Immigration: Petitioner’s support of terrorist organization wasn’t ‘material’

Where the Board of Immigration Appeals denied a man’s petition for asylum or withholding of removal because he prepared meals for the leaders of a terrorist organization, it erred. His chef duties were not sufficiently substantial, standing alone, to help the terrorist organization accomplish its terrorist activities, and thus did not constitute the “material support” required by the statute.

Background

Under U.S. immigration law, a noncitizen is ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal if they have provided material support to a terrorist organization, even if they are otherwise eligible. An immigration judge found that Izuchukwu Ozurumba, a Nigerian citizen, provided material support to a terrorist organization when he was forced to prepare meals for its leaders, and denied his application for asylum or withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.

Standard

This court has not expressly defined the minimum support necessary to qualify as “material support” in the context of the material-support bar. But Congress’s inclusion of the modifier material “suggests that some support may not rise to the level that would disqualify [a noncitizen]”—in other words, some forms of support are immaterial.

The statute offers a list of examples of material support, including: “a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training.” Every item on that list “can either be directly used to plan or carry out terrorist activities or can be readily diverted to such use.”

Indeed, the “examples suggest that the support must be ‘significant’ or even ‘essential’ to the commission of terrorism.” That suggests that “material support” must be both relevant (logically related to terrorism) and significant (enough to make a difference).

The government argues that material refers to “a type of support rather than an amount or quantity.” This court agrees with the premise: the measure of material support is more qualitative than quantitative. But the government makes no persuasive attempt to identify what type of support is material. This court concludes that “material support” is support that is sufficiently substantial standing alone to help the terrorist organization accomplish its terrorist activities.

Analysis

Ozurumba does not challenge the IJ’s conclusion that the Unknown Gunmen qualify as a terrorist organization under the statute. Instead, he argues that the material-support bar does not apply because any support he lent the group was not “material.” This court agrees.

Ozurumba’s contributions to the Unknown Gunmen do not meet the standard identified above. Cooking meals using food and supplies purchased by the organization may have “sustained” the organization in the broadest possible sense—by converting raw groceries into meals they enjoyed—but provided nothing that the organization could use or readily divert to plan or carry out its terrorist activities.

As far as the record shows, Ozurumba was simply a captive laborer whose work had nothing to do with those activities. Nor did Ozurumba’s brief association with the group—which appears to have been the result of a bait-and-switch—“lend legitimacy” to the group. The court therefore vacates the order of removal and remands for further proceedings.

Relief

Ozurumba’s attorneys represent that on April 1, 2025, the government removed him to Nigeria. Shortly after his deportation, Ozurumba requested that this court order the government to facilitate his return to the United States.

“Under an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy directive, ‘[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, if [a noncitizen] who prevails before . . . a U.S. court of appeals was removed while his or her [petition for review] was pending, ICE will facilitate the [noncitizen’s] return to the United States if . . . the [noncitizen’s] presence is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings.’” The court will leave it to the agency on remand to decide whether Ozurumba’s presence will be necessary to his continued removal proceedings.

Petition granted. Order of removal vacated and remanded.

Dissenting opinion

Richardson, J., dissenting:

The majority finds that providing thousands of meals to a terrorist organization does not constitute material support to that organization. It arrives at this answer by reading one of the several objects of material support—terrorist organization—out of the statute, narrowing it to only include support for acts of terrorism. Because I cannot go along with such judicial policy-making, or with the majority’s other errors, I respectfully dissent.

Ozurumba v. Bondi, Case No. 24-2070, Sept. 2, 2025. 4th Cir. (Wynn), from Board of Immigration Appeals. Christopher M. Kimmel for Petitioner. Paul F. Stone for Respondent. VLW 025-2-356. 33 pp.