This case asks whether the federal government can continue to detain someone who was granted deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) when there is no substantial likelihood it will be able to remove her to a third country in the foreseeable future.

Britania, a transgender woman, is locked in prolonged immigration detention at the notorious Winn Correctional Center in Louisiana. She is diagnosed with complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder related to past persecution and was declared incompetent by an immigration judge. In March 2025, she was also granted deferral of removal under CAT after an immigration judge found she was more likely than not to suffer persecution and torture if removed to Mexico.

But even after winning her immigration case, the government refuses to release her from detention. Instead, it claims the power to detain her indefinitely while it pursues removal to any other country in the world but Mexico. In September 2025, Britania filed a habeas corpus petition seeking release from indefinite detention.

In November 2025, after six countries had refused to receive Britania, the government’s justification for her indefinite detention looked increasingly flimsy. So it violated the immigration judge’s order by deporting her to Mexico. Britania filed a second case to compel her return and release from detention.

What is the legal argument in this case?

Because Britania’s removal from the United States is not reasonably foreseeable,
she must be released from immigration custody. Indefinite detention of someone whom the government has no prospect of removing from the United States violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Even if the government aspires to deport Britania to a third country, it must provide a lawful process to contest removal to that country, where she may be a risk of persecution or torture. Failure to provide this process Failing to provide such a process that results in indefinite detention violates both substantive and procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.

Larysa’s arrest and detention violate her right to due process because they are wholly unjustified. In the time Larysa has lived in the United States, she has been neither a danger to the community nor a flight risk—evidenced by her dutiful appearance at her scheduled immigration court dates.

What is the status of this case?

After Britania filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court in September 2025, the government removed her to Mexico in November 2025. It returned her to the United States after she filed a second federal lawsuit. She remains in immigration detention and both her lawsuits are pending before the district court.

November 20, 2025

November 17, 2025

November 17, 2025

November 10, 2025

October 30, 2025

September 8, 2025