Justice Department Deports Legal Resident to Afghanistan in First ATRC Case

The Justice Department deported a 47-year-old legal U.S. resident to Afghanistan on August 25 after she conceded to being an alien terrorist, marking the first-ever use of the secretive Alien Terrorist Removal Court established by Congress in 1996.

For the first time in its three-decade history, the federal Alien Terrorist Removal Court was utilized to deport a legal U.S. resident linked to terrorism. Nazira Haji Zada, a Fort Worth, Texas resident who entered the country in 2018, was removed from the United States on August 25 following a removal order issued by Senior U.S. District Judge Joan Ericksen on August 20, court records show.

The Justice Department publicly announced the landmark deportation on Friday, coinciding with the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The dormant tribunal, created by Congress in 1996 following the Oklahoma City bombing, is designed to allow the government to remove noncitizens using classified evidence that prosecutors argue would endanger national security if disclosed publicly.

Family Ties to an Election Day Plot

Federal prosecutors stated that Haji Zada supported an ISIS-inspired mass-casualty attack orchestrated by her son and son-in-law targeting large gatherings on Election Day in November 2024. Investigators detailed that the family members acquired two AK-47 assault rifles, 500 rounds of ammunition, and 10 magazines from an undercover FBI employee.

According to court documents, Haji Zada’s son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, communicated with an ISIS facilitator regarding the purchase. Tawhedi, 28, subsequently pled guilty to two terrorism-related charges and is awaiting sentencing. Haji Zada’s son, Abdullah Haji Zada, who was 17 at the time of the October 2024 arrests, pleaded guilty as an adult and received a 15-year prison sentence in 2025 alongside a future order of removal to Afghanistan.

Authorities asserted that the family worked to raise funds for the planned attack by selling off household furniture, computers, mobile phones, and two vehicles. Haji Zada reportedly signed a contract to sell the family’s home, and court records noted that family members purchased one-way plane tickets to Kabul, Afghanistan, intending to leave just before the planned attack.

Inside the Secretive Removal Proceedings

Instead of pursuing traditional criminal charges or administrative immigration proceedings, the Justice Department initiated civil proceedings before the special removal court. The mechanism permits the use of classified intelligence—including half a terabyte of documents provided to the defense—while restricting defendants and their attorneys from reviewing certain evidence.

The U.S. Department of Justice in Washington on April 27, 2026. (Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times) — Photo: ntd.com

During the proceedings, Haji Zada waived her right to challenge the detention and appeal the removal order, terminating her permanent resident status.

“This landmark case, resulting in the prompt removal of this alien terrorist to her country of origin, is a win for national security and the rule of law.”

Todd Blanche, Attorney General, via Department of Justice

FBI Director Kash Patel also weighed in on the operation, stating that an individual who supported a plot by family members to commit an attack in America has paid the price.

Legal Challenges and Due Process Concerns

Haji Zada’s court-appointed defense team, consisting of public defenders Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, contested the constitutional validity of the proceeding. They argued that denying access to the underlying evidence violates fundamental legal protections.

Justice Department Deports Legal Resident to Afghanistan in First ATRC Case — Photo: ndtv.com

“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.”

Matthew Farley, Public Defender, via Statement

Defense counsel maintained that their client’s choice to accept removal rather than prolong the litigation should not be seen as an endorsement of this court’s legitimacy. Attorneys expressed confidence that the tribunal will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional once a federal judge addresses the merits of the statute.

Precedent and Future Implications for National Security

For decades following its enactment, prior administrations avoided the specialized court due to persistent civil liberties concerns and the availability of standard criminal and administrative deportation channels, according to the Brennan Center.