Supreme Court grants review of Blanche v. Ozurumba, narrowing asylum for material‑support claim

On October 13, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States granted review of Blanche v. Ozurumba, a case that challenges a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that bars asylum for non‑citizens who provide material support to terrorist groups.

The decision puts the definition of “material support” under the highest judicial scrutiny, a move that could reshape how immigration officials evaluate asylum claims tied to forced or involuntary assistance for designated organizations.

The dispute centers on Izuchukwu Ozurumba, a Nigerian national who spent six months cooking at a camp operated by the “Unknown Gunmen,” a group listed on the U.S. terrorist designations list. Ozurumba later sought asylum, arguing that his work was compelled.

An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals concluded that the cooking constituted material support, rendering him ineligible for relief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that only assistance that is “substantially” linked to terrorist activity—or easily diverted to such use—should trigger the bar.

The government maintains that any tangible aid, including food and shelter, frees resources for violent objectives and therefore fits the statute’s intent. Opponents warn that a broad reading could punish individuals who were forced to help or who lacked intent to further terror.

Although the case involves immigration law rather than the criminal statute 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, courts often look to the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, which upheld a wide interpretation of the criminal material‑support provision.

Legal scholars anticipate that the Court’s ruling will provide clearer guidance on the scope of the immigration bar and may influence future decisions in both immigration and national‑security contexts.

The justices are expected to hear oral arguments later this year, with a decision likely to be issued before the end of the term, setting a precedent that could affect countless asylum seekers facing similar circumstances.