A Nigerian man forced to cook thousands of meals for the Unknown Gunmen, a militant group linked to political violence in Nigeria, is at the center of a Supreme Court showdown that could determine how broadly immigration authorities can apply a terrorism-related bar to asylum and how far the Trump administration can go in deporting immigrants accused of supporting terrorism.
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear the Trump administration’s challenge to a ruling that overturned Nigerian citizen Izuchukwu Ozurumba’s deportation order, setting up a legal battle over whether ordinary services provided to terrorist organizations, including cooking meals, can disqualify immigrants from receiving asylum even when those services are not directly connected to terrorist attacks.
Ozurumba was deported to Nigeria in April 2025 while his appeal was pending.
THE SUPREME COURT IS BACK; THESE FIVE CASES COULD RESHAPE AMERICAN LIFE
At the center of the case is a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that bars certain immigrants who provide “material support” to terrorist organizations from receiving asylum. The law lists examples of prohibited assistance, including transportation, communications, housing, money, weapons and training, but it does not explicitly define what constitutes material support.
“The biggest takeaway is that this is a case about who gets to draw the line on a law that affects national security,” Bryce Poole, a senior legal fellow with Advancing American Freedom, told Fox News Digital. “Congress wrote a broad rule, and the court interpreted it narrowly.”
The case also comes two years after the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference, a legal doctrine that required judges to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws. The 2024 ruling gave judges greater authority to decide what those laws mean.
The 4th Circuit, in a 2-1 ruling, overturned Ozurumba’s deportation order and sent the case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Judge James Wynn Jr., an Obama appointee, wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Nicole Berner, a Biden appointee. The judges concluded that, although Ozurumba prepared thousands of meals for the group’s leaders, his cooking did not provide resources that could be directly used or readily redirected toward terrorist operations.
Although Ozurumba said he was forced to cook under threat of violence, the 4th Circuit did not decide whether the law contains an exception for assistance provided under duress, an issue the court previously addressed in a 2012 ruling that relied on Chevron deference. Instead, the majority found that his cooking for the terrorist organization did not qualify as “material support” that would bar him from asylum, leaving the separate duress question unresolved.
The Trump administration argued that the 4th Circuit interpreted the law too narrowly, insisting that even ordinary services such as cooking meals can help sustain a terrorist organization and free its members to carry out attacks.
“Because he’s cooking the meals, one of the armed guards doesn’t have to cook the meals and can be an armed guard,” Poole said.
“That’s one guard who doesn’t have to come in off guard duty to cook meals, or that’s one bomb maker who doesn’t have to stop making bombs to go cook meals, because all this stuff is fungible.”
Ozurumba said he initially agreed to work as a chef at a “rural camp,” preparing three meals a day for 15 to 17 leaders. He later learned the camp belonged to the Unknown Gunmen.
An immigration judge determined that the Unknown Gunmen qualified as a “Tier III” terrorist organization under federal immigration law, even though the State Department had not formally designated the group as one.
Ozurumba said armed guards prevented him from leaving. According to court records, he cooked for the group’s leaders for roughly six months, including three months without pay, before escaping during a trip into town to buy groceries.
Ozurumba said members of the Unknown Gunmen continued threatening and attacking him after his escape, prompting him to flee Nigeria for Venezuela and eventually the United States. He crossed the southern border without valid entry documents in July 2023 during the Biden administration and surrendered to Border Patrol agents.
An immigration judge denied Ozurumba’s asylum request and ordered his deportation, a decision upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals after finding that his cooking violated the federal material-support rule. The 4th Circuit later rejected that interpretation and sent the case back to the immigration board.
Judge Julius Richardson disagreed with the majority, arguing in his dissent that cooking thousands of meals for terrorist leaders freed them to focus on their organization’s goals and therefore constituted material support.
“Ozurumba did not run a hot dog stand that the Unknown Gunmen happened to stop by once or twice,” Richardson wrote. “Rather, he acted as a private chef, providing three meals a day for over a dozen leaders of a terrorist organization — for months.”
Hans von Spakovsky, a legal expert with Advancing American Freedom, also argued that the majority misinterpreted the law.
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
“The idea that providing over 8,000 meals for the leaders of a terrorist organization and its members is not ‘material’ defies common sense,” von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital. “Richardson correctly cites Napoleon’s famous quote that an ‘army marches on its stomach.’
“Other federal appeals courts have all held that providing food and shelter, even if unconnected to a specific terrorist event, constitutes material support within the statute,” von Spakovsky continued. “And doing so under duress, even if true, is not an excuse under the statute to avoid removal.”
Even if the Supreme Court rules in his favor, a victory would not automatically grant him asylum or guarantee his return to the United States. His case would still need to be reconsidered by immigration authorities.
The 4th Circuit previously declined to order the government to bring him back, instead leaving it up to officials to decide whether his presence in the U.S. would be necessary for further proceedings.
