The Supreme Court agreed on October 13 to hear whether a Nigerian man’s coerced cooking for a separatist group can bar him from asylum. The case, Blanche v. Ozurumba, turns on whether the work qualifies as material support under federal immigration law.
Izuchukwu Ozurumba says he took a cook’s job at a camp in Nigeria in 2022, then learned it was run by the Unknown Gunmen. He says armed guards kept him from leaving.
He prepared food for three daily meals for roughly 15 to 17 group leaders. He stayed about six months, including a stretch when he received no pay. The camp, he said, was under armed control.
After escaping, he traveled to Venezuela and entered the United States in July 2023. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, saying group members had threatened and abused him.
The case comes from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which is based in Richmond, Virginia. The justices are expected to hear arguments in 2027, with a ruling likely by the end of the term in June 2027.
An immigration judge and the appeals board rejected his claim
An immigration judge denied Ozurumba’s applications and ordered his removal in March 2024. The judge concluded that cooking meals for the organization counted as prohibited assistance.
The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that decision in September 2024. It found no implied exception in the statute for assistance given under duress.
The government removed Ozurumba to Nigeria in April 2025. His court challenge continued after he was sent back.
The Fourth Circuit drew a line between sustenance and operational aid
The appeals court reversed the immigration ruling. In an opinion by Judge James A. Wynn Jr., the majority said meals made with food purchased by the group might sustain its members generally, but did not give them something they could use or readily redirect toward planning or carrying out attacks.
The majority characterized Ozurumba’s position on the record this way:
“simply a captive laborer”
The panel viewed his cooking as separate from the group’s terrorist activity. Its reasoning focused not only on what the work supplied, but also on whether the supplies or service could be used for operations.
The administration urges the justices to reject that distinction. It argues that food can sustain an organization much as fuel keeps its vehicles running, making meal preparation a form of operational assistance.
The administration says the ruling could reach routine services
The case concerns provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that bar some immigration benefits for people who have engaged in terrorist activity, including providing assistance to a terrorist organization. The Supreme Court’s review will address how that rule applies to ordinary services, rather than only items such as weapons, money, transportation or intelligence.
The administration says the Fourth Circuit’s approach conflicts with rulings from at least three other federal appellate circuits. It also argues the dispute could affect thousands of immigration cases each year.
The justices’ decision could shape how immigration authorities assess services performed under coercion, help supplied without knowledge of an organization’s character, and assistance given amid threats or confinement. The dispute also puts a legal boundary in focus: whether broadly sustaining an organization is enough, or whether the assistance must connect more directly to its terrorist operations.
The court has not decided whether Ozurumba qualifies for asylum. A ruling in his favor on the assistance question would not itself establish eligibility.
He would still have to meet the usual asylum standard, including showing past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution tied to a protected ground. His removal to Nigeria could raise separate questions, and he may face other issues concerning eligibility for additional forms of protection.
A decision is expected by the close of the Court’s term in June 2027.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
