The United States Supreme Court has agreed to consider the Donald Trump administration’s challenge to a court ruling in favour of a Nigerian man who claims he was forced to cook for the separatist group known as the Unknown Gunmen.
The case concerns Izuchukwu Ozurumba, whose application for asylum in the US was rejected by an immigration judge after his work as a cook for the group was classified as material support for terrorism.
Reuters reported that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to review a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which ruled that Ozurumba’s alleged forced labour did not qualify as material support under US immigration law.
The case raises questions about the scope of American immigration restrictions on individuals accused of providing assistance to terrorist organisations, particularly those who claim they acted under duress.
Court documents showed that Ozurumba travelled to a remote camp outside Lagos in 2022 after learning of a job opportunity. He reportedly accepted employment as a cook but later discovered that the facility was operated by the Unknown Gunmen, a group believed to have links to separatist activities in Nigeria.
His lawyers said he became suspicious after observing that the movements of some young men from the camp appeared to coincide with reports of killings and arson.
According to his legal representatives, Ozurumba attempted to leave the camp but was prevented from doing so and compelled to continue working without payment.
He allegedly escaped after about six months when he travelled outside the camp to purchase supplies, subsequently returning to Lagos.
His lawyers further claimed that he was beaten and threatened with death after his escape, forcing him to flee to Venezuela. They said the threats continued there, prompting him to seek safety in the United States.
Ozurumba entered the US illegally through its southern border in July 2023 and applied for asylum and other forms of protection against deportation.
An immigration judge rejected his application, concluding that the Unknown Gunmen constituted a terrorist organisation and that cooking for its members amounted to material support.
The judge reasoned that providing food helped the group meet its members’ basic needs and sustain its activities. The ruling also held that Ozurumba’s claim that he had been forced to work did not remove him from the restrictions imposed by immigration law.
He was subsequently denied protection and deported to Nigeria in 2025, even as his appeal remained pending.
In September 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the immigration judge’s interpretation of his activities.
A majority of two judges on the three-member panel found that Ozurumba was a captive labourer and that preparing meals under those circumstances did not constitute material support for terrorism.
The court held that his work “provided nothing that the organisation could use or readily divert to plan or carry out its terrorist activities”.
Although the appellate court ordered a reconsideration of his asylum case, it declined to direct US authorities to return him to the country while the legal proceedings continued.
The Trump administration, dissatisfied with the decision, approached the Supreme Court through the Justice Department, arguing that the provision of meals to members of a terrorist organisation fell within the legal definition of material support.
“Providing meals to a terrorist organization’s members is no less a material form of support than providing gasoline for its vehicles,” the department argued.
It also warned that allowing the appellate court’s ruling to stand would “substantially increase the burden on the government in excluding aliens with links to terrorism”.
The dispute centres on provisions of US immigration law that restrict asylum and other forms of immigration relief for certain non-citizens who have engaged in terrorist activities or provided material assistance to organisations classified as terrorist groups.
Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, Aimee Mayer-Salins, an attorney with the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, which represents Ozurumba, said the outcome could affect how the government interprets the law when dealing with asylum seekers.
“At stake in this case is whether the government can use an overly broad reading of the law to shut the door on people seeking asylum,” she said.
Mayer-Salins added that the appellate court had correctly recognised that asylum should not be denied to immigrants who provided no meaningful support to a terrorist group.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case and deliver its ruling by the end of June 2027. Its decision could clarify whether food preparation under alleged coercion qualifies as material support for terrorism under US immigration law.
Leave a Reply