US supreme court to hear asylum case of Nigerian who ‘cooked for Unknown Gunm£n’

US supreme court to hear asylum case of Nigerian who ‘cooked for Unknown Gunmen’

 

The US supreme court has agreed to hear an appeal by the federal government seeking to deny asylum to Izuchukwu Ozurumba, a Nigerian who was allegedly forced to cook for a suspected separatist group known as the Unknown Gunmen.

According to Reuters, the court agreed on Tuesday to review a lower court’s ruling that Ozurumba’s work as a cook did not amount to providing “material support” to a terrorist organisation under US immigration law.

HOW THE CASE BEGAN

According to court documents, Ozurumba travelled to a remote camp outside Lagos in 2022 after receiving information about a job opportunity.

He was employed as a cook but subsequently discovered that the camp was operated by the Unknown Gunmen, a group believed to have links to separatists in Nigeria.

His lawyers said he became suspicious of the group’s activities after noticing that the movements of some young men from the camp coincided with reports of killings and arson.

Ozurumba was said to have tried to leave the camp but was allegedly prevented and forced to keep working without pay.

After six months, he escaped during a trip to purchase supplies and returned to Lagos.

His lawyers said he subsequently suffered beatings and received death threats, forcing him to flee to Venezuela, where the threats allegedly continued.

In July 2023, Ozurumba entered the US illegally through its southern border and later applied for asylum and other protections against deportation.

However, an immigration judge, during the administration of former President Joe Biden, ruled that the Unknown Gunmen constituted a terrorist organisation and that Ozurumba’s work as a cook amounted to material support for terrorism.

 

The judge held that preparing meals for members of the group helped them achieve their objectives by meeting their “basic human needs”.

The judge also ruled that the circumstances under which Ozurumba worked, including his claim that he was forced to remain at the camp, did not exempt him from the immigration restriction.

Consequently, his applications for protection against deportation were denied.

Ozurumba was deported to Nigeria in 2025 with his appeal pending.

 

APPEAL COURT RULES IN HIS FAVOUR

In September 2025, the US court of appeals for the fourth circuit, based in Richmond, Virginia, overturned the immigration judge’s interpretation of Ozurumba’s activities.

Two out of a three-member panel of the appellate court ruled that Ozurumba was a captive labourer and that preparing meals for the group 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”.

 

However, the court declined to direct US authorities to return Ozurumba to the country while the legal proceedings continued. The appellate court ordered a do-over of Ozurumba’s asylum case.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the President Donald Trump administration, through the justice department, approached the supreme court.

In its appeal, the department argued that cooking for members of a terrorist organisation constituted material support under US immigration law.

“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.

The administration also warned that allowing the appellate court’s decision 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 the admission of non-citizens who have engaged in terrorist activities, including those who provide material support to terrorist organisations.

Reacting to the supreme court’s decision to hear the appeal, Aimee Mayer-Salins, an attorney with the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, which is representing Ozurumba, criticised the government’s interpretation of the law.

“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,” Mayer-Salins said.

The lawyer maintained that the appellate court “correctly recognized 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 and deliver its ruling by the end of June 2027.