ISIS-Inspired Mass Shooting Plot: US Uses Secret Terrorism Court to Deport Afghan-Born Woman

Washington, D.C. (Terror Monitor) — The United States has used a little-known national security court for the first time to deport an Afghan-born woman after she agreed to leave the country rather than continue contesting her case, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

The woman, 47-year-old Nazira Hajizada, was removed from the United States under proceedings before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a specialized tribunal established in 1996 to handle cases involving non-U.S. citizens when the government possesses classified or national security-related evidence connected to terrorism.

According to the Justice Department, Hajizada agreed to leave the United States instead of pursuing further litigation. The case is believed to be the first proceeding brought before the specialized court since it was established nearly three decades ago.

No Criminal Charges Filed

Hajizada was a lawful permanent resident living in Texas and was not charged with a criminal offense.

However, prosecutors alleged that she played a role in influencing members of her family toward extremist ideology.

Her son, Abdullah Hajizada, and son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhid, have already been convicted in connection with a plot to carry out a mass shooting on Election Day in the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

U.S. authorities said the planned attack was inspired by the extremist organization ISIS.

The government’s case against Hajizada was based in part on information that prosecutors treated as classified or otherwise sensitive on national security grounds.

Woman Waives Appeal

The Justice Department said Hajizada acknowledged that she was an “alien terrorist” and agreed to relinquish her right to appeal the deportation order.

Following the agreement, her immigration status was terminated and she was removed from the United States.

U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche described the action as an important victory for national security and the rule of law, saying that individuals who support terrorism have no place in the United States.

The government has portrayed the proceedings as an important mechanism for dealing with foreign nationals whose cases involve sensitive intelligence that cannot be fully disclosed in ordinary immigration proceedings.

Defense Lawyers Challenge Proceedings

Hajizada’s attorneys, however, have strongly objected to the proceedings and questioned the legal and constitutional basis of the case.

Her lawyers said they were denied access to evidence presented against their client, arguing that the use of undisclosed evidence undermines her ability to defend herself and conflicts with constitutional protections.

The defense also stressed that Hajizada’s decision to accept deportation should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the specialized court is legally valid.

According to her attorneys, she agreed to leave the United States as a form of protest against proceedings based on secret evidence rather than because she accepted the court’s authority or the government’s allegations.

Her lawyers said they hope the constitutional status and legality of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court will eventually be challenged in court.

First Test of a Long-Dormant Tribunal

The case represents the first known use of the specialized tribunal created by Congress in 1996. The court was designed to provide the government with a mechanism to remove certain non-citizens when terrorism-related or national security evidence is too sensitive to be disclosed through conventional proceedings.

The Hajizada case is therefore likely to draw significant attention to the balance between national security, classified intelligence and due-process rights.

While the government has presented the deportation as a national security measure, the defense has raised broader constitutional questions over whether a person can meaningfully contest removal when key evidence against them remains secret.

The case could ultimately become an important test of how the United States handles immigration proceedings involving alleged terrorist ties when the government relies on classified information.