a qualified immigration attorney or DOJ-accredited legal representative.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against contemporaneous reporting and public statements as described by KQED, SFist, KTVU, NBC Bay Area and The San Francisco Standard, and the federal statutes, regulations and decisions cited above, as of November 12, 2026. Last Updated: November 12, 2026.