U.S. Supreme Court takes up Nigerian’s asylum case over alleged terrorist support

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Nigerian’s asylum case that could redefine how American immigration authorities determine support for terrorist organisations.

The country’s highest court announced on Tuesday that it would review the case of Izuchukwu Ozurumba, a Nigerian previously denied asylum for allegedly supporting an armed group.

The decision follows a legal challenge by the administration of President Donald Trump against an earlier federal appeals court ruling favouring the Nigerian.

According to official court documents explained the dispute centres on the interpretation of material support under American immigration law.

The case, Blanche v. Ozurumba, numbered 25-1343, concerns whether assistance must advance actual terrorist activities before qualifying as material support to a terrorist organisation.

Ozurumba, 56, had sought asylum in the United States after fleeing Nigeria, where he claimed an armed group forced him to prepare meals for its leaders.

Court records indicate that he accepted a cooking job in 2022 without initially knowing that his prospective employers were associated with an organisation known as the Unknown Gunmen.

He subsequently discovered the group’s activities but claimed he could not leave because armed guards controlled the camp.

According to his testimony, he prepared three meals daily for approximately 15 to 17 leaders before eventually escaping after about six months.

Ozurumba claimed that members of the group subsequently threatened his life and attacked him, prompting his departure from Nigeria.

He entered the United States through its southern border in July 2023 and subsequently applied for asylum and protection against deportation.

However, an immigration judge rejected his application in March 2024, ruling that preparing meals for the group’s leadership constituted material support to a terrorist organisation.

The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision, maintaining that American immigration law did not exempt relatively minor assistance or support provided under coercion.

Ozurumba challenged the ruling before the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the deportation order in September 2025.

Writing for the majority, Judge James Wynn ruled that the Nigerian’s activities did not satisfy the legal requirements for material support.

The court described Ozurumba as a “captive laborer whose work had nothing to do with those activities,” referring to the organisation’s alleged terrorist operations.

It concluded that his cooking was insufficiently connected to the group’s terrorist activities to justify denying him asylum under the material-support provision.

However, Judge Julius Richardson dissented, arguing that preparing thousands of meals for an organisation involved in terrorism constituted meaningful assistance.

“An army marches on its stomach,” Richardson wrote, challenging the majority’s interpretation of the law.

The Trump administration subsequently asked the Supreme Court to review the decision, arguing that the appeals court had adopted an excessively narrow interpretation of material support.

The Supreme Court’s October 13 order granted the government’s petition, setting the stage for a definitive ruling on the disputed provision.

Court documents also disclose that Ozurumba was deported to Nigeria on April 1, 2025, while his appeal remained pending.

The appeals court subsequently declined to order his immediate return, leaving immigration authorities to determine whether his presence was necessary for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court’s eventual judgment could influence asylum applications involving people who claim they were compelled to provide services to armed organisations.

It could also clarify the distinction between assistance to a terrorist organisation and conduct that directly advances terrorist activities.

The court has not yet ruled on the merits of the case, and granting the government’s petition does not establish that Ozurumba provided prohibited material support.