DOJ Uses 1996 Terror Court for First Time, Removes Afghan Green-Card Holder Tied to Election-Day ISIS Plot

The Justice Department on Friday announced the first completed case in the 30-year history of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, saying Nazira Haji Zada, a 47-year-old Afghan lawful permanent resident from Fort Worth, Texas, has been returned to Afghanistan after conceding she is an “alien terrorist” and waiving any appeal. The court issued its removal order on Aug. 20. Officials said she left the United States on Aug. 25. The order was unsealed Friday after she arrived in her country of origin. She is now permanently barred from re-entering.

Congress created the court in 1996 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Five Article III district judges appointed by the chief justice sit on it. The statute lets the government rely on classified evidence when public disclosure would harm national security, while requiring paid counsel with security clearances and an appeal path to the D.C. Circuit. No administration had ever filed a petition until Attorney General Todd Blanche certified the application against Zada on July 15. She appeared in open court in Washington on July 30 before Chief Judge Joan N. Ericksen of Minnesota. The government used classified material and also turned over about half a terabyte of documents to her two federal public defenders. Zada was never charged with a crime. She had held a green card since 2018 as a derivative of her husband, who worked at Bagram Air Base from 2009 to 2016. Traditional immigration courts, officials said, were insufficient because she had no criminal conviction and was lawfully present.

An unclassified FBI summary filed with the petition alleged that Zada supported ISIS, pledged loyalty to the group, worked to indoctrinate her children with its ideology, and concealed from her husband a plan to move female relatives and minor children to ISIS-controlled territory in Afghanistan. The Justice Department described her as the matriarch of a family that prepared an ISIS-inspired mass shooting on or around Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024. Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, then 17, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, then 27, were arrested Oct. 7, 2024, after buying two AK-47-style rifles, 500 rounds of ammunition, and 10 magazines from an undercover FBI employee in Oklahoma. Court records say the family sold furniture, computers, a phone, and two vehicles and that Zada signed a contract to sell the house and bought one-way tickets to Kabul for herself and younger children, but not for the two men who were to stay behind and carry out the attack. Tawhedi, a former security guard at a U.S. military installation in Afghanistan, admitted he messaged an ISIS facilitator about whether 500 rounds would be enough. Abdullah pleaded guilty as an adult and was sentenced in November 2025 to 15 years; he stipulated to removal after prison. Tawhedi pleaded guilty on June 13, 2025, to conspiring and attempting to provide material support to ISIS and to receiving firearms in furtherance of a federal crime of terrorism. He has not been sentenced. The planned attack never occurred.

“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,” Blanche said. “Those who support and condone terrorism should not be living in the United States, and this first-ever case before the ATRC shows how the Department will use every tool at its disposal to protect our country.” FBI Director Kash Patel said, “She came to our country, betrayed it, and has now lost the right to live here and enjoy our democratic freedoms.” Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said President Trump directed use of the court and that “those who plot acts of terrorism against the United States have no place in our country.” Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg said Zada “abused our Nation’s hospitality.” Federal public defenders Matthew Farley and Mary Petras said their client’s consent “should not be seen as an endorsement of this court’s legitimacy” and 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.” The constitutional challenge was not resolved because Zada waived appeal. Officials have not said whether additional petitions will follow.