In a historic ruling, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court has ordered the deportation of a legal US resident to Afghanistan, marking the first time the specialized tribunal has been utilized since its creation in 1996. The Justice Department brought the case against Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old woman from Afghanistan, who consented to removal after acknowledging her status as an “alien terrorist” in court documents.
Prosecutors allege that Haji Zada supported a plot by her son and son-in-law to carry out an Islamic State-inspired mass shooting on Election Day in 2024. Both male relatives have already faced criminal charges; her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, was sentenced to 15 years in prison, and both are scheduled for deportation following their prison terms.
Haji Zada was arrested at her Fort Worth, Texas, home in July. Rather than pursuing standard criminal charges, the Justice Department initiated these civil proceedings before the secretive court, which permits the use of classified evidence deemed too sensitive for public disclosure. On August 20, Senior U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen ordered her removal after Haji Zada waived her right to challenge the detention.
The case has drawn sharp criticism regarding constitutional protections. Haji Zada’s attorneys, Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, argued that the proceedings violated due process because they were denied access to the classified evidence used against their client. In a statement, the defense clarified that Haji Zada’s consent to deportation did not constitute an endorsement of the court’s legitimacy, calling the setup a clear violation of legal rights.
According to court filings, authorities allege that Haji Zada, who arrived in the US as a lawful permanent resident in 2018, acted as the family matriarch who radicalized relatives and pledged loyalty to ISIS. Prosecutors claim the family liquidated assets, including vehicles and electronics, to fund the attack and planned to relocate to ISIS-controlled territory while her son and son-in-law remained to execute the violence.
Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, Haji Zada’s son-in-law, pleaded guilty to terrorism-related charges after admitting to conspiring to purchase firearms and ammunition for the plot. Attorney General Todd Blanche endorsed the court’s decision, stating that the case demonstrates the government’s commitment to utilizing all available tools to safeguard national security.
National security is paramount, but we can’t just ignore constitutional protections. The precedent set here is deeply worrying for everyone.
As a legal resident since 2018, losing everything because of her son and son-in-law’s actions seems disproportionately harsh.
I was shocked to learn she consented to removal. Did her lawyers advise her properly, or was she coerced into waiving her rights?
How can you have a fair trial when the evidence is classified and the defense can’t see it? This feels like a legal loophole.
First time this court has been used since 1996? That alone raises serious red flags about secrecy and due process.