Lead: On Feb. 27, 2026, 20-year-old Babson College freshman Any Lucía López Belloza remained in Honduras rather than board a government-arranged flight to the United States after a federal judge ordered her return. The Justice Department had filed court papers indicating Immigration and Customs Enforcement intended to carry out her final order of removal once she returned. Ms. López Belloza and her lawyers said she refused to travel because she feared immediate detention and swift re-deportation. Her legal team says it will continue to press courts to secure her permanent return.
Key Takeaways
- Any Lucía López Belloza, a 20-year-old freshman at Babson College, was mistakenly deported earlier and a judge ordered her return by Friday, Feb. 27, 2026.
- The federal government arranged a plane to bring her back on the court-ordered date, but she declined to board, citing safety concerns about being detained again.
- A Justice Department filing on Thursday stated ICE intended to effectuate her final order of removal after she was returned, a point central to her decision not to travel.
- Ms. López Belloza made a tearful video call with journalists on Feb. 27, saying an ICE representative repeatedly told her she would be released upon arrival.
- Immigration advocates and her lawyers say they will continue litigation to restore her lawful presence; government officials have signaled enforcement priorities that complicate that path.
Background
Ms. López Belloza was the subject of a removal that her lawyers and advocates say was carried out in error and in violation of a court order. The court later directed the government to facilitate her return to the United States, setting a firm deadline of Friday, Feb. 27, 2026. The episode has unfolded against an ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement, where executive agencies and federal courts frequently clash over detention, removal procedures and compliance with judicial rulings.
As a college student, Ms. López Belloza’s case has drawn attention from campus communities, immigrant-rights groups and public defenders, who argue mistaken removals highlight systemic failures in ICE processes. The Trump administration has emphasized stricter removal policies, framing aggressive enforcement as central to its immigration approach; critics say that posture has led to more confrontations with courts and to cases of erroneous or precipitous deportations. Advocacy groups such as FWD.us and private counsel have stepped in to litigate and to publicize her situation.
Main Event
The government arranged a flight to return Ms. López Belloza on the judge-set deadline. Her legal team and advocates urged her to come back, saying the court order required the administration to restore her to the United States. Despite that, she declined to board the plane on Feb. 27, citing a Justice Department court filing that indicated ICE planned to effectuate her final order of removal after any return.
In a tearful videoconference with reporters on the day of the planned flight, Ms. López Belloza said an ICE representative had told her she would be released upon arrival. She said the repeated assurances conflicted with the government filing and left her uncertain whether she would face immediate detention. Her lawyers told reporters that the inconsistency between verbal assurances and the filing was a decisive factor in her refusal to travel.
The Justice Department filing, cited by her attorneys, used language that ICE intended to carry out her final order of removal after she was returned, creating a legal and practical dilemma: compliance with the court-ordered return could expose her to renewed enforcement action. Her counsel has signaled further filings and hearings to resolve the tension between the court order and the agency’s stated removal intent.
Analysis & Implications
This case highlights a tense intersection between court authority and executive-branch immigration enforcement. When a court orders an individual returned after an erroneous removal, agencies face both a legal obligation to comply and an enforcement mandate that may pull in the opposite direction. The DOJ filing that anticipates effecting the removal raises questions about what compliance with a judicial directive means in practice when the agency retains removal authority.
For students and other noncitizen residents, the episode underscores vulnerability tied to administrative errors and shifting enforcement priorities. Colleges that enroll international or noncitizen students may see increased legal exposure and reputational risk when institutions assume students will remain in the United States without interruption. Counsel and advocates argue that reliance on agency goodwill or informal assurances is insufficient when formal filings indicate contrary intentions.
Politically, the case puts pressure on both courts and the administration. Courts must decide how to enforce return orders when agencies signal they will reapply removal authority upon arrival. Administrations, meanwhile, must weigh the public and legal costs of pressuring returns that may lead to immediate re-removals. The dispute could prompt appellate review or policy clarifications about how ICE implements court-ordered returns in practice.
Comparison & Data
| Milestone | Date/Status |
|---|---|
| Judge ordered return | By Friday, Feb. 27, 2026 (court directive) |
| Justice Department filing noting ICE intent | Thursday, Feb. 26, 2026 (court filing) |
| Government-arranged flight | Planned for Feb. 27, 2026 (did not occur for the student) |
| Student decision | Refused to board on Feb. 27, 2026 |
The table above lays out the public sequence of court and agency actions through Feb. 27, 2026. The precise operational details of any arrival processing, detention decision-making and internal ICE guidance remain largely internal to the agency and partly unresolved in open filings.
Reactions & Quotes
‘An officer told me again and again that I will be released once I landed in the United States,’
Any Lucía López Belloza, student (videocall, Feb. 27, 2026)
Ms. López Belloza made the statement during a public video call in which she described fear and confusion over contradictory signals from an ICE representative and the Justice Department filing.
‘He said very likely you will be freed, and that the only way to know for sure is to get on the plane,’
Ivonne Rodriguez, spokeswoman, FWD.us
Ivonne Rodriguez, who said she joined a call between Ms. López Belloza and an ICE employee, summarized the verbal assurances. Advocacy groups have pointed to that exchange as evidence of conflicting oral representations and formal agency filings.
‘ICE’s intent to effectuate [the] final order of removal after she is returned,’
U.S. Department of Justice court filing (Feb. 26, 2026)
The Justice Department wording that appeared in court papers was central to Ms. López Belloza’s decision-making and to her counsel’s subsequent filings seeking to prevent re-removal.
Unconfirmed
- Whether ICE would have detained Ms. López Belloza immediately upon arrival is not independently confirmed beyond the DOJ filing and the reported verbal assurances.
- Claims that an ICE representative promised certain release upon arrival are based on participant accounts and have not been corroborated by a contemporaneous agency public statement.
- The internal ICE instructions or decision memo that would govern Ms. López Belloza’s treatment on return have not been made public and remain unverified.
Bottom Line
The case of Any Lucía López Belloza exposes a legal and operational contradiction: a federal court ordering a return after an erroneous deportation while the executive branch signals intent to reapply removal authority. That tension places the individual between judicial relief and agency enforcement, with immediate personal consequences—fear, uncertainty and the decision to remain abroad rather than risk renewed removal.
Expect continued litigation and likely further court scrutiny of how ICE implements court-ordered returns. The outcome may shape not only Ms. López Belloza’s status but also how similar cases are handled when enforcement priorities and judicial commands collide.
Sources
- The New York Times — (news report)
- U.S. Department of Justice — (federal agency; referenced court filing)
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — (federal agency)
- FWD.us — (advocacy organization)