For the first time in thirty years, a court designed to operate in shadow has been used to remove a person from the country she called home. Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan permanent resident in Texas, was deported after the Justice Department designated her an alien terrorist — a label she could not fully contest because the evidence behind it was sealed from her view. Her case inaugurates the Alien Terrorist Removal Court as a living instrument of policy, and in doing so, reopens an enduring question: how much due process a nation owes to those who have made their lives within its bor
Afghan permanent resident deported as first 'alien terrorist' case in secretive court
Nazira Haji Zada was deported to Afghanistan, losing her permanent resident status and separation from family members remaining in the United States.
A court where she could not see the evidence against her
Mark
So she was deported without ever being charged with a crime. What exactly was the government's case against her?
Mimi
The government alleged she supported her son and son-in-law's plot to carry out a mass shooting inspired by ISIS on Election Day 2024. They said she worked to radicalize her children toward ISIS ideology. But the specific evidence for those allegations—the classified documents—she was never allowed to see.
Luke
Right, and that's the structural problem here. We know her son and son-in-law were convicted. That's solid. But the allegations about what she did or said to support them—those are the government's characterization, presented in classified form, in a court where she couldn't challenge the evidence or how it was gathered.
Mimi
She had public defenders, and they initially said they'd fight it. But after the government shared half a terabyte of documents, she chose to leave rather than keep litigating.
Mark
Why would she make that choice if she believed she was innocent?
Luke
We don't know her reasoning. The reporting doesn't include her statement or her lawyers' explanation for why she decided to concede. That's a gap. We're told what the government says happened, but not what she or her legal team said about it.
Mimi
The court itself is the real story, though. It's been sitting there since 1996, and this is the first time it's actually been used. That's thirty years of a legal mechanism designed for exactly this kind of case, and it took until now for the government to invoke it.
Mark
What does that tell us?
Luke
It tells us the court is extremely rare and extremely powerful. It exists specifically to remove people when the government can't use normal deportation because the evidence is classified. But we should be careful about what we conclude from that. The government clearly thought this case met that threshold. Whether it actually did—whether the evidence really required classification, or whether the secrecy was necessary—we can't evaluate that from the outside.
Mimi
And now she's been deported to Afghanistan. That's the human consequence. She was a permanent resident. She had family here. And she's gone.
Mark
Does the reporting tell us anything about her family situation?
Luke
No. We know her son and son-in-law were convicted, so presumably they're still in the U.S. in custody or serving sentences. But we don't know if she had a spouse, other children, grandchildren—nothing about what she left behind or what her life was like before this.
Le Pouls
- A court that existed for thirty years without ever being used has now claimed its first target — a grandmother deported to Afghanistan without ever being charged with a crime.
- The Alien Terrorist Removal Court bars defendants from seeing classified evidence against them or challenging how it was gathered, creating a legal arena where the accused cannot mount a full defense.
- Haji Zada's public defenders argued the court's secrecy violated her constitutional right to due process, but faced with half a terabyte of evidence she could not review, she chose deportation over an unwinnable fight.
- The government alleges she supported and helped radicalize her son and son-in-law, both convicted in an ISIS-inspired plot to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day 2024.
- Attorney General Todd Blanche called the outcome a national security victory, signaling the administration's intent to use this tribunal as an active tool going forward.
- The case leaves unresolved how far the government can go in stripping permanent residents of their status through proceedings designed to keep its own methods beyond scrutiny.
For the first time in thirty years, a court designed to operate in shadow has been used to remove a person from the country she called home. Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan permanent resident in Texas, was deported after the Justice Department designated her an alien terrorist — a label she could not fully contest because the evidence behind it was sealed from her view. Her case inaugurates the Alien Terrorist Removal Court as a living instrument of policy, and in doing so, reopens an enduring question: how much due process a nation owes to those who have made their lives within its borders but do not hold its citizenship.
Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan permanent resident living in Texas, has been deported after the Justice Department labeled her an "alien terrorist" — the first person ever removed through the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a secretive tribunal created in 1996 that had never before been invoked.
The court was built for cases where the government's evidence is too sensitive to disclose in ordinary proceedings. Its rules are stark: targets of removal, including legal permanent residents, cannot see the classified evidence against them and cannot challenge how it was obtained. Haji Zada's public defenders argued this violated her constitutional right to due process. The government responded by sharing half a terabyte of documents with her legal team — material she herself could not access — and she ultimately conceded the designation and waived her right to appeal, accepting deportation over the prospect of litigating in a forum designed to keep her in the dark.
The government's case against her rested heavily on her family. Her son and son-in-law were convicted for plotting an ISIS-inspired mass shooting on Election Day 2024. Prosecutors alleged she had supported their plans and worked to radicalize her children toward ISIS ideology. She was never charged with any crime.
Attorney General Todd Blanche declared the outcome a national security victory and promised the Justice Department would continue using every tool available to protect the country. What remains unresolved is what this first use of the ATRC means for the permanent residents who may follow — and whether a court built on secrecy can be reconciled with the due process protections the law is meant to guarantee.
Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan permanent resident living in Texas, has been deported from the United States after the Justice Department labeled her an "alien terrorist." The case marks the first time the government has used the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a secretive tribunal created three decades ago to handle deportations involving classified national security information. Rather than continue fighting in a legal system where she could not see the evidence against her, Haji Zada chose to leave.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established in 1996 as a mechanism to remove noncitizens from the country when traditional deportation proceedings could not proceed because the government's evidence was classified and could not be disclosed publicly without compromising national security. The court operates under rules fundamentally different from criminal trials. Targets of removal proceedings—including legal permanent residents—are prohibited from reviewing the classified evidence marshaled against them. They are also barred from challenging how the government obtained that evidence, a protection that exists in ordinary criminal cases but not here.
Haji Zada had initially fought the deportation through her public defenders, who argued that the court's secretive procedures violated her constitutional right to due process. The government countered by sharing half a terabyte of documents with her legal team in support of its case. According to the Justice Department's account, Haji Zada then conceded that she was an alien terrorist and waived her right to appeal the removal order, effectively terminating her permanent resident status.
The government's allegations against her center on her family members' involvement in a terrorism plot. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were both prosecuted and convicted in connection with a plan to carry out an ISIS-inspired mass shooting on Election Day in 2024. The Justice Department has alleged that Nazira Haji Zada supported their plans and worked to radicalize her children toward ISIS ideology. She herself has never been charged with any crime.
Attorney General Todd Blanche framed the deportation as a national security victory. "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," he said in a statement released Friday. The case represents the first operational use of a court that has existed for thirty years without ever being invoked in a deportation proceeding.
The outcome raises questions about the protections available to permanent residents in national security cases. Haji Zada's decision to accept deportation rather than continue litigating in a forum where she could not see or challenge the evidence against her illustrates the practical constraints of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court's design. Whether other permanent residents will face similar proceedings, and how the court's secrecy will shape future cases, remains to be seen.
Citations marquantes
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.— Attorney General Todd Blanche
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur NewsBreak ↗
Politics & Governance