US deports Afghan woman after 'alien terrorist' trial over failed mass shooting

The 47-year-old woman was arrested in July

A woman in the US has been deported to Afghanistan after admitting in a rarely used federal court that she was an “alien terrorist”. The court was created three decades ago but held its first hearing only this year.The US justice department accused Nazira Haji Zada, 47, of supporting her son and son-in-law as they prepared a mass shooting inspired by the Islamic State for election day 2024. The attack never took place, and both men were arrested and later convicted on terrorism-related charges.Haji Zada, who previously lived at Fort Worth in Texas, was not charged with any crime herself. While she agreed to be removed from the United States, her lawyers argued that the proceedings had denied them access to classified evidence and violated fundamental constitutional protections.Her case was the first to be heard by the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, which Congress established in 1996 to enable the swift deportation of suspected terrorists while restricting the public disclosure of sensitive intelligence.According to court documents made public on Friday, the case was settled through a plea agreement last month. However, in a joint filing dated August 20, the Justice Department and Haji Zada’s defence agreed that she was an “alien terrorist”.

The admissions she made cannot be used against her in any criminal case. The court’s chief judge approved her deportation on the same day.Attorney general Todd Blanche called the outcome a “landmark case” and “a win for national security and the rule of law”.Her public defenders, Matthew Farley and Mary Manning Petras, argued that the use of undisclosed classified evidence and the court’s unprecedented procedures had violated her due process rights.“Our client's choice to consent to removal should not be seen as an endorsement of this court's legitimacy,” they said, accusing 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.