An Afghan woman accused of aiding the Islamic State (ISIL) has been deported from the United States, marking the inaugural case for the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a specialized tribunal created three decades ago but rarely utilized. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) confirmed on Friday that Nazira Haji Zada was removed to Afghanistan following proceedings before the obscure court.
Zada, a 47-year-old lawful permanent resident formerly residing in Fort Worth, Texas, was arrested in 2024. US Attorney General Todd Blanche formally initiated removal proceedings on July 15 of this year. According to the DOJ, Zada waived her right to contest her detention and was subsequently deported.
The government alleged that Zada assisted in concealing an ISIL-inspired mass shooting plot targeting Oklahoma on Election Day 2024. Although she faced no criminal charges, her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, have pleaded guilty to related offenses.
Established by Congress in 1996 as part of anti-terrorism legislation, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court consists of five judges appointed for staggered five-year terms. The statute permits the government to present classified evidence in cases where disclosure might jeopardize national security, provided an unclassified summary is supplied that the court deems adequate for the defendant to prepare a defense. Prosecutors must demonstrate with strong evidence that the individual qualifies as an “alien terrorist.”
Attorney General Blanche hailed the deportation as a triumph for national security. “Those who support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States,” Blanche stated, emphasizing that the department would employ “every tool at its disposal” to safeguard the nation.
However, Zada’s legal team condemned the proceedings. They argued that subjecting lawful permanent residents to a court while withholding the underlying evidence violated due process rights. In a statement, the defense declared, “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.”
The lawyers further asserted that Zada’s decision to consent to removal should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the court’s legitimacy. They expressed confidence that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court would eventually be ruled unconstitutional once a judge directly addresses the legal challenges.
It remains unclear whether the DOJ intends to pursue additional cases through the previously inactive court.
The AG calls it a security triumph, but dragging permanent residents through secret tribunals sets a dangerous precedent for everyone.
Wait, her son and son-in-law pleaded guilty, but she wasn’t charged? That’s a huge inconsistency I’m curious about.
How can anyone defend this? If the evidence is hidden, how does she possibly mount a defense? It feels fundamentally unjust.
This is alarming. Using a secret court with classified evidence against a permanent resident sounds like a serious due process violation.