HRW Raises Concerns Over US Court for Deporting Terrorism Suspects
DID Press: US has, for the first time since the establishment of the Alien Terrorist Removal Court (ATRC) in 1996, used the specialized judicial body to handle a case involving a non-US citizen, prompting concerns over due-process rights, the use of classified evidence and the potential deportation of the detainee to Afghanistan.
Human Rights Watch said in a statement that the first case before the court involves Nazira Hajizada, a 47-year-old Afghan national and US permanent resident who has been held in federal detention since July 28 without being formally charged. The ATRC’s chief judge has cancelled a hearing that had been scheduled to determine whether her detention should continue.
The ATRC was established in 1996 to handle deportation cases involving foreign nationals suspected of terrorism, particularly cases in which the US government seeks to rely on classified or confidential evidence. Under the court’s procedures, the ability of defendants to challenge such evidence is limited, including when they allege that it was obtained unlawfully.
US government lawyers allege that Hajizada pledged allegiance to ISIS. However, she has not been criminally charged. If the government establishes its case under the civil standard known as a “preponderance of the evidence,” authorities could seek to deport her as an “alien terrorist.”
Hajizada’s lawyers say they have received only a summary of the evidence against their client. US courts have previously raised concerns that the use of undisclosed evidence in immigration proceedings can undermine the right to a fair hearing.
If deported, Hajizada could be returned to Afghanistan.
Human Rights Watch warned that returning a woman accused of links to or sympathy with ISIS could expose her to additional risks. The Taliban considers ISIS an enemy, while women and girls in Afghanistan face extensive restrictions and pressure under Taliban rule.
The reactivation of the ATRC after nearly three decades has also raised constitutional and due-process questions over the use of classified evidence, defendants’ access to evidence and guarantees of a fair hearing.