USA30 July, 20263 min read
DOJ Seeks Deportation of Afghan Woman Nazira Haji Zada in Alien Terrorist Removal Court
This article is an automated aggregation of coverage from news outlets. Our editorials offer in-depth analysis curated by the NewsCord team.
DOJ seeks deportation of Nazira Haji Zada, Afghan resident in Fort Worth, for ISIS-linked plot. First-ever case in the dormant Alien Terrorist Removal Court after a 30-year hiatus.
First ATRC Case
The Justice Department is seeking to deport Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan citizen residing in Fort Worth, Texas, in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court after prosecutors accused her of providing support for an ISIS-inspired attack intended for Election Day in 2024. DOJ said the case would be the first to be heard by the ATRC, a court established by Congress in 1996, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said, "Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court three decades ago to remove from the United States alien terrorists who never should have been here in the first place." At a hearing Thursday morning, Chief Judge Joan Ericksen presided over proceedings aimed at advising Haji Zada of her rights and determining next steps, and she told the court, "This is the court’s first use."
“‘This is the court’s first use,’ Ericksen said.”
Prosecutors allege Haji Zada collaborated with her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, and the government said the two men were arrested and convicted in connection with the planned attack. The case is tied to allegations that much of the evidence remains classified, with the government arguing for removal while Haji Zada’s defense challenges the legality of using classified information in the tribunal’s process.
Secrecy vs Due Process
Haji Zada’s attorney, Matthew Farley, argued during the initial hearing that the ATRC procedure violates due process, saying, "This entire scheme is in violation of due process and is unconstitutional." The defense also challenged how classified evidence is handled, with Farley describing the access provided to Haji Zada as "woefully inadequate" and noting that the unclassified summary given to her was "just two paragraphs." Judge Joan Ericksen denied a request that Haji Zada be immediately released, while signaling that constitutional issues would be briefed alongside other legal disputes already raised in the case.
During the hearing, Ericksen highlighted the court’s early stage of implementation, telling the defendant, "We are in the early stages in implementing infrastructure," and adding that there may be "moments of inelegance." Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hayden O’Byrne represented the DOJ and argued that even the special attorney allowed to review classified evidence could still face limits, while Ericksen said she would want "a reason and rationale for why disclosure of that information would be detrimental to national security."
What Happens Next
The ATRC case is set up as a test of how secret national security evidence limits an immigrant’s access to full case materials, with the Thursday procedure described as a public pretrial hearing in a federal court in Washington while many details remain out of public access. The court’s process is tied to a probable-cause threshold in an initial phase, and the directive described in court documents says that in the next stage the removal hearing would use a higher burden of proof of "a preponderance of the evidence." The stakes for the defendant are framed by the government’s position that she is an "alien terrorist" and by the DOJ’s effort to remove her from the United States based on allegations connected to an ISIS-inspired Election Day 2024 plot.
DOJ’s Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the allegations show the "matriarch of an ISIS-sympathizing family aiding in a plot to launch a mass casualty attack on American voters on Election Day," while the court’s procedures are designed to protect state secrets by allowing evidence to be withheld from both the public and the accused. As the case proceeds, attorneys for both sides planned to confer with Ericksen in chambers to establish a briefing schedule and next hearing dates, and Ericksen noted that future hearings may be closed to the public if classified evidence is discussed.