Afghan woman deported from US under little-known terrorism court

WASHINGTON: An Afghan woman accused of supporting the Islamic State has been deported from the United States in the first case brought under a little-known court established to remove foreign nationals deemed to pose a terrorism threat.

Nazira Haji Zada, 47, was a lawful permanent resident living in Texas. She was deported after agreeing to stop contesting her removal through the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.

The US Department of Justice said Haji Zada was arrested in July. Authorities had accused her of helping conceal a failed plot inspired by the Islamic State to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day in 2024.

Haji Zada was not charged with a criminal offence in connection with the alleged plot. However, her son and son-in-law pleaded guilty to related charges last year.

The case was brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, which was created by Congress in 1996 but had remained unused for decades. The court allows the US government to present classified information in deportation proceedings.

Haji Zada’s lawyer initially challenged the proceedings. He argued that the process violated her right to due process because defendants and their lawyers cannot examine the classified evidence being used against them.

Court documents unsealed on Friday showed that Haji Zada agreed last month to be classified as an “alien terrorist” subject to removal. Chief Judge Joan Ericksen subsequently approved the deportation order.

US Attorney General Todd Blanche described the case as an important development for national security and immigration enforcement. He said the removal demonstrated the government’s ability to act against individuals considered security threats.

The case comes as President Donald Trump’s administration continues its broader immigration crackdown and increases efforts to deport people accused of posing security risks.

It remains unclear whether the Justice Department will bring additional cases before the rarely used court.

Haji Zada’s public defender, Matthew Farley, rejected the suggestion that her decision to accept deportation validated the court’s legal authority. He argued that forcing lawful permanent residents into proceedings while withholding the evidence against them raises serious constitutional concerns.

Farley said he expected the court’s procedures to face a constitutional challenge if another case reaches a judge willing to examine the issue.

The case has therefore drawn attention not only because of the deportation itself but also because of the legal questions surrounding the use of classified evidence in immigration proceedings.