The Justice Department announced Friday that an Afghan woman accused of supporting an ISIS-inspired plot to carry out a mass shooting around Election Day 2024 has been deported from the United States in the first case ever brought before the nation’s little-used Alien Terrorist Removal Court.
Nazira Haji Zada, 47, who had been living in Fort Worth, Texas, was returned to Afghanistan after agreeing to be removed and conceding for purposes of the proceeding that she qualified as an “alien terrorist” under federal law.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court issued its removal order Aug. 20. The order remained under seal until Friday, when the Justice Department announced that Zada had been sent back to Afghanistan.
The case marked the first time the federal government has used the specialized court since Congress created it three decades ago.
Congress established the tribunal as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 following concerns about how the government could remove noncitizens accused of terrorism without publicly revealing highly sensitive classified intelligence.
The court consists of five federal district judges selected by the chief justice of the United States from five different judicial circuits.
Unlike a normal immigration court proceeding, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court can consider classified evidence under special procedures intended to protect national-security information.
That structure has also drawn criticism from civil-liberties advocates and Zada’s attorneys, who argued that defendants may be unable to fully examine or challenge some of the evidence being used against them.
Zada was a lawful permanent resident when the government sought to remove her.
She was not criminally charged in connection with the Election Day plot.
Instead, the Justice Department filed an application July 15 asking the specialized court to order her removal based on allegations that she supported members of her family who were planning an ISIS-inspired attack.
She was arrested later that month and appeared before Chief Judge Joan Ericksen in Washington.
The alleged plot itself had already resulted in criminal convictions.
Advertisement
Zada’s son, Abdullah Haji Zada, and her son-in-law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, were arrested Oct. 7, 2024, after purchasing two AK-47-style rifles, ammunition and magazines from an undercover FBI agent.
Federal authorities said the weapons were intended for a mass-casualty attack planned for on or around Election Day, Nov. 5, 2024.
According to court records, Tawhedi communicated with an ISIS facilitator while preparing for the attack and discussed whether 500 rounds of ammunition would be sufficient.
He later admitted that between June and October 2024 he conspired with at least one other person to obtain weapons and carry out an attack on behalf of ISIS.
Tawhedi pleaded guilty in June 2025 to conspiring and attempting to provide material support to ISIS and to firearms offenses connected to a federal crime of terrorism. He is awaiting sentencing.
Advertisement
Zada’s son Abdullah was 17 at the time of his arrest but entered a guilty plea as an adult.
He was sentenced to 15 years in federal prison.
As part of his plea agreement, Abdullah agreed to be removed to Afghanistan after serving his sentence and waived most avenues for appealing that removal.
The Justice Department says Zada helped support the family’s preparations.
According to the criminal complaint in the broader case, family members began selling furniture, computers, a cellphone and two vehicles in 2024 as they raised money ahead of the planned attack.
Zada signed a contract to sell the family home, according to prosecutors.
The family also purchased one-way airline tickets to Kabul for Zada and several minor children shortly before Election Day. Abdullah and Tawhedi, the two men accused of planning to carry out the shooting, were not booked on those flights.
The government characterized those actions as evidence that Zada knew about and supported the planned attack.
Her lawyers challenged that interpretation and argued that she had not been shown to have participated directly in a terrorist conspiracy.
Because Zada was never criminally prosecuted, the government did not have to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.
Instead, the case proceeded through the separate removal system Congress created for terrorism-related immigration cases.
Zada ultimately agreed to removal rather than continue fighting the government’s application. She waived her right to further challenge the order and was returned to Afghanistan.
Justice Department officials portrayed the outcome as an important new national-security tool.