FOLLOW US

Key Takeaways

• The Justice Department has completed the first removal in the history of the U.S. Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a specialized tribunal Congress created in 1996.
• Nazira Haji Zada agreed that she qualified as an “alien terrorist” under federal immigration law, waived a contested removal hearing and appeal, and was ordered removed to Afghanistan.
• The rarely used statutory system permits the government to rely on classified national-security evidence while providing special procedural protections, including appointed counsel and, in some circumstances, security-cleared attorneys.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

The Justice Department has carried out the first removal proceeding in the history of the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court, invoking a little-known national-security court that Congress created three decades ago but that had never previously handled a case.

Nazira Haji Zada, 47, an Afghan national who had been living in Fort Worth, Texas, was removed to Afghanistan after agreeing to an Aug. 20, 2026 judicial removal order. DOJ announced the completed removal on Sept. 11.

The court's public docket identifies the matter as In re Nazira Haji Zada, Case No. 2026-TRC-1, confirming its status as the court's first proceeding. The docket shows an agreed motion for judicial removal and an Order of Judicial Removal entered Aug. 20, followed by government filings concerning Zada's actual removal from the country.

The judicial order provides important details beyond DOJ's announcement.

Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen found that Zada is a native and citizen of Afghanistan and that she had been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident on or about March 27, 2018. The order states that she was removable because she qualified as an “alien terrorist” under the statutory provisions governing the ATRC.

That terminology has a specific legal meaning. Under 8 U.S.C. §1531, an “alien terrorist” is an alien falling within the terrorism-related removal provisions of 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(4)(B).

The court ordered Zada “removed from the United States to Afghanistan” and directed that she remain in custody pending removal.

The order also terminated her lawful permanent resident status and makes her permanently inadmissible to the United States.

One of the most legally significant aspects of the case is that the government's allegations were not ultimately tested through a completed adversarial removal hearing.

Instead, Zada agreed to the judicial removal order.

According to the court, her attorneys explained her rights to her, after which she knowingly and voluntarily waived the statutory notice and hearing rights available under 8 U.S.C. §1534. She also waived her right to an approved unclassified summary of classified evidence, her opportunity to argue that the evidence was insufficient, and her right to appeal.

She additionally waived the ability to pursue various forms of immigration protection or relief outside the ATRC, including asylum and visa-related relief. The order states that she acknowledged having no present fear of torture in Afghanistan.

That distinction matters because the ATRC statute otherwise gives the government the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent is an alien terrorist.

Congress created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court through legislation enacted in 1996.

Unlike ordinary immigration proceedings, the ATRC was specifically structured for cases in which the Attorney General possesses classified national-security information concerning an alleged terrorist.

Before a full removal proceeding begins, the government can submit its application ex parte and in camera. A judge may approve the proceeding upon finding probable cause to believe that the individual is an alien terrorist and that ordinary removal procedures would create a national-security risk.

At the eventual removal hearing, however, the government's burden rises to the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

The statute also attempts to address the unusual due-process problem created when the government's evidence cannot safely be disclosed. It provides for unclassified summaries in certain circumstances and permits specially designated, security-cleared attorneys to examine and challenge classified information on behalf of qualifying lawful permanent residents without revealing that classified material to the respondent.

The government told the court that classified information formed part of its case against Zada. DOJ also said approximately half a terabyte of documents was provided to Zada and her two federal public defenders during the proceeding.

DOJ alleges Zada supported members of her family who were preparing an ISIS-inspired mass-casualty attack around the Nov. 5, 2024 election.

Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were arrested Oct. 7, 2024 after obtaining two AK-47-style rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition from an undercover FBI employee.

Federal prosecutors said Tawhedi admitted that between June and October 2024 he conspired to acquire two rifles, 500 rounds of ammunition and 10 magazines for an attack intended to cause mass casualties on behalf of ISIS. Tawhedi pleaded guilty in June 2025 to terrorism-related material-support and firearms offenses.

Abdullah Haji Zada, who was 17 when arrested, pleaded guilty as an adult. He was subsequently sentenced to the statutory maximum of 15 years in federal prison, with removal to Afghanistan to follow his sentence.

According to DOJ, members of the family sold property during 2024, including vehicles and household belongings, while one-way airfare to Kabul was purchased for Zada and other family members shortly before Election Day. DOJ says Zada also signed a contract to sell the family's residence.

The proceeding establishes the first practical precedent for a federal judicial structure that had existed largely on paper since 1996.

It also demonstrates that the government now has an alternative to conventional immigration proceedings when terrorism allegations depend heavily on classified intelligence.

Whether future cases will involve negotiated removals like Zada's or fully contested hearings could become particularly important. A contested ATRC case would place the statute's unusual classified-evidence procedures, evidentiary rules and due-process protections under substantially greater judicial scrutiny.

For now, Zada's proceeding ended without such a merits contest. The Aug. 20 order became final because she expressly waived appeal, and the ATRC docket subsequently recorded the government's notice that she had been removed.

Read the DOJ announcement
View the ATRC public filings in Case No. 2026-TRC-1