Historic Terrorist Court Deportation
United States deports Afghan woman in first ever terrorist removal court case
Anonymous
Key Points
1
Haji Zada was arrested at her home in Fort Worth, Texas, in July, and the tribunal held its first-ever public hearing in the case on July 30.
2
The removal order was signed by the court’s chief judge, Joan Ericksen, although the order had not yet been posted on the public docket when the Justice Department announced the deportation.
3
The Justice Department said it had provided Haji Zada’s lawyers with roughly half a terabyte of documents supporting its allegation that she qualified as an alien terrorist.
4
Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were prosecuted and convicted in connection with the ISIS-inspired Election Day mass-shooting plot; Haji Zada herself was never charged criminally.
5
The court’s procedures bar respondents—including legal permanent residents—from reviewing the classified evidence against them and from challenging how the government obtained that evidence, unlike defendants in criminal proceedings.
Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan permanent resident in Texas, has been deported after proceedings before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court—a secret tribunal created by Congress in 1996 but never used until now. KOCO reported that the Justice Department accused her of supporting and helping radicalize two Afghan relatives involved in a foiled ISIS-inspired mass-shooting plot targeting Election Day 2024, though she was never criminally charged.
The case marks the first-ever use of the secretive court. Haji Zada ultimately conceded she was an alien terrorist, waived her appeal, and chose removal to Afghanistan. Attorney General Todd Blanche called it a national-security victory, while her lawyers argued the court's reliance on classified evidence and restrictions on challenging the government's case violated due process.
A Tribunal Hidden From View for Nearly 30 Years
Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in 1996 for cases involving classified national-security evidence. Times of Israel reported that this case was the first time the Justice Department ever activated it. The court's procedures bar respondents—including legal permanent residents—from reviewing classified evidence against them and from challenging how the government obtained that evidence, unlike defendants in criminal trials.
The court remained unused for decades, likely because of its secrecy, constitutional vulnerability, and the availability of ordinary immigration procedures. This case suggests the court can remove noncitizens when national-security evidence is too sensitive to disclose through standard removal proceedings.
Family's ISIS Plot and Mother's Secret Support
Haji Zada was arrested at her Fort Worth, Texas home in July. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were prosecuted and convicted in connection with the ISIS-inspired Election Day mass-shooting plot. The Justice Department claimed Nazira supported and radicalized both men, though she faced no criminal charges herself.
The Justice Department provided Haji Zada's lawyers with roughly half a terabyte of documents supporting its terrorist-support allegations. However, much of that evidence remained classified and hidden from her legal team. This asymmetry—where the accused cannot see or challenge the evidence against her—remains legally contested.
A Conviction Without a Criminal Trial
Unlike her relatives, Haji Zada was deported through an immigration proceeding, not a criminal prosecution. The removal order was signed by the court's chief judge, Joan Ericksen, on an unspecified date. The Justice Department announced the deportation before the order appeared on the public docket, raising transparency concerns.
Her lawyers argued the court's procedures violated due process because she could not review classified evidence or challenge how the government obtained it. They questioned whether the court itself is constitutional. Yet because Haji Zada conceded her terrorist designation and waived appeal, no definitive ruling on the court's constitutionality emerged from the case.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativeNEGATIVENEUTRALPOSITIVE
Publishers
44
Articles
246
Reach
290
A
AnonymousAuthor
