The visit forms part of Leo’s final full day on an 11-day, four-nation Africa tour and continues a tradition established by his predecessor, Pope Francis, who prioritized prison outreach to highlight inmate welfare and systemic injustices.

Leo was scheduled to begin the day with a Mass in Mongomo before traveling to Bata, where he was also due to attend a memorial for victims of a 2021 military barracks explosion blamed on negligence.Human rights groups have intensified calls for the pope to address both domestic prison conditions and the implications of US deportation policies.

On the eve of the visit, around 70 organizations issued an open letter urging Leo to speak out against the transfer of migrants to countries where they have no ties and to discourage African governments from participating in such arrangements.

Equatorial Guinea’s justice system has faced sustained criticism from international bodies and advocacy groups. The United Nations welcomed the country’s abolition of the death penalty in 2022, but reports have continued to cite arbitrary arrests, political detentions, torture and poor prison conditions, as well as concerns over judicial independence.

The US State Department’s 2023 human rights report highlighted similar issues, including unlawful killings and life-threatening detention environments.Amnesty International has also raised concerns, stating that torture has been used to extract confessions and punish detainees, while harassment of human rights defenders and deficiencies in due process remain widespread.

The country, led by President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo since 1979, has denied allegations of systemic abuses. Authorities have not publicly responded to questions regarding reported violations linked to agreements with the United States to accept deported migrants.

According to reporting by the Associated Press, at least 29 migrants with no ties to Equatorial Guinea have been deported there under such arrangements. While not held in the Bata prison, some remain detained in the capital Malabo with restricted access to legal and medical services, while others have been returned to their countries of origin, where they may face persecution.

Leo, the first US-born pope, has previously criticized US migration deportation policies as “extremely disrespectful.” Advocacy groups have urged him to use the visit to press for reforms, including improved detention conditions, judicial accountability and protections for migrants.

Tutu Alicante, head of the EG Justice organization, said the government had taken limited steps to improve certain facilities but warned that sustained reform would be the true measure of progress.

He called for sentence reviews and broader judicial changes as signals of commitment to justice and reconciliation.

Jose Serrano, a serving U.S. soldier who completed three tours in Afghanistan, said his wife, Deisy Rivera Ortega, was arrested on April 14 during an appointment with immigration officials as the couple pursued steps toward securing her permanent residency.

“A person opened the door, escorted us through the hallway, and at the end of the hallway, my wife got arrested,” Serrano said, adding that he was not provided documentation or an explanation at the time of the detention.

Rivera Ortega, a native of El Salvador, is being held at the El Paso Service Processing Center and has challenged her detention in U.S. District Court. Her legal team has also sought to block any deportation to Mexico, arguing she has no ties to the country and citing restrictions on travel there for active-duty U.S.

troops.Her attorney, Matthew James Kozik, said Rivera Ortega held a valid work permit and had previously been granted withholding of removal to El Salvador, a form of protection that prevents deportation to a country where an individual may face harm.

The Department of Homeland Security said Rivera Ortega entered the United States illegally in 2016 and was issued a final order of removal by an immigration judge in December 2019.

In a statement, the agency said that work authorization does not confer legal status and that she remains in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody pending removal proceedings. It did not specify whether deportation to Mexico was under consideration.

The case comes amid policy changes by the administration that have reduced discretionary protections previously extended to military families. Rivera Ortega had applied under the “parole in place” program, which has historically provided certain undocumented spouses of U.S. service members a pathway toward legal residency.

However, the Department of Homeland Security last April rescinded a 2022 policy that treated a family member’s military service as a significant mitigating factor in immigration enforcement decisions. The revised guidance states that military service alone does not exempt individuals from enforcement of immigration laws.

Serrano said he visited his wife at the detention facility on Sunday, where they communicated through a partition, as legal proceedings continue.

Shawn VanDiver, a U.S. military veteran who heads AfghanEvac, said he had been briefed that the administration of Donald Trump was weighing the proposal for more than 1,100 Afghans housed at a former U.S. base in Qatar.

The group includes individuals who had worked with U.S. forces and fear reprisals from the Taliban after their return to power in 2021.The administration had set a March 31 deadline to close the as-Sayliyah camp, which has served as a processing hub for Afghans seeking relocation to the United States following the collapse of the Western-backed Afghan government.

VanDiver criticized the reported plan, saying it would effectively pressure Afghans to return to their home country. “You do not relocate vetted wartime allies, more than 400 of them children, from American custody into a country in the middle of its own collapse,” he said.

The U.S. State Department did not confirm whether Congo was under consideration but said authorities were exploring “voluntary resettlement” options for those remaining in Qatar. A spokesperson described relocation to a third country as a potential pathway to safety while maintaining U.S. security priorities.

Democratic Senator Tim Kaine criticized the reported option, saying the United States had an obligation to protect Afghan partners who assisted during the two-decade conflict.More than 190,000 Afghans have been resettled in the United States since 2021 under a program initiated by Joe Biden, with most living without incident.

The effort initially drew bipartisan support but has since been affected by policy changes.The Trump administration has curtailed broader refugee resettlement programs and paused processing for some Afghan applicants following a fatal shooting incident in Washington last year involving an Afghan national.

Court ruling affirms executive authority while reshaping skilled immigration framework.

A U.S. federal judge has upheld the government’s decision to impose a substantially higher fee on new H-1B visas, a move that reinforces executive authority over immigration policy and signals a recalibration of how skilled foreign labor is regulated.

The ruling brings legal clarity at a time when immigration, workforce competitiveness, and domestic job protection remain central to economic and political debates in the United States.

The court found that the administration acted within its broad statutory powers to regulate immigration, concluding that policy judgments on visa costs fall squarely under executive discretion when grounded in existing law.

By rejecting the challenge brought by the country’s largest business lobby, the decision provides certainty for policymakers seeking to align immigration rules more closely with labor market priorities.

Supporters of the fee argue that it reflects a strategic effort to ensure that visa programs complement, rather than displace, domestic employment opportunities in high-skill sectors.

The H-1B program has long played a critical role in filling specialized roles across technology, healthcare, engineering, and research-driven industries.

At the same time, the program has faced scrutiny over its impact on wages, hiring practices, and workforce balance, prompting calls for reform from across the political spectrum.

The court emphasized that debates over the economic wisdom of the fee are matters for policymakers, not judges, as long as the policy remains consistent with statutory authority.

This legal affirmation strengthens the government’s position as it seeks to reshape skilled immigration to reflect evolving national interests.

The revised fee represents a significant increase compared with previous costs, underscoring a shift toward prioritizing selective and higher-value visa sponsorships.

Proponents say this could encourage employers to invest more in domestic talent development while still allowing access to global expertise where truly needed.

The ruling also offers regulatory predictability, allowing companies to plan their hiring strategies with a clearer understanding of compliance requirements.

While some business groups warn of higher operational costs, others view the decision as part of a broader effort to modernize immigration frameworks for long-term sustainability.

The court noted that the administration provided sufficient justification linking the policy to concerns about workforce displacement and labor market impacts.

This aspect of the ruling highlights how data and economic reasoning can underpin immigration decisions without overstepping legal boundaries.

Beyond the immediate implications for visa applicants and employers, the judgment may influence future debates on employment-based immigration reforms.

It reinforces the principle that immigration tools can be adjusted through executive action when supported by statutory provisions.

For skilled foreign professionals, the decision signals a more competitive and selective pathway into the U.S. labor market.

For domestic workers, it reflects an effort to balance global talent inflows with protections for local employment.

The outcome also underscores the judiciary’s role in delineating the limits of policy review, deferring to executive judgment when laws are properly applied.

As additional legal challenges continue in other courts, this ruling sets an important precedent that may shape their outcomes.

Overall, the decision marks a significant moment in U.S. immigration policy, combining legal affirmation with a broader conversation about workforce strategy.

It highlights how immigration law, economic policy, and judicial interpretation intersect in shaping the future of skilled labor mobility.