The US Justice Department has used a little-known court for the first time to seek the deportation of a lawful permanent resident to Afghanistan after she admitted being an “alien terrorist”, court records show.
Nazira Haji Zada, 47, agreed to her removal after prosecutors alleged that she supported a plan by her son and son-in-law to carry out an Islamic State-inspired mass shooting on Election Day in 2024.
Haji Zada was arrested at her home in Fort Worth, Texas, in July. Rather than bringing a criminal case against her, Justice Department officials began civil proceedings before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a tribunal created by Congress in 1996 but not previously used.
Alien Terrorist Removal Court used for first time
The court was established to allow the government to use classified evidence in deportation cases. The standard of proof is lower than in criminal proceedings, while the evidence against Haji Zada remains secret on national security grounds.
In filings dated 20 August and made public on Friday, Haji Zada waived her right to challenge her detention and consented to deportation. Senior US District Judge Joan Ericksen ordered her removal on the same day.
Her admission cannot be used against her in criminal proceedings. Her court-appointed lawyers, Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, had challenged the constitutionality of the case, saying they were not allowed to examine the evidence.
In a statement, the lawyers said their client’s decision to accept removal “should not be seen as an endorsement of this court’s legitimacy”. They added: “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 said they were confident the court would be declared unconstitutional if its legality was challenged before a judge.
Haji Zada moved to the US as a lawful permanent resident in 2018. Her husband worked at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2016.
Prosecutors alleged that Haji Zada acted as the family’s “matriarch”, helped radicalise relatives and formally pledged loyalty to Islamic State. They also said she and her son-in-law sought to indoctrinate her children with the group’s ideology.
According to the government’s case, the family raised money for the planned attack by selling furniture, computers, a mobile phone and two vehicles. Haji Zada allegedly signed an agreement to sell the family home and planned to move with female and younger male relatives to an Islamic State-controlled area, while her son and son-in-law remained behind to carry out the attack.
Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, 19, has been sentenced to 15 years in prison and, along with his brother-in-law, is due to be deported after release. The son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, 28, pleaded guilty to two terrorism-related charges.
Court records say Tawhedi admitted conspiring between June and October 2024 to obtain two AK-47 rifles, 500 rounds of ammunition and 10 magazines for a mass-casualty attack. Prosecutors said he communicated with an Islamic State facilitator about buying the weapons and asked whether 500 rounds would be enough.
Attorney General Todd Blanche approved the application to use the court. He said the case demonstrated “how the Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect our country”.
He described the removal as “a win for national security and the rule of law”.
