First-ever use of Alien Terrorist Removal Court leads to Afghan woman’s deportation over ISIS plot

Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan national, has been deported from the United States after admitting to a specialized federal court that she was an “alien terrorist.” This action marks the first successful implementation of the U.S. Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC), a judicial body established by Congress three decades ago to specifically address non-citizens deemed threats to national security. The case is intrinsically linked to an alleged ISIS-inspired plot that aimed to orchestrate a mass shooting on Election Day 2024.

Her removal to Afghanistan represents a significant milestone in the nation’s counterterrorism legal framework, signaling the Department of Justice’s resolve to deploy every available mechanism against individuals who pose a risk within U.S. borders. The ATRC, designed to provide a distinct legal pathway for expelling non-citizens involved in terrorist activities, had remained dormant since its creation in 1996, making this a landmark event for the country’s national security protocols and immigration enforcement.

On the same topic: US reflects on 9/11 attacks and two decades of unwavering defense against terrorism

Historic court’s activation after three decades

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was enacted by Congress following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and other terrorist incidents, yet it had never been utilized until the recent proceedings involving Zada. Her deportation followed her admission before the ATRC that she was indeed an “alien terrorist” and her subsequent waiver of any right to appeal the decision. This swift resolution, as detailed by the Department of Justice, highlights the court’s intended efficiency in cases of this nature.

Attorney General Todd Blanche lauded the outcome, stating that “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.” He emphasized the administration’s stance that individuals who endorse or support terrorism should not reside in the United States, affirming that the DOJ would leverage all tools at its disposal to safeguard the nation. The activation of the ATRC, after 30 years, establishes a precedent for its future use, potentially reshaping how the U.S. handles non-citizen terrorist suspects.

More on this story: Global intelligence networks reshaped: Two decades of evolving counter-terrorism strategies

The alleged plot and family involvement

Zada’s deportation is connected to a broader alleged conspiracy involving her son and son-in-law, who were previously apprehended and charged. Abdullah Haji Zada, her son, and Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, her son-in-law, were arrested in October 2024. They faced accusations of purchasing firearms and ammunition from an undercover FBI agent as part of their plan to carry out a mass shooting on behalf of the Islamic State terror group.

Both men subsequently admitted to acquiring AK-47 rifles for the purpose of executing the attack. Zada’s son has since been sentenced to 15 years in federal prison, while Tawhedi is currently awaiting his sentencing. The Department of Justice confirmed that Nazira Haji Zada, who held permanent resident status and resided in Fort Worth, Texas, has been permanently barred from re-entering the United States following the court’s removal order issued on August 20.

Further details of the alleged plot revealed that the family had reportedly begun liquidating their assets to finance the attack. Additionally, they had purchased one-way airline tickets to Kabul, Afghanistan, for several family members, excluding Zada’s son and son-in-law, who were presumably intended to carry out the attack before joining them or facing the consequences.

Learn more: WeChat mock AI attack highlights critical cyber vulnerabilities for China, intensifies safety discussions

National security implications and official statements

The successful deportation was met with strong affirmations from federal law enforcement officials, who underscored its importance for homeland security. FBI Director Kash Patel described Zada’s removal as a “historic and vitally important step in our work to protect the U.S. homeland from terrorism.” He articulated a clear message regarding the consequences for those who engage in such activities.

Patel stated, “An individual who supported a plot by ISIS-sympathizing family members to commit an attack in America has paid the price for that. She came to our country, betrayed it, and has now lost the right to live here and enjoy our democratic freedoms.” He reiterated the unwavering commitment of the FBI and its Justice Department partners to protect the American people from the threat of terrorism by employing all necessary means.

Due process concerns and defense arguments

Despite the government’s declarations of a national security victory, the legal process surrounding Zada’s deportation has drawn criticism from her defense attorneys. They issued a statement asserting that her decision to consent to the removal should not be construed as an endorsement of the ATRC’s legitimacy or its operational framework. The defense team raised significant concerns regarding due process rights, which they argue were fundamentally undermined by the court’s procedures.

Specifically, Zada’s lawyers claimed that “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.” They expressed confidence that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court would ultimately be declared unconstitutional once a judge is compelled to directly address these legal challenges. This ongoing debate highlights the complex balance between safeguarding national security and upholding constitutional protections for all residents, including non-citizens.