An Afghan woman who had been living in Fort Worth, Texas, as a legal permanent US resident has been deported to Afghanistan after becoming the first person ever processed through the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, according to the US Department of Justice and her lawyers.
Nazira Haji Zada, 47, was never charged with a crime herself. Instead, prosecutors alleged she was the “matriarch” of a family group and had worked “to radicalize the family,” pointing to the terrorism convictions of her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhed. Both men were found guilty of plotting a mass shooting on Election Day in 2024 that prosecutors said was inspired by the group calling itself Islamic State.
The proceedings against Haji Zada took place in July before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a tribunal created by Congress in 1996 specifically for non-US citizens facing terrorism-related allegations when the government’s evidence is classified or tied to national security. Until this case, the court had never actually heard a matter since its creation nearly three decades ago.
According to the Department of Justice, Haji Zada ultimately “conceded that she is an alien terrorist and waived appeal of the removal order, terminating her previous [immigration] status,” rather than continue contesting the case before the court. Her lawyers said she chose deportation over further proceedings.
US Attorney General Todd Blanche characterized the outcome as a significant moment for the department. “This landmark case, resulting in the prompt removal of this alien terrorist to her country of origin, is a win for national security and the rule of law,” Blanche said. “Those who support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States, and this first-ever case before the ATRC shows how the Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect our country.”
Haji Zada’s court-appointed lawyers, public defenders Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, said they were never given access to the evidence used against their client, and argued the process violated her constitutional right to due process. “Our client’s choice to consent to removal should not be seen as an endorsement of this court’s legitimacy,” they said in a statement to The Washington Post. “Dragging lawful permanent residents into court but refusing to show them or their attorneys the evidence that will be used against them is a plain violation of due process. We are confident that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be struck down as unconstitutional as soon as a judge is asked to address the issue.”
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court operates differently from standard criminal or immigration courts. It was designed to allow the government to seek removal of non-citizens based on classified evidence related to terrorism, without necessarily disclosing that evidence in full to the person facing removal or, in some instances, to their attorneys. Because removal through this court is a civil immigration proceeding rather than a criminal prosecution, individuals brought before it are not required to be charged with or convicted of a crime, as was the case here.
Haji Zada was never charged with any criminal offense, and no allegation of a crime against her has been presented in court. Her lawyers have signaled they intend to continue challenging the constitutionality of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in future proceedings, even though her own case has concluded with her removal to Afghanistan.
Source: BBC News
