Akoju v. University of NH et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Sushma Anand Akoju
v. Civil No. 26-cv-101-LM-TSM
Opinion No. 2026 DNH 015 P
University of New Hampshire et al.
O R D E R
Until recently, pro se plaintiff Sushma Anand Akoju was enrolled as an
international graduate student in computer science at the University of New
Hampshire (UNH). In early February 2026, Akoju lost her student status when
UNH did not allow her to enroll in classes for the spring semester. Akoju brings this
action against UNH, UNH Assistant Dean for Graduate Student Affairs Dr. Dovev
Levine, and UNH Assistant Director of Housing Jeremy Homolka alleging
violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and the Fourteenth Amendment’s
procedural due process protections.1
In her Title VII claim, Akoju alleges that UNH refused to allow her to enroll
in courses and is evicting her from student housing in retaliation for filing a charge
against UNH with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In her
related constitutional claim, Akoju alleges that UNH failed to provide sufficient
notice and an opportunity to respond before terminating her student status and
denying her request to be reinstated. At risk of losing her UNH housing and her
1 Levine and Homolka are sued in their official capacities. The court refers to
the defendants collectively as UNH.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 24

2
lawful immigration status as an F-1 student visa holder, Akoju seeks a Temporary
Restraining Order (“TRO”) directing defendants to “maintain [her] F-1 status” and
halt her eviction from university housing. Doc. no. 4 at 3. Akoju also asks this court
to order defendants not to report her changed enrollment status via the Student
and Exchange Visitor (SEVIS) system, a web-based system that Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) uses to maintain information regarding F-1 students
studying in the United States.2 See Liu v. Noem, 780 F. Supp. 3d 386, 394 (D.N.H.
2025) (explaining that “F-1 students fail to maintain their status when they do not
meet certain regulatory requirements, such as failing to maintain a full course of
study”), appeal dismissed, No. 25-1643, 2025 WL 3904829 (1st Cir. Aug. 14, 2025).
On February 19, 2026, this court held an evidentiary hearing on Akoju’s motion. For
the following reasons, Akoju’s motion for a TRO (doc. no. 4) is denied.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A temporary restraining order ‘is a provisional remedy imposed to maintain
the status quo until a full review of the facts and legal arguments is available.’”
Ginzburg v. Martínez-Dávila, 368 F. Supp. 3d 343, 347 (D.P.R. 2019) (quoting Pro-
Choice Network v. Schenck, 67 F.3d 377, 388-89 (2d Cir. 1995)). A temporary
restraining order (“TRO”) is nevertheless an extraordinary remedy which must be
granted “sparingly and only in cases where the need for extraordinary equitable
2 Akoju also asks that the court “[p]rohibit Defendants from taking any further
adverse action against Plaintiff in retaliation for her EEOC charge,” and to
“[s]chedule an expedited hearing on Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction.”
Doc. no. 4 at 3.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 24

3
relief is clear and plain.” Nw. Bypass Grp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 453 F.
Supp. 2d 333, 338 (D.N.H. 2006) (quotation omitted).
In evaluating a motion for a TRO, the court considers the same four factors
that apply to a motion for a preliminary injunction. Karlsen v. Town of Hebron, Civ.
No. 18-cv-794-LM, 2018 WL 11273651, at *1 (D.N.H. Sept. 28, 2018). The moving
party “must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to
suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of
equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Voice of
the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Med. News Now, Inc., 645 F.3d 26, 32 (1st Cir. 2011)
(quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). Likelihood
of success and irreparable harm are the most important factors. Strahan v.
McNamara, 642 F. Supp. 3d 204, 207 (D.N.H. 2022). “These two factors are
reviewed on a ‘sliding scale,’ such that a strong showing on one prong can make up
for a somewhat weaker showing on the other.” Concord Hosp., Inc. v. NH Dep't of
Health & Hum. Servs., 743 F. Supp. 3d 325, 335 (D.N.H. 2024) (quoting
Vaquería Tres Monjitas, Inc. v. Irizarry, 587 F.3d 464, 485 (1st Cir. 2009)), appeal
docketed, No. 25-2185 (1st Cir. Dec. 10, 2025). However, “whether the movant is
‘likely to succeed on the merits’ is the ‘sine qua non’ of the test for a preliminary
injunction and, therefore, for a TRO.” Allscripts Healthcare, LLC v. DR/Decision
Res., LLC, 592 F. Supp. 3d 1, 3 (D. Mass. 2022) (quoting Weaver v. Henderson, 984
F.2d 11, 12 (1st Cir. 1993)). Thus, “if the moving party cannot demonstrate that he
is likely to succeed in his quest, the remaining factors become matters of idle
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 24

4
curiosity.” Karlsen, 2018 WL 11273651, at *1 (quoting Sindicato Puertorriqueño de
Trabajadores, SEIU Local 1996 v. Fortuño, 699 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (per
curiam)).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact are based upon the testimony at the February
19 hearing and the parties’ exhibits.3 At the hearing, Akoju testified on her own
behalf. UNH called three witnesses: Jeremy Homolka, Assistant Director of
Housing for Occupancy Management; Elizabeth Stevens, Director of Student
Financial Services; and Dr. Dovev Levine, Assistant Dean for Graduate Student
Affairs and Provost for Enrollment.
Akoju is an Indian national who first came to the United States in 2014 to
pursue academic research in artificial intelligence (AI). Akoju obtained two master’s
degrees — one from the University of Pittsburgh and one from the University of
Colorado — before beginning her Ph.D. studies at the University of Arizona in Fall
2022. In August 2024, after completing several semesters in Arizona, Akoju
transferred to UNH to continue to pursue her Ph.D. under the mentorship of
Professor Laura Dietz, in the computer science department, who was to serve as her
academic advisor.4 In the Fall 2024 semester, Akoju enrolled in one course taught
3 Counsel for UNH asserted objections to various exhibits throughout the
hearing that the court took under advisement in an effort to keep the hearing within
the time allotted. The court sees no need to provide rulings on the individual
objections beyond the court’s factual findings.
4 Akoju transferred to UNH in part to distance herself from one or more
persons in Arizona against whom she had sought and obtained a no-contact order.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 24

5
by her advisor and registered for a course designed for Ph.D. students engaging in
their own independent research.
Within just one month of Akoju’s arrival at UNH, her relationship with
Professor Dietz fell apart, and Akoju refused to work with her. It is not entirely
clear why the relationship dissolved. It appears that Akoju perceived a slight in the
way Dietz treated her. Akoju was never able to secure a new primary advisor after
she lost Professor Dietz.
Akoju was aware of the need to secure a primary advisor. The Computer
Science Department’s Graduate Program Handbook (“Handbook”) requires students
to be affiliated with an advisor at all times and makes clear that students may be
dismissed from their program if they are “not making satisfactory progress toward
their degree.” Doc. no. 14-9 at 12. According to the Handbook, the Department
evaluates academic progress using metrics including “having a research mentor”
and “progress in research . . . and performance in coursework.” Id. Notwithstanding
these requirements, Akoju was unable to secure an advisor after her early fallout
with Professor Dietz, and she made little progress in her coursework.
On September 27, 2024, UNH sent Akoju a formal letter telling her that she
was required to find another advisor in order to be considered for funding beyond
the Spring 2025 semester. Doc. no. 13-4. Exactly a year before her student status
was ultimately terminated, Akoju emailed Dr. Levine about her search to find an
advisor and her efforts to make academic progress, which she described as working
towards meeting Dr. Levine’s “expectations.” Id.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 5 of 24

6
Akoju’s difficulties at UNH continued beyond her initial semester. On April 9,
2025, a UNH administrator wrote to Akoju:
You currently do not have a research advisor. Based on
communications with my office, it is clear you do not wish
to work with Professor Dietz . . . [and] the research you are
interested in limits the pool of potential advisors.
Additionally, the responsibility of identifying an advisor
rests with the student. . . . Students must identify an
advisor who would then need to agree to work with that
student.
Doc. no. 13-20 at 14.
In the spring of 2025, Akoju developed carpal tunnel syndrome for which she
received academic accommodations. Around that same time, Akoju filed a Title IX
complaint against a neighbor in her university housing after an alleged incident of
sexual harassment. After an investigation, UNH’s Civil Rights and Equity Office
(CREO) sent a letter dated April 2, 2025, to Akoju’s professors directing them to
“work with [her] to identify any academic flexibility that would assist [her].” Doc.
no. 13-11 at 1. Ultimately, however, by the end of the Spring 2025 semester, Akoju
only successfully completed one full course and a one-credit graduate seminar in the
Computer Science Department. Doc. no. 14-9 at 2, 16. This, combined with the one
full course she completed in her first semester, represents the extent of her
successfully completed coursework in the UNH Computer Science Department. Id.
In the summer of 2025, while Akoju was working a student job with the UNH
Housing Office, she filed with CREO a complaint of workplace harassment alleging
that two different supervisors made inappropriate comments towards her. She
alleged that the first incident occurred on June 9 and the second on July 2. Akoju
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 6 of 24

7
asked CREO to impose a no-contact order between herself and her team leader and
requested that supervisory staff engage in workplace anti-harassment training.5
Akoju continued to have difficulties as she entered the Fall 2025 semester.
Because Akoju was behind on her tuition payments, in accordance with UNH policy,
UNH Student Financial Services put a financial hold on Akoju’s student account,
which made her unable to register for classes.6 This led Akoju to fear that she would
miss the final deadline to register for classes, which, in turn, would lead to Akoju
losing her active student status, pursuant to UNH’s “Continuous Registration
Policy.”7 Doc. no. 14-17 at 1.
Under this policy, when a student fails to register for classes by the relevant
deadline, the student’s degree status is discontinued, and the student must petition
the Graduate School administration for reinstatement.8 Id. at 3. Once the Graduate
5 It is unclear what came of Akoju’s report and requests.
6 Akoju was aware of UNH’s Student Financial Responsibility Agreement; she
signed it on May 16, 2024. That document makes clear that a failure to make timely
payment will result in a financial hold being placed on a student’s account, preventing
them from registering for classes. Doc. no. 14-19.
7 Under the policy, “[s]tudents who do not maintain continuous enrollment as
required will have their degree status discontinued and will no longer be active in
the degree. Students will need to petition for reinstatement or readmission in order
to return to their program.” Doc. no. 14-17 at 1. A petition for reinstatement
“requires a reinstatement fee, plus payment of current semester charges and any
late fees that may have accrued.” Id. at 3.
8 The “Graduate School” at UNH oversees approximately fifty academic
departments, including the computer science department, and sets minimum
standards by which those departments must function. These minimum standards
include the Continuous Registration Policy described above. Dr. Levine’s office at the
Graduate School is responsible for implementing this policy.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 7 of 24

8
School receives such a petition, it consults with the relevant department and faculty
members to determine whether they approve of the student’s petition. Dr. Levine
testified that when determining whether to grant a petition for reinstatement, his
office looks for “clear evidence” that the student will be able to successfully obtain
their degree if returned to active status.
Akoju’s experience facing a financial hold in 2025 demonstrates her personal
knowledge of UNH’s continuous registration policy and its potential impact on her
immigration status. On September 11, on the eve of what Akoju described as the
“F1 VISA termination deadline,” Akoju sent a slew of emails to UNH administrators
telling them that she had finally paid her outstanding tuition and that she needed
to register for courses to maintain her F-1 visa status. Doc. no. 14-5 at 7. Before the
end of the day on September 12, UNH removed the financial hold preventing Akoju
from registering and granted her petition to enroll in classes late,9 allowing her to
maintain her active student status. See doc. no. 14-13 at 1-8. While Akoju did re-
enroll in courses, UNH warned that the courses for which Akoju registered—a one-
credit internship and doctoral research—would not contribute to academic progress
toward her degree. Id. at 1-2.
Throughout Akoju’s time at UNH, she had difficulties paying her tuition and
meeting degree requirements, such as securing an advisor. A series of emails
9 Akoju had missed the deadline to enroll in classes on UNH’s web portal, so,
per UNH policy, she needed to file a petition and gain the approval of the professors
whose classes she wished to join in order to enroll. See doc. no. 14-13 at 11-12.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 8 of 24

9
between Akoju and Dr. Levine in October 2025 reveal both the efforts UNH made to
communicate with Akoju about these concerns and Akoju’s awareness of her
predicament. On October 1, Akoju wrote to Dr. Levine asking for a meeting to
discuss her situation. Akoju acknowledged that she had been unable to secure an
advisor and that her “situation has now reached a critical point,” and she needed
assistance. Doc. no. 13-20 at 16. Akoju included a list of questions to which Dr.
Levine responded in an email dated October 2. See id. at 13.
In his October 2 email, Dr. Levine referenced the “numerous meetings over
the past year” with Akoju and their discussions about the need for her to find an
advisor and complete degree requirements. Id. at 14. Dr. Levine wrote: “Given the
lack of other potential UNH graduate faculty who specialize in your stated area of
research, I want to reiterate my concerns about your path towards successful
completion of your degree program.” Id. at 15. He once again explained that “PhD
students are responsible to define their own research and find faculty with expertise
in that area to serve as dissertation advisors.” Id. Dr. Levine agreed to Akoju’s
request to meet in person to discuss this but reminded her that she would “need to
come to the meeting” with the name of an advisor and “next steps” toward
completing her degree. Id.
In these October 2025 emails, Akoju acknowledged that UNH may not be the
best place for her to continue her academic work. She also recognized that she faced
looming financial challenges, as she had an outstanding balance (about $10,000) for
the Fall 2025 semester. In advance of her meeting with Dr. Levine and Professor
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 9 of 24

10
Radim Bartos (the Chair of the Computer Science Department), Akoju wrote an
email to them on October 10 expressing the following concern about her F-1 visa
status: “Given the urgency of my situation as an international student with F-1 visa
timeline constraints and the upcoming end of the Fall 2025 semester, I would
appreciate confirmation of your availability to meet.” Id. at 7. A review of the
subsequent emails (between Akoju and Dr. Levine in October) make clear that
Akoju’s ability to remain enrolled at UNH would depend on the Computer Science
Department’s approval. See id. at 1-7.
On November 13, 2025, Akoju emailed an administrator in the Computer
Science Department informing her that she had been unable to participate in her
remote internship (for which she was supposed to receive academic credit) because
her internship required her to engage (remotely) with a man against whom she had
a no-contact order from her time at the University of Arizona. Akoju expressed
concern that her lack of participation would lead to her failing the internship class,
and that the deadline to drop the class had passed. On December 17, a staff member
of UNH Student Financial Services emailed Akoju informing her that her petition
to withdraw from the internship course had been approved, pending Akoju’s
payment of approximately $10,000 that she owed on her student account. The
following day, December 18, Akoju filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC
relating to the alleged workplace discrimination that she had reported to UNH in
the summer of 2025.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 10 of 24

11
On January 10, 2026, Akoju received a bill from UNH reflecting that she had
an outstanding balance of $14,712 — a figure that included a $10,061 previous
account balance as well as a new $4,584 charge for university housing for the
Spring 2026 semester. Although the bill was due on February 1, 2026, that date
came and went without any payment. Accordingly, UNH placed another financial
hold on Akoju’s student account, making her unable to register for classes for the
spring semester.
Dr. Levine testified that on at least six occasions, UNH notified Akoju that
February 6, 2026, was the deadline by which she had to register for courses for the
spring semester. One such notice, sent from UNH Housing Office, informed Akoju
that if she did not register for classes and enroll as a full-time student by February
6, 2026, she would be forced to move out of her university housing, per UNH’s Room
and Board agreement.10 Doc. no. 14-4.
On February 6, the day of the deadline, Akoju exchanged a flurry of emails
with UNH Student Financial Services. See doc. no. 13-28 at 1-5. Akoju copied Dr.
Levine on each email. In these emails, Akoju advised a staff member that she would
be paying her account balance and requested that the financial hold be removed so
that she could register for courses. However, Akoju represented that she only had
funds to pay the approximately $10,000 she still owed from past semesters but did
not have the $4,584 she presently owed for spring housing. Akoju requested “an
exception or alternative arrangement” to allow her to register for classes so that she
10 Akoju signed this agreement on October 28, 2024. Doc. no. 14-7.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 11 of 24

12
would not lose her F-1 student status. Doc. no. 13-28 at 1. In several of these emails,
especially as it becomes clear to Akoju that UNH would require her to pay her
balance in full to lift the hold, Akoju mentioned that she has filed an EEOC
complaint. Doc. no. 13-28 at 1-3.
That same day, Akoju delivered a $10,129 cashier’s check to UNH, but, as the
staff member at UNH Student Financial Services explained, Akoju still owed $4,583
in order to make her account current. Accordingly, UNH Student Financial Services
did not remove the financial hold from her account, and Akoju was unable to
register for classes. Doc. no. 13-28 at 1-3.
Later that day, Akoju sent an email to the UNH Housing Office and Student
Financial Services demanding that they remove the financial hold so that she could
enroll and maintain her F-1 visa status. Doc. no. 14-15 at 1-3. Akoju laid out her
“pending EEOC charge regarding UNH Housing’s summer job discrimination and
its consequences” and demanded that UNH “work directly with EEOC and promptly
resolve the financial hold and related housing issues so I can remain enrolled.” Id.
at 2. In this letter, she claimed that the “accelerated Spring 2026 housing payment
deadline . . . appears retaliatory. . . .” Id. She stated she was copying EEOC “for
context.” Id. On this correspondence, Akoju also copied numerous officials at UNH,
including Dr. Levine, the president, and UNH’s legal counsel, as well as the EEOC
intake office in Boston.
The following day, on February 7, Dr. Levine sent an email to Akoju
confirming that her degree status had been discontinued effective February 6
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 12 of 24

13
because her failure to pay her account balance in full resulted in her failure to
register for classes. Id. at 1. Dr. Levine wrote:
As we advised repeatedly, the last day for graduate
students to register and pay without having their degree
status discontinued was February 6, 2026. As was also
noted in numerous past emails to you from the UNH
Student Financial Services Office, your balance was
required to be paid in full, with payment clear, before holds
would be removed so that you could register. Your partial
payment of your account balance on February 6
unfortunately did not meet those requirements.
Accordingly, your degree status is discontinued effective
February 6, 2026.
Id.
On February 9, Akoju emailed Dr. Levine a hypothetical question: if she were
able to pay the outstanding $4,584 she still owed, would UNH allow her petition for
reinstatement? The following day, Dr. Levine responded in the negative. Doc. no.
14-16 at 1-2. He explained that the Computer Science Department had informed
him that Akoju had failed to make progress towards her degree. And with respect to
her late registration, Dr. Levine informed Akoju that the department had heard
nothing from her until the February 6 deadline to petition for enrollment. Dr.
Levine added that the course in which Akoju sought to enroll “is designed for
students who are actively working on dissertation research and is not simply a way
to maintain student status.”11 Id. at 1. Thus, as Dr. Levine explained: “[E]ven if you
11 In a February 6 email to Dr. Levine, Professor Bartos (Chair of the Computer
Science Department) summarized his reasons for not supporting Akoju’s petition for
reinstatement:
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 13 of 24

14
are able to resolve the financial balance your petition to be reinstated will not be
approved.” Id. Dr. Levine explained that UNH would hold off on reporting her
change in status to SEVIS until February 13 to provide her with “additional time to
make necessary arrangements to leave.” Id. The UNH Housing Office also notified
Akoju that she would be required to leave her university housing by noon on
February 13. This, too, was an extension of the usual 72-hour timeframe by which
students are required to move out after losing eligibility for on-campus housing.12
See doc. no. 13-29 at 4-5.
On February 11, Akoju filed this lawsuit and the motion for a TRO. The
following day, the court held a status conference at which Akoju and UNH general
counsel appeared. UNH agreed that it would not update Akoju’s enrollment status
(within SEVIS) until February 27, 2026, and that it would maintain the status quo
Sushma has not made any progress towards her degree
over the last semester. CS 999 is designed for students who
are actively working on dissertation research. Sushma has
not yet identified a PhD advisor and has no active research
project within the department. She has also not completed
the requisite number of 800- and 900-level courses for the
PhD. We are therefore uncomfortable with allowing her to
register, yet again, for a class that is simply a placeholder
and a way to maintain student status. . . . At this time, the
department is recommending dismissal from the CS PhD
program.
Doc. no. 14-14 at 3. Bartos did not copy Akoju on this email.
12 UNH had originally emailed Akoju on February 6 requesting that she move
out by 4 p.m. on February 9. Doc. no. 13-29 at 5.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 14 of 24

15
regarding Akoju’s housing until the court could hold a hearing and issue this order
on the pending motion for a TRO.
DISCUSSION
As described above, to obtain a TRO, a plaintiff must demonstrate a
likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence
of relief, that the balance of equities is in her favor, and that injunctive relief is
consistent with the public interest. Karlsen, 2018 WL 11273651, at *1. Where, as
here, the plaintiff fails to establish any likelihood of success on the merits, the court
need not address the remaining factors. See id.
I. Akoju is Unlikely to Succeed on Her Title VII Claim
Akoju claims that defendants terminated her student status and threatened
to evict her from her university housing in retaliation for a charge she filed with the
EEOC on December 18, 2025. Defendants respond that they were simply following
UNH policy by requiring Akoju to pay her overdue account in full before allowing
her to enroll in classes.
To prevail on a Title VII retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that “(1) she
engaged in protected activity; (2) she suffered some materially adverse action; and
(3) the adverse action was causally linked to her protected activity.” Stratton v.
Bentley Univ., 113 F.4th 25, 41-42 (1st Cir. 2024) (quoting Dixon v. Int'l Bhd. of
Police Officers, 504 F.3d 73, 81 (1st Cir. 2007)). A plaintiff must prove that the
employer would not have taken the adverse action “but for” a desire to retaliate. Id.
at 44. “Such a standard protects against a poor-performing employee shielding
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 15 of 24

16
themselves from termination by the mere fact that they engaged in protected
conduct.” Id.
As in cases of substantive discrimination, retaliation claims are assessed
using the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework. Id. at 42. Once a plaintiff
establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a
legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its employment decision. Id. “If a defendant
can do this then the burden travels once more to the plaintiff to show that the
reason is pretext and that retaliatory animus was the real motivating factor.” Id.
(quoting Abril-Rivera v. Johnson, 806 F.3d 599, 608 n.10 (1st Cir. 2015)). At this
final step, the plaintiff must “‘point to specific facts that would demonstrate’ to a
reasonable jury that [defendant’s proffered non-retaliatory reason] was a ‘sham or
pretext intended to cover up retaliatory motive.’” Kinzer v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc.,
99 F.4th 105, 118 (1st Cir. 2024) (brackets omitted) (quoting Calero-Cerezo v. U.S.
Dep't of Just., 355 F.3d 6, 26 (1st Cir. 2004)).
Assuming Akoju has made out a prima facie case of retaliation, she is
unlikely to convince a jury that UNH’s proffered non-retaliatory reason for its
adverse actions is pretextual or illegitimate. First, in accordance with official policy,
UNH prevents students from registering for classes if their student accounts are not
current. Moreover, also according to UNH policy, if a student fails to register by the
registration deadline, their degree status is discontinued. Akoju admits that she
had not paid her account balance in full as of the February 6, 2026 registration
deadline. Thus, a jury is likely to find that it was perfectly reasonable for
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 16 of 24

17
defendants to place a financial hold on Akoju’s student account that in turn
prevented Akoju from registering for classes — an unfortunate although not
surprising series of events that had the practical effect of terminating Akoju’s
degree status and jeopardizing her university housing and immigration status.
In support of her retaliation claim, Akoju argues that UNH Student
Financial Services made a change (in the Fall 2025) to its policy which she describes
as an “accelerated Spring 2026 housing payment deadline.” Doc. no. 14-15 at 2. She
maintains that, in her prior semesters, UNH had allowed her access to a “payment
plan” so she could prospectively pay down the outstanding balance on her student
account and keep her account active by paying the bill over the course of a term. Id.
at 4. But, for this Spring 2026 semester, UNH was requiring advance payment of
her housing for the upcoming semester (e.g., $4583.11 for housing). Akoju argues
that UNH instituted this change in policy to retaliate against her for filing an
EEOC complaint. Id. at 2. There is no evidence to support Akoju’s claim.
The Director of UNH Student Financial Services, Elizabeth Stevens, testified
that the change in policy occurred in Fall 2025. The court found her testimony
credible. Stevens’ decision to change the policy was not inspired by Akoju’s EEOC
complaint—which, in any event, occurred more than a month after the policy
change. Rather, Stevens described the (change in) policy as a return to a
“longstanding practice” that her office had previously abandoned. As Stevens
explained it, the policy prohibits any student who has a history of writing checks
that bounce from obtaining a payment plan. Because Akoju had a repeated history
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 17 of 24

18
of bouncing checks, Stevens decided to apply the policy to her. Stevens credibly
testified that she made this decision on November 12, 2025. This was more than one
month before Akoju filed her EEOC complaint. Stevens also testified that she had
no interactions or communications with Akoju prior to the decision. Stevens was
only aware of Akoju’s longstanding history of bounced checks.
Akoju claims that UNH’s financial explanation for its adverse actions is a
pretext because in a February 10 email, Dr. Levine told Akoju that, even if she were
to pay her outstanding account balance, UNH would still not allow a petition for
reinstatement because the Computer Science Department determined that Akoju
had not made satisfactory progress toward her degree. The fact that UNH would
consider the views of the relevant academic department in considering a student’s
petition for reinstatement is not evidence of retaliation for filing an EEOC charge—
it is, as Dr. Levine credibly explained to the court, in accordance with standard
UNH practice. Thus, along with the financial explanations UNH has provided in its
defense, UNH has an additional nondiscriminatory academic reason for refusing to
permit Akoju’s petition for reinstatement. These are both wholly legitimate
justifications for UNH’s decision, and the record evidence supports that both
justifications are genuine. There is no credible evidence that these explanations
were manufactured by UNH as a pretext for retaliating against Akoju for anything,
much less an EEOC complaint.
The only support in the record for a theory of retaliation is the timing of
Akoju’s EEOC complaint, which preceded the February 6-10, 2026 emails about her
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 18 of 24

19
financial situation. However, the record is replete with communications to and from
Akoju and UNH which show Akoju’s awareness of her predicament and shaky
enrollment status. And the change in policy that exacerbated the financial
predicament for Akoju (for the Spring 2026 semester) predated the EEOC
complaint. That policy was applied to her because of her undisputed history of
bouncing checks throughout her time at UNH. In short, Akoju’s EEOC complaint
played no role in the situation that caused her to lose her student status.
For these reasons, Akoju has not shown any likelihood she will succeed on the
merits of her Title VII retaliation claim.
II. Akoju is Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits of her Procedural Due Process
Claim
In Count II, Akoju alleges that defendants violated her rights to procedural
due process by terminating her enrollment (and thus jeopardizing her immigration
status and housing) without adequate notice or hearing.
“To establish a procedural due process violation, a plaintiff must show that
(1) [she] was deprived of a protected property interest, and (2) the procedures
attendant to that deprivation were constitutionally inadequate.” Rocket Learning,
Inc. v. Rivera-Sanchez, 715 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2013). Defendants concede, for the
purposes of this motion, that Akoju has a property interest in continued enrollment.
Thus, the court will focus its analysis on the second prong: whether UNH’s
procedures were constitutionally adequate.
“The essentials of procedural due process comprise notice of the charges and
a reasonable chance to meet them.” Fusion Learning, Inc. v. Andover Sch. Comm.,
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 19 of 24

20
609 F. Supp. 3d 5, 14 (D. Mass. 2022) (quoting Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 753
(1st Cir. 1990)). However, as this court recently observed, “when a student is
discharged for academic rather than disciplinary reasons, there is no requirement
that he be given a hearing.” Melendez v. Univ. of New Hampshire, Civ. no. 23-cv-
172-SM-TSM, 2024 WL 5408179, at *16 (D.N.H. Nov. 12, 2024), report and
recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 486819, at *1 (D.N.H. Feb. 10, 2025). Rather,
due process is satisfied in such a situation where (1) the school fully informs the
student of “the faculty's dissatisfaction with [her] academic progress and the danger
that this poses to timely graduation and continued enrollment,” and (2) the ultimate
decision to dismiss the student is “careful and deliberate.” Id. (brackets omitted)
(quoting Bd. of Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 85 (1978)).13
Like her Title VII claim, Akoju’s procedural due process claim shows a low
likelihood of success on the merits. When Akoju received and signed UNH’s Student
Financial Responsibility Agreement on May 16, 2024, she agreed that if she failed
to pay her student account bill, she would be prevented from registering for courses.
Doc. no. 14-19. Moreover, Akoju was on notice of UNH’s continuous registration
policy whereby students who fail to remain continuously registered have their
degree status discontinued. This policy is published in the graduate handbook
which all students are required to review and be familiar with. The uncontroverted
evidence shows that Akoju was aware of this requirement. Her September 2025
13 While Akoju was not technically “discharged for academic” reasons, this line
of analysis appears applicable to her situation.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 20 of 24

21
emails with UNH demonstrate that Akoju was well-aware that failing to per her
bills would prevent her from registering for classes, and that failing to register by
the deadline would result in her student status being terminated. Akoju’s
September 2025 episode of almost falling out of graduate student status also
illustrates that Akoju was aware of the potential immigration consequences that
come with losing student status.
On January 10, 2026, UNH sent Akoju a bill (due on February 1, 2026)
putting her on notice of exactly what she owed. Dr. Levine testified that UNH sent
Akoju at least six additional messages informing her that February 6, 2026, was the
deadline by which she had to register for courses for the spring semester. She also
received notice on January 22, 2026, specifically informing her that if she did not
register for courses by the February 6 deadline, she would be ineligible to remain in
her university housing, per UNH policy. See doc. no. 14-4.14 Thus, the court finds
that Akoju received adequate notice that if she did not pay her bills on time, she
would not be able to register for classes, and if she did not register for classes, she
would lose her student status and university housing.
Akoju contends that she was entitled to notice that UNH would not allow her
to pay the bill over time — with a payment plan — as she had in prior semesters.
But the emails to her from UNH Student Financial Services about the Spring 2026
semester were clear: she had to pay the entire bill by February 6 or she would not
14 Akoju received a similar notice on August 25, 2025 (for the Fall 2025
semester). Doc. no. 14-8 at 2-3.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 21 of 24

22
be allowed to register. There is no dispute that Akoju received and read the emails
(beginning on January 10, 2026) alerting her to the amount that she was required
to pay by February 6, 2026 to register for the Spring 2026 semester. In short, Akoju
had adequate notice in advance of the due date.15
To the extent Akoju contends that she lacked notice that, if reinstated, the
Computer Science Department would recommend her dismissal for academic
reasons, that argument likewise fails. Akoju received repeated notice that failure to
make progress towards her degree could result in dismissal. The Computer Science
Handbook clearly states that students may be dismissed if they fail to make
progress toward their degree, and that this progress is measured by, among other
things, the student having a research mentor, their progress in research, and their
performance in coursework. Doc. no. 14-9 at 12.
At the hearing on this motion, Akoju acknowledged that over a year before
her graduate status was terminated, UNH made clear that Akoju needed to make
progress towards her degree by both finding an advisor and completing courses for
credit. Despite this direct warning, Akoju did not affiliate with an advisor, only
completed two full courses and a research seminar (in the Computer Science
Department) in her three semesters at UNH, and had not made any progress on the
15 And even if the notice regarding the lack of access to a payment plan was in
some way deficient, Dr. Levine made clear on February 10 that Akoju would have
faced dismissal based on her lack of academic progress, even if she could
hypothetically cure her financial default. See doc. no. 14-16 at 1-2. As explained
herein, Akoju was certainly on notice that she was not making progress towards her
degree and that that could lead to her dismissal.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 22 of 24

23
department’s mandatory “depth requirement” as of the time of her student status
termination.16 Doc. no. 14-9 at 3. What is more, in September 2025, when Akoju
first petitioned to enroll in classes late, defendants specifically warned her that the
classes she had elected to register for would not “contribute to academic progress
toward her degree.” Doc. no. 14-9 at 18. In sum, a jury is likely to find that
defendants fully informed Akoju of their dissatisfaction with her academic
performance and the danger that it posed to her continued enrollment, and that the
decision to tell Akoju that her petition for reinstatement would not be granted was
both careful and deliberate.17 See Melendez, 2024 WL 5408179, at *16. For these
reasons, Akoju is unlikely to be successful on the merits of her procedural due
process claim.
Before moving away from this point, the court offers an observation about Dr.
Levine. The record contains numerous emails between Akoju and Dr. Levine. The
court was impressed with the level of detail, patience, and concern for Akoju that is
16 Akoju argues that she has made academic progress as evidenced by a paper
of hers being accepted in the “AAAI Bridge Program.” However, as explained by the
chair of the Computer Science Department, Akoju did not prepare or submit this
paper as part of the department’s “depth program.” Doc. no. 14-9 at 3.
17 Akoju asserts that she was denied due process because Professor Bartos, the
Chair of the Computer Science Department, failed to respond to her November 3,
2025 email in which Akoju asked about the “conditions for dismissal and the
Department’s continued support for her enrollment.” Doc. no. 22 at 5. Even if true
that Professor Bartos never responded, Akoju fails to persuade the court that her
claim has merit. Dr. Levine credibly testified that he was serving as the primary point
person between Akoju and the school, and that he and Akoju had exchanged over 500
emails. As explained above, Akoju was on notice of what was required of her, and the
evidence shows that defendants were making more than a good-faith effort to
communicate with her.
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 23 of 24

24
apparent in Dr. Levine’s email communications. As a witness, Dr. Levine impressed
the court as someone who had a high degree of familiarity with Akoju. In the court’s
view, Dr. Levine is to be commended for the professional manner in which he
communicated with and treated Akoju throughout her time at UNH.
While the court acknowledges that Akoju stands to suffer significant harm in
the absence of a TRO, she still must make some showing of likelihood of success,
and there has not been such a showing here. Thus, the court need not address the
remaining TRO factors. See Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Azar, 976 F.3d 86, 100 (1st
Cir. 2020).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Akoju’s motion for a TRO (doc. no. 4) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________
Landya McCafferty
United States District Judge
February 26, 2026
cc: Sushma Ananda Akoju, pro se
Counsel of Record
Case 1:26-cv-00101-LM-TSM Document 24 Filed 02/26/26 Page 24 of 24