The US government deported Nazira Hajizada, an Afghan woman living in Texas, for the first time a special court was used.
According to the US Department of Justice, 47-year-old Nazeera Hajizada was a legal permanent resident of the US, but she agreed to leave the US instead of continuing legal proceedings against her deportation.
Hajizadeh was prosecuted under the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, which was established in 1996. The purpose of the court is to hear the cases of non-US citizens who face terrorism-related charges and against whom the evidence involves national security or classified information.
It should be noted that before Hajizada’s trial in July, no case had ever been heard in this court.
U.S. officials say Hajizadeh herself has not been charged with any crime, but her son Abdullah Hajizadeh and son-in-law Nasir Ahmad Tawheed have been indicted on charges of planning a mass shooting on Election Day 2024.
According to the authorities, the plot was inspired by the ideology of the organization calling itself ‘Islamic State’.
Prosecutors had accused Hajizada of being the head of the family and playing a role in driving the family members towards extremism.
The US Department of Justice says that Hajizadeh waived her right to appeal the deportation order by declaring herself a ‘foreign terrorist’, after which her previous immigration status was revoked.
US Attorney General Todd Blanche called the move a success for national security and the rule of law. He said that those who support or encourage terrorism should not be allowed to stay in America.
On the other hand, Hajizada’s court-appointed lawyers raised strong objections to the proceedings and procedures of the court. He says he was not given access to the evidence against his client.
According to the lawyers, bringing a legal permanent resident to court, but refusing to show him or his lawyers the evidence used against him, violates the right to due process provided in the US Constitution.
The lawyers also made it clear that Hajizada’s consent to deportation should not be seen as an endorsement of the special court’s legitimacy. According to him, when the question of the constitutionality of the court is raised before a judge, it is likely to be declared unconstitutional.