An Afghan woman with legal permanent residency in the United States has been deported in a historic case involving a rarely used court designed for matters of national security. Nazira Haji Zada, aged 47, opted to leave the country rather than contest her case in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, as reported by both the US Department of Justice and her legal representatives.
Established in 1996, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court had not previously been utilized until the recent proceedings that began in July. This court specifically addresses cases involving non-citizens accused of terrorism-related offenses, where the evidence presented is deemed sensitive and not available for public scrutiny.
Background of the Case
Haji Zada, a citizen of Afghanistan residing in Fort Worth, Texas, was never formally charged with any crime herself. However, her son and son-in-law faced serious accusations and were convicted of planning a mass shooting aligned with the ideologies of the Islamic State group. Abdullah Haji Zada and Nasir Ahmad Tawhed were found guilty of conspiracy to commit this violent act on Election Day in 2024.
Prosecutors labeled Haji Zada as the “matriarch” of the family, alleging she played a significant role in radicalizing them. Despite her legal status, the circumstances surrounding her son’s and son-in-law’s convictions led to her case being brought before the secretive court.
Legal Controversy
In a statement released on Friday, the Department of Justice indicated that Haji Zada acknowledged her designation as an “alien terrorist” and voluntarily waived her right to appeal the removal order, thus ending her immigration status in the United States. US Attorney General Todd Blanche commented on the case, emphasizing its importance for national security and legal order, stating that it showcases the government’s commitment to preventing those who support terrorism from residing in the country.
However, Haji Zada’s legal team has raised serious concerns about the fairness of the proceedings. Her court-appointed lawyers, Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, indicated that they were not granted access to critical evidence against her. They expressed that her decision to consent to removal should not be interpreted as an acceptance of the court’s validity, criticizing the lack of transparency as a violation of due process.
They are confident that the legitimacy of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will be challenged successfully in the future, arguing that the fundamental rights of lawful permanent residents must be upheld, and that the current judicial framework surrounding this court is unconstitutional.
