Can the Alien Terrorist Removal Court Deport a Green Card Holder Using Secret Evidence?

For the first time since Congress created it thirty years ago, the United States government has brought a removal case before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.

The Department of Justice is seeking to remove Nazira Haji Zada, a forty-seven-year-old Afghan national and lawful permanent resident living in Fort Worth, Texas. The government alleges that she supported an ISIS inspired Election Day shooting plot involving her son and son in law. Haji Zada has not been criminally charged, and the government says significant evidence supporting its allegations is classified.

Her son, Abdullah Haji Zada, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to fifteen years in federal prison for receiving and conspiring to receive firearms and ammunition intended for use in a federal terrorism offense. Her son in law, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, pleaded guilty to terrorism related offenses involving material support for ISIS and firearms intended for the planned attack. Those convictions do not automatically establish that Nazira Haji Zada personally committed misconduct. The government must prove the allegations against her in the separate removal proceeding.

Brad Bernstein discusses the constitutional stakes in this TikTok video.

The central legal question is whether a person can meaningfully defend herself when the evidence that may determine her future in the United States could remain hidden from her and from the attorneys who communicate directly with her.

What Is the Alien Terrorist Removal Court?

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court is a specialized federal court created by Congress in 1996 to conduct removal proceedings against noncitizens whom the government alleges are terrorists.

The court consists of five United States district judges designated by the Chief Justice of the United States. These are Article III federal judges who already hold lifetime judicial appointments. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court is therefore different from the immigration courts operated by the Executive Office for Immigration Review, where immigration judges are employees of the Department of Justice.

Congress created the court as part of the Alien Terrorist Removal Procedures found in Sections 1531 through 1537 of Title 8 of the United States Code. The procedures were enacted through the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

The court remained dormant for approximately thirty years. No Attorney General had previously filed an application asking it to authorize a removal proceeding. The Haji Zada matter is Case Number 2026 TRC 1, making it the first case brought under this process.

Is This Really the First Alien Terrorist Removal Court Case?

Yes.

The Department of Justice filed its application concerning Haji Zada on July 15, 2026. The court conducted an initial classified proceeding before later granting the government permission to move forward. Publicly available documents were posted later in July, and the first public hearing took place on July 30, 2026.

The Department of Justice describes the filing as the first case ever brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court. The Associated Press also reported that the court had never received a removal petition before this case.

The proceeding is therefore not simply unusual. It is the first practical test of a statutory system that has existed since 1996 without producing a completed removal case or meaningful body of judicial precedent.

Who Is Nazira Haji Zada?

Nazira Haji Zada is an Afghan national who holds lawful permanent resident status in the United States.

Federal agents arrested her at her home in Fort Worth, Texas, in July 2026. She was then brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court in Washington, District of Columbia. She remains a Green Card holder unless and until her lawful permanent resident status is terminated through a legally valid process.

The Department of Justice alleges that Haji Zada supported ISIS ideology, encouraged family members to pledge loyalty to the organization, and assisted or supported preparations connected to the planned 2024 Election Day attack.

These are government allegations. Haji Zada has not been convicted of those acts, and she has not been criminally charged. Her appointed attorneys dispute the allegations and argue that the government’s use of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court violates her constitutional right to due process.

Why Is Haji Zada Not Facing a Criminal Trial?

Removal proceedings are civil immigration proceedings rather than criminal prosecutions.

The government does not need to charge Haji Zada with a federal crime to seek the termination of her lawful permanent resident status and her removal from the United States.

This distinction has major consequences. A criminal defendant generally receives protections such as a jury trial, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the application of the Federal Rules of Evidence. A respondent in an immigration removal proceeding does not automatically receive the complete set of protections available in a criminal prosecution.

The judge overseeing the initial hearing specifically explained that the proceeding is a civil immigration matter rather than a criminal case. Haji Zada’s attorney responded that the government was using the specialized court as an alternative to bringing a criminal prosecution.

The government argues that the court exists precisely for cases in which disclosing national security information through an ordinary proceeding could expose classified sources, methods, or investigations.

What Must the Government Prove?

At the final removal hearing, the government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Haji Zada qualifies as an alien terrorist under the applicable immigration statute.

A preponderance of the evidence generally asks whether the allegation is more likely true than not true.

This standard is substantially lower than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a criminal conviction.

It is also lower than the clear and convincing evidence standard the government ordinarily uses to establish deportability against a person who was previously admitted to the United States. The regulations governing ordinary removal proceedings state that the government must prove the deportability of an admitted noncitizen by clear and convincing evidence. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court statute instead uses the preponderance standard.

This difference is one of the most consequential features of the specialized court.

The government is seeking an outcome that may permanently separate a lawful permanent resident from her home and family, but it does not need to satisfy the criminal standard or the ordinary deportability standard.

Do the Federal Rules of Evidence Apply?

No.

The statute expressly states that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to an Alien Terrorist Removal Court hearing.

The judge may therefore consider evidence that might face additional admissibility challenges in a federal criminal trial. The statute also restricts the respondent’s ability to suppress evidence based on an allegation that the government obtained it unlawfully.

This does not mean that the judge must accept every government allegation without examination. The judge must consider the complete record and determine whether the government has satisfied its burden.

Haji Zada may present evidence, seek subpoenas, question witnesses, and make legal arguments. However, those rights operate within a statutory system that gives the government unusual authority to protect national security information from disclosure.

Can the Government Use Classified Evidence?

Yes.

The Attorney General may begin an Alien Terrorist Removal Court case when the government possesses classified information indicating that a noncitizen is an alien terrorist.

The government’s initial application may be filed under seal and presented to the judge without the respondent or the respondent’s attorney being present. This procedure is commonly described as an ex parte and in camera submission.

During the removal hearing, the government may also ask the judge to consider classified information outside the presence of the respondent and regular defense counsel when disclosure would present a national security risk.

The court may permit some portions of the government’s argument to occur privately when they concern classified evidence.

The use of classified evidence is not incidental to this court. It is one of the primary reasons Congress created the process.

Will Haji Zada Receive a Summary of the Secret Evidence?

The statute generally requires the government to prepare an unclassified summary of classified evidence that it wishes to use.

The judge must determine whether the summary is sufficient to allow the respondent to prepare a defense. When the first summary is inadequate, the government receives an opportunity to correct it.

However, the statute contains an extraordinary exception.

The proceeding may continue without an unclassified summary when the judge finds that the person’s continued presence in the United States would likely cause serious and irreparable harm to national security or serious bodily injury, and that providing the summary would create similar harm.

In that situation, the government may use classified evidence that the respondent never sees.

Because Haji Zada is a lawful permanent resident, the court must use additional procedures involving a security cleared special attorney if no adequate summary can safely be provided.

What Is a Special Attorney?

A special attorney is a lawyer with the required security clearance who may review classified information on behalf of a lawful permanent resident.

The special attorney may examine the classified material and challenge its truthfulness through a private proceeding before the judge.

However, the special attorney may not reveal that classified information to Haji Zada or to the attorneys who ordinarily represent and communicate with her. Unauthorized disclosure can result in severe criminal penalties.

This structure creates the central due process problem.

A special attorney may challenge the government’s classified evidence, but that attorney may not know the facts that only Haji Zada can provide. Haji Zada may know that an alleged conversation was misunderstood, that an informant had a personal motive to lie, or that an event occurred differently from the government’s account.

However, she cannot correct a factual assertion she is never permitted to hear.

The special attorney also cannot discuss the classified allegation with her to obtain an explanation.

This divide between the lawyer who sees the evidence and the person who knows the underlying facts may make a complete defense extremely difficult.

Does Haji Zada Have a Right to an Attorney?

Yes.

The statute gives the respondent a right to be represented by counsel. Unlike ordinary immigration court proceedings, where the government generally does not pay for the respondent’s attorney, the Alien Terrorist Removal Court statute provides appointed counsel to a person who cannot afford representation.

Haji Zada is represented by federal public defenders.

The right to appoint counsel is an important safeguard. Immigration law is highly technical, and this first case involves constitutional questions, national security law, classified evidence procedures, detention, and federal appellate review.

However, appointed counsel cannot completely solve the secrecy problem when counsel is not permitted to review or discuss the evidence used against the client.

Is the Alien Terrorist Removal Court Hearing Public?

The final removal hearing is generally required to be open to the public.

Haji Zada is entitled to receive notice of the nature of the allegations, a general account of the basis for the allegations, and the time and location of the hearing.

The first public hearing occurred on July 30, 2026, in Washington.

The public nature of the hearing provides a degree of transparency that is not present during the sealed application process. Members of the public and press may observe the open portions of the proceedings.

However, a public hearing does not mean that every document, argument, or item of evidence will be public.

The judge may review classified information privately. Portions of arguments involving that information may also occur without Haji Zada, her regular attorneys, the public, or the press present.

Does Article III Judge Provide Greater Protection?

The involvement of an Article III judge is an important safeguard.

Unlike an immigration judge employed within the Department of Justice, an Article III federal judge has life tenure and salary protections intended to preserve judicial independence.

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court judges are United States district judges selected for additional service on the specialized court by the Chief Justice.

The judge must independently review the government’s evidence, determine whether the case may proceed, evaluate proposed unclassified summaries, oversee the hearing, decide detention matters, and determine whether the government has established removability.

In Haji Zada’s case, Chief Judge Joan Ericksen questioned aspects of the government’s original submission and required supplemental information before allowing the proceeding to continue. The court’s public order states that the judge had questions about the alleged connection between Haji Zada’s actions and the statutory provisions invoked by the government.

Judicial independence is therefore meaningful.

The constitutional issue is whether independent judicial review can provide adequate due process when the respondent may remain unable to know and answer the decisive evidence.

Does Haji Zada Have a Right to Appeal?

Yes.

Either the government or the respondent may appeal the final decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The notice of appeal generally must be filed within twenty days of the removal order. A removal order is not enforced while the appeal is pending.

The appellate court reviews legal questions without deferring to the removal court’s legal conclusions. Most factual findings receive a more deferential form of review.

Additional protection applies when a lawful permanent resident is denied an unclassified summary and the special attorney procedures are used. Unless waived, appellate review is automatic, and the Court of Appeals may conduct a more searching review of factual questions.

The appeal right may become critical because this case is likely to define how the Alien Terrorist Removal Court operates and whether its classified evidence procedures satisfy the Constitution.

What Immigration Relief Is Available?

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court process is substantially narrower than an ordinary removal proceeding.

Once the court approves the government’s application, the statute states that the respondent’s rights concerning removal and expulsion are governed by the specialized statutory provisions unless another part of immigration law is specifically incorporated.

At the final hearing, the judge must order removal and detention if the government proves that the respondent is an alien terrorist under the statutory standard.

Ordinary removal proceedings may allow an immigration judge to consider applications such as cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, asylum, waivers, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture when the person satisfies the applicable requirements.

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court statute does not provide the same broad framework for discretionary immigration relief.

The public record in Haji Zada’s case does not yet contain a final ruling explaining whether she may separately pursue withholding of removal, Convention Against Torture protection, or another protection against removal to a particular country. That question may become part of the litigation.

It is therefore accurate to describe the available relief as limited, but it would be premature to state that every possible protection has already been legally eliminated.

What Is the Main Constitutional Issue?

The constitutional question concerns meaningful notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving a person of liberty or property without due process of law.

The Supreme Court has recognized that noncitizens who have entered the United States generally receive due process protections and that lawful permanent residents have a particularly significant interest in remaining in the country.

Due process does not always require the same procedures in every legal setting. National security concerns may justify protecting information.

However, the government cannot resolve the constitutional question merely by labeling evidence classified.

A court must consider the individual’s interest, the risk of an incorrect decision, the value of additional safeguards, and the government’s interest in protecting national security.

Haji Zada’s attorneys argue that the unclassified public information is too limited to permit an effective defense and that removal based on unseen evidence would violate the Constitution. The government argues that the specialized procedures protect national security while still providing judicial review, counsel, summaries when possible, and an appeal.

Can a Green Card Holder Be Deported Without a Criminal Conviction?

Yes.

Lawful permanent resident status provides significant rights, but it does not create complete immunity from removal.

A Green Card holder may face removal based on certain criminal convictions, fraud, abandonment of residence, national security grounds, immigration violations, or other grounds established by Congress.

A criminal conviction is not required for every ground of deportability.

The Haji Zada case demonstrates how serious the distinction can become. She is not facing removal because of her own criminal conviction. The government is attempting to prove through a civil proceeding that she falls within a national security ground of deportability.

The government still bears the burden required by the specialized statute, and Haji Zada retains the right to contest the allegations.

The family relationships and convictions of other people cannot independently establish their removability. The government must prove her personal conduct or legal responsibility under the applicable immigration provisions.

What Is Happening with Haji Zada’s Detention?

Haji Zada’s attorneys requested her immediate release during the initial public hearing.

The judge denied the immediate request but permitted the defense to renew it. The court ordered that Haji Zada remain detained at the District of Columbia Jail pending further action.

On August 4, 2026, the court scheduled an open release hearing for August 11, 2026, at 10:00 in the morning.

The release hearing is separate from the final determination of whether she is removable.

As of August 6, 2026, the public docket does not list a date for the final removal hearing. The case remains pending, and no final finding has been made that Haji Zada is removable or that the government’s allegations are true.

Why Could This Case Affect Future Immigration Enforcement?

The Haji Zada case may determine whether the Alien Terrorist Removal Court becomes a regular national security enforcement tool or remains limited to exceptionally rare cases.

A government victory could encourage future administrations to use the court when classified information supports a terrorism related removal allegation.

A ruling that the procedures violate due process could require Congress or the courts to establish stronger protections before the government may rely on undisclosed evidence.

The case could also define how detailed an unclassified summary must be, what access a special attorney receives, how courts evaluate classified intelligence, what detention protections apply, and which forms of relief remain available.

Because this is the court’s first case, decisions that might ordinarily be guided by prior precedent must be answered for the first time.

What Should Green Card Holders Understand?

The Haji Zada case does not mean that ordinary Green Card holders will suddenly be brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.

The court has narrow jurisdiction involving allegations that a noncitizen qualifies as an alien terrorist under federal immigration law and that ordinary removal procedures would create a national security risk.

However, the case is an important reminder that lawful permanent resident status can be challenged and that national security allegations produce unusually complex legal consequences.

A Green Card holder who is contacted by the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or another federal agency should not make assumptions about the purpose of the contract.

Statements made during interviews may become part of a criminal, immigration, or national security investigation.

A person should not provide false information, destroy records, contact potential witnesses to influence their testimony, or attempt to hide relevant evidence.

The person should obtain legal advice immediately and determine whether immigration counsel, criminal defense counsel, national security council, or a coordinated legal team is necessary.

What Should a Family Do When a Loved One Is Detained?

A family should first identify which agency has custody and where the person is being detained.

The family should preserve immigration records, Green Card copies, passports, prior applications, travel records, court documents, communications from government agencies, and information concerning any scheduled hearing.

Family members should avoid discussing sensitive facts through recorded detention calls or social media.

They should also avoid making public statements about disputed allegations without consulting counsel. A statement intended to help may later be interpreted differently or used against the detained person.

An attorney should promptly determine the legal authority for the detention, the available release procedure, upcoming deadlines, the appropriate court, and whether a habeas corpus petition or other federal court action may be necessary.

How Spar and Bernstein Can Help with Removal and Due Process Cases

A removal case involving national security claims, detention, classified information, or constitutional questions requires immediate and coordinated legal analysis.

The immigration attorneys at Spar and Bernstein can review the government’s allegations, immigration history, lawful permanent resident status, prior applications, family relationships, travel history, criminal records, and potential defenses.

The firm can help determine whether the government has selected the correct legal procedure, whether the allegations satisfy a ground of removability, whether the person received meaningful notice, and whether constitutional challenges should be preserved.

Spar and Bernstein can also advocate for release, prepare evidentiary responses, coordinate with federal criminal counsel, challenge government allegations, evaluate protection from removal, and pursue appellate or federal court review when appropriate.

The firm’s deportation and removal defense attorneys represent clients facing detention and removal and work to identify every legally available defense.

National security allegations are serious, but seriousness does not eliminate due process.

The government has a responsibility to protect the public. It also has a constitutional responsibility to use fair procedures and prove its allegations before taking lawful permanent resident status and removing a person from the country.

An experienced immigration attorney can help ensure that both sides of that obligation receive meaningful attention.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Alien Terrorist Removal Court?

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court is a specialized federal court created in 1996 to decide removal cases involving noncitizens whom the government alleges are terrorists and where classified information is involved.

Is Nazira Haji Zada the first person brought before this court?

Yes. Her case is the first application and first removal proceeding ever brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.

Is Nazira Haji Zada a Green Card holder?

Yes. Public court reporting and government documents identify her as a lawful permanent resident.

Has Haji Zada been charged with a crime?

No. As of August 6, 2026, she has not been criminally charged.

What does the government allege?

The government alleges that she supported ISIS ideology and assisted or encouraged family members connected to a planned Election Day attack. The allegations are disputed and have not resulted in a final removal decision.

Can her relatives’ convictions automatically prove the case against her?

No. The convictions may form part of the surrounding evidence, but the government must prove that Haji Zada personally satisfies the statutory requirements for removal.

Can the court use evidence she never sees?

Yes. Classified evidence may be reviewed privately by the judge. The government generally must provide an unclassified summary, but the proceeding may continue without one when the court makes specific national security findings.

Can her regular attorney see the classified evidence?

Not necessarily. A security cleared special attorney may receive access in certain circumstances, but that attorney may be prohibited from disclosing the information to Haji Zada or her regular defense counsel.

Does she have appointed counsel?

Yes. The statute provides appointed counsel when the respondent cannot afford an attorney.

Is the hearing public?

The final removal hearing is generally open to the public, but portions involving classified information may occur privately.

What standard of proof does the government use?

The government must prove removability by a preponderance of the evidence.

Is that lower than the standard in a criminal case?

Yes. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is the standard also lower than ordinary deportation proceedings?

For an admitted noncitizen charged with deportability in ordinary proceedings, the government generally uses the clear and convincing evidence standard. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court uses the lower preponderance standard.

Do the Federal Rules of Evidence apply?

No. The statute expressly states that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply.

Can the court order her deported without a criminal conviction?

Yes. Removal proceedings are civil, and a criminal conviction is not required for every immigration ground of removability.

Can she appeal?

Yes. A final decision may be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, generally within twenty days.

Will she be deported while the appeal is pending?

The statute states that the removal order is not enforced while the appeal is pending.

What is the next scheduled hearing?

The court scheduled an open release hearing for August 11, 2026, at 10:00 in the morning.

Has the court decided that she is an alien terrorist?

No. The final removal case remains pending, and no final public ruling has established that the government proved its allegations.

Why is the case constitutionally important?

The case will test whether a lawful permanent resident receives meaningful due process when the government relies on classified evidence that the resident may never be permitted to review.

This article provides general legal information and does not create an attorney client relationship. The allegations against Nazira Haji Zada remain disputed, and no final determination of removability had been issued as of August 6, 2026. Immigration rights, detention procedures, and available defenses depend on the facts and law applicable to each case.