Nigerian Man Who Says He Was Forced to Cook for Unknown Gunmen Faces U.S. Supreme Court Battle Over Terrorism Law

 Nigerian Man Who Says He Was Forced to Cook for Unknown Gunmen Faces U.S. Supreme Court Battle Over Terrorism Law

A Nigerian man who says he was forced to cook meals for members of the Unknown Gunmen has found himself at the centre of a major legal battle in the United States, with the U.S. Supreme Court now preparing to decide how far American immigration law can go when dealing with people who have had contact with terrorist organizations.

The case involves Izuchukwu Ozurumba, a Nigerian citizen whose asylum application was rejected after U.S. immigration authorities concluded that his work cooking for the leaders of the Unknown Gunmen amounted to “material support” for a terrorist organization.

Ozurumba has maintained that he did not voluntarily support the group. According to court records, he was recruited under false pretences, discovered that the camp was operated by the Unknown Gunmen and was then prevented from leaving. He says he was forced to prepare food for the group's leaders for several months.

The case has now reached the highest court in the United States.

On October 13, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Blanche v. Ozurumba, No. 25-1343. The Court's official question is whether support given to a terrorist organization must actually advance the organization's commission of terrorism before it can trigger the “material-support” bar under U.S. immigration law.

How the case began

Ozurumba's case goes back to his time in Nigeria.

According to the Fourth Circuit's account of the case, Ozurumba returned to Nigeria after spending time in Venezuela and was recruited to work as a cook at a rural camp. He said he was initially misled about the nature of the job.

After arriving, however, he discovered that the camp was associated with the Unknown Gunmen.

The Unknown Gunmen is a name commonly used in Nigeria to describe armed groups involved in violence and attacks, particularly in southeastern Nigeria. In Ozurumba's immigration proceedings, an immigration judge classified the organization involved in his case as a Tier III terrorist organization under U.S. immigration law. Ozurumba did not challenge that classification when the case reached the Fourth Circuit.

Ozurumba said he was not free to simply walk away from the camp.

Court records state that he cooked meals for approximately 15 to 17 leaders of the camp, three times a day, seven days a week, for roughly six months. A dissenting judge in the Fourth Circuit calculated that this amounted to about 8,000 meals.

The central issue is therefore not whether Ozurumba cooked food. He acknowledges that he did.

The much bigger question is whether cooking that food, under the circumstances he described, legally amounted to providing “material support” to terrorism.

Why cooking became a terrorism-law issue

U.S. immigration law contains a powerful restriction known as the material-support bar.

In general terms, a noncitizen can be prevented from receiving certain immigration benefits, including asylum, if the person has provided material support to a terrorist organization.

The law lists examples of support, including things such as transportation, communications, money, weapons, explosives, training, safe houses and other forms of assistance.

But the law does not provide a simple answer to a difficult situation like Ozurumba's.

What happens when a person is not a member of the organization, does not voluntarily support its ideology and does not participate in attacks—but is forced to perform ordinary work for the organization's members?

That is the question that has now reached the Supreme Court.

The immigration judge rejected Ozurumba's argument

An immigration judge previously ruled against Ozurumba.

The judge concluded that preparing meals for the leaders of the organization constituted material support. The Board of Immigration Appeals later upheld that decision.

The Board's position was significant because it treated the material-support rule broadly. According to the Fourth Circuit's opinion, the Board concluded that the law did not contain a general exception for duress and that even relatively minimal support could potentially trigger the bar.

That meant Ozurumba faced a difficult situation.

Even if he otherwise qualified for asylum based on fear of persecution in Nigeria, the material-support finding could prevent him from receiving that protection.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed

In September 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the Board's decision and sent the case back for further proceedings.

The court's majority took a narrower view of what should count as “material support.”

It reasoned that material support should be sufficiently substantial, standing alone, to help a terrorist organization accomplish its terrorist activities.

The majority concluded that Ozurumba's cooking did not meet that standard.

The court pointed out that the food and supplies were purchased by the organization itself. Ozurumba's work converted those supplies into meals, but there was no evidence that his cooking provided the group with something it could use to plan or carry out terrorist attacks.

The majority described him as a captive laborer whose work, based on the record, was unrelated to the organization's terrorist activities.

The court also rejected the idea that his brief association with the group necessarily gave it legitimacy.

That distinction is important.

The court was not saying that helping a terrorist organization can never be material support. Instead, it was saying that the particular assistance provided by Ozurumba did not satisfy the legal standard applied by the majority.

But one judge strongly disagreed

The Fourth Circuit's decision was not unanimous.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III was not the dissenting judge; rather, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson is not on the panel's dissent. The published opinion shows Judge Wynn writing the majority, joined by Judge Berner, while Judge Richardson dissented. Judge Richardson took a dramatically different view of the case.

Richardson argued that food is itself a form of support.

His reasoning was straightforward: an organization needs food to operate, and providing thousands of meals to its leaders can therefore help sustain the organization.

The dissent noted that Ozurumba cooked meals for the group's leaders for months and argued that the assistance therefore qualified as material support even though the meals were not directly connected to a particular terrorist attack.

That disagreement is now at the heart of the Supreme Court case.

The bigger question for America

The Supreme Court's decision could affect far more than one Nigerian man's immigration case.

The Court will have to determine how broadly the material-support provision should be interpreted.

If the government prevails, immigration authorities could have a stronger argument that assistance to members of terrorist organizations does not have to be directly connected to a bombing, shooting, attack or other terrorist operation.

Under that interpretation, providing food, shelter or other forms of assistance could potentially become relevant even when the assistance itself is not used to commit violence.

Ozurumba's lawyers, however, argue for a more limited interpretation.

Their position is that simply performing ordinary work for a terrorist organization—particularly when someone is allegedly forced to do so—should not automatically be treated in the same way as voluntarily funding, transporting, training or otherwise assisting terrorism.

What about being forced?

Another major issue surrounding the case is duress.

Ozurumba says he was forced to cook.

That matters because it raises a fundamental question: should someone who provides assistance because armed people threaten or control them be treated the same way as someone who voluntarily decides to help a terrorist organization?

The Fourth Circuit did not ultimately establish a broad duress exception.

Instead, its majority resolved the case on the narrower question of whether Ozurumba's cooking was “material support” under the statute.

The court therefore did not need to finally decide whether U.S. immigration law contains a general exception for support provided under coercion.

The Supreme Court could therefore be asked to confront the relationship between those two ideas: what counts as material support, and what should happen when that support is allegedly forced?

Ozurumba's journey to America

The case also highlights the difficult journeys some asylum seekers undertake after leaving their home countries.

According to court records and reporting on the case, Ozurumba eventually left Nigeria, travelled through Venezuela and entered the United States in 2023.

He was taken into custody by U.S. Border Patrol and placed into immigration proceedings.

His asylum case then became entangled with the terrorism-related material-support provision.

Reports indicate that he was subsequently removed to Nigeria while the legal battle continued.

That means the Supreme Court's eventual ruling could have consequences for a man who is already outside the United States.

But the legal question before the justices is considerably larger than Ozurumba himself.

Why Nigerians should watch the case

For Nigerians, the case is particularly significant because it involves the Unknown Gunmen and violence in southeastern Nigeria.

It also shows how events inside Nigeria can have consequences far beyond the country.

The case connects Nigeria's security crisis with one of America's most sensitive areas of immigration law: terrorism and national security.

It also raises questions about how the United States treats people who have been caught between armed groups and the governments trying to defeat them.

A person could theoretically be a victim of an armed organization while simultaneously having performed some service for that organization.

The legal challenge is determining where the law draws the line.

The Supreme Court has not ruled on Ozurumba's asylum claim

It is important to understand what happened on October 13.

The Supreme Court did not rule that Ozurumba should receive asylum.

It also did not declare that forced cooking is automatically protected under U.S. immigration law.

Instead, the Court agreed to hear the government's challenge to the Fourth Circuit's decision.

The official Supreme Court docket confirms that the case is Blanche v. Ozurumba, No. 25-1343, and that certiorari was granted on October 13, 2026.

The Court's stated question is whether material support must advance the organization's actual commission of terrorism to trigger the immigration-law bar.

That distinction is crucial.

The justices are not simply deciding whether cooking is good or bad. They are interpreting the meaning and reach of a federal immigration statute.

A case that could define the limits of “support”

At its core, the Ozurumba case asks a difficult question.

If an armed group forces someone to cook its food, provide transportation, clean its camp or perform another ordinary task, is that person helping terrorism—or simply surviving under coercion?

The U.S. government argues for a broad application of the material-support rule.

Ozurumba's side argues that the law should not transform a person who was allegedly forced into labor into a supporter of terrorism.

The Fourth Circuit sided with Ozurumba on the material-support issue, but the Supreme Court has now agreed to reconsider that decision.

Whatever the justices eventually decide, the ruling could establish an important boundary for U.S. immigration law.

For Ozurumba, it is a personal fight over whether his experience as an alleged captive worker should prevent him from receiving protection in America.

For the United States, it is a much broader question about national security, immigration and the meaning of support.

And for Nigerians watching the case, it is another reminder that the consequences of the country's insecurity can reach far beyond Nigeria's borders.

Related Article 

Burna Boy and VDM Complete Major School and Clinic Project in Rivers State as New Update Emerges

Borno Under Fresh Security Pressure as Terrorists Attack Military Base and Target Civilians