Can US Ban People Who Cooked For Terrorists? Supreme Court To Take Case Up

This is a very weird case

Can cooking for terrorists bar asylum? Supreme Court takes up unusual case with broader immigration stakes

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.

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.”

He worked with the terrorists and claims it was involuntary. Still doesn’t mean the US has to give him asylum. Do we need to give every 3rd worlder who refuses to assimilate a life in the US, plus money, housing, healthcare, clothes, etc, for their story of woe? We have enough of them. He came here illegally in 2023, a judge quickly determined he did not qualify for asylum, and then, somehow, he was able to afford all these lawyers to help him stay in the US. He supposedly was not paid for months while cooking for the terrorists, then escaped, then was able to afford to go from Nigeria to Venezuela then trek to the US. That is not cheap.

How many times do we find that people let in on asylum end up being something else?

(American Thinker) Then it gets worse: Her dad didn’t qualify for refugee status, meaning, he didn’t qualify for U.S. citizenship. He apparently lied on his application forms about not being a part of the persecuting class of Somalia which created its civil war, and got into the country as a helpless refugee. Turns out he was suspected of being a warlord and henchman in the homicidal regime of Mohammed Siad Barre, whose thugs massacred 200,000 people and got Somalia into a full blown civil war.

That dad is Nur Omar Mohamed, the father of Ilhan Omar, who never should have been given refugee status then citizenship. And, since Ilhan was probably 18 at that time, she should not have gotten “derivative citizenship”, meaning she’s not a citizen and should not be a member of Congress. You should read that whole article.