Afghan woman deported in first use of US Alien Terrorist Removal Court

Nazira Haji Zada, 47, chose to leave the US rather than continue arguing her case before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC), according to the US Department of Justice and her lawyers. The ATRC was established in 1996 for non-US citizens facing terrorism-related charges when evidence is confidential and tied to national security, but it had never heard a case before proceedings began in July.

Haji Zada was never charged with a crime. However, prosecutors had previously convicted her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhed, for plotting an Election Day mass shooting in 2024 inspired by the Islamic State group. Prosecutors accused Haji Zada of being the "matriarch" of the group who worked "to radicalize the family."

In a statement on Friday, the Justice Department said she "conceded that she is an alien terrorist and waived appeal of the removal order, terminating her previous [immigration] status."

US Attorney General Todd Blanche called the case "a win for national security and the rule of law," adding, "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 argued that the case violated her right to due process under the US Constitution. They said they were denied access to the evidence against her and stated, "Our client's choice to consent to removal should not be seen as an endorsement of this court's legitimacy."

Why This Matters

This is the first time the rarely-invoked Alien Terrorist Removal Court has been used, setting a precedent for how the US government may handle terrorism-related immigration cases involving classified evidence.
Civil liberties advocates see the case as a concerning erosion of due process, as the defendant’s lawyers were denied access to the evidence and the court operates with secrecy provisions.
The deportation of a legal permanent resident without a criminal conviction raises questions about the balance between national security and constitutional rights.

Background

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created by the US Congress in 1996 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. It was designed to provide a mechanism for deporting non-citizens accused of terrorism when the government’s evidence is classified. Despite its creation nearly three decades ago, the court had never been convened until Haji Zada's case, making her deportation a landmark — and controversial — first application of the law.

Key Perspectives

[US Department of Justice]: Views the deportation as a successful use of a legal tool to protect national security. Attorney General Todd Blanche called it a "win for national security and the rule of law." [Haji Zada’s lawyers]: Argue the proceedings denied their client due process because they were not permitted to see the evidence used against her. Her consent to removal, they said, should not be read as acceptance of the court's legitimacy. [Civil liberties and due process advocates]: Likely to see this as a dangerous precedent, where secret evidence can lead to deportation without a criminal conviction, potentially undermining constitutional protections.

What to Watch

Whether similar cases are now brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, signaling a normalisation of this previously unused tribunal.
Legal challenges or appeals that may emerge, potentially testing the constitutionality of the court's procedures.
Congressional oversight or legislative response to the court’s first use, particularly around due process concerns.

ZOTPAPER