MINNEAPOLIS — Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., could potentially face criminal charges as well as denaturalization, according to a former federal immigration judge, as two investigations into the congresswoman continue.
One federal probe is examining allegations of immigration fraud. A separate investigation focuses on Omar’s financial disclosures and a significant discrepancy reported a year apart.
“If somebody who’s a naturalized citizen — which I believe Ilhan Omar is — is convicted of a crime, that doesn’t automatically mean that they face denaturalization or anything like that,” Nathan Hansen, a 23-year attorney, told Fox News Digital. “They would be handled by any type of other normal punishment that would come from the court.”
Former Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Hansen as an immigration judge earlier this year. He served in that position for four months.
Denaturalization would be a separate matter from any criminal case resulting from the federal investigation into Omar. Sources familiar with the inquiry have told Fox News that her “real name” is Ilhan Nur Said Elmi. The investigation is examining alleged immigration fraud tied to how Omar or her late father completed citizenship paperwork.
“A denaturalization proceeding, or somebody to strip somebody of their naturalization, is another proceeding, which would be a civil proceeding brought by the Department of Justice, presumably maybe on behalf of the Department for Homeland Security, who handles most of these things,” Hansen said.
“If there was some sort of nexus between the criminal conviction and somebody’s citizenship, it might be more likely that the Department of Justice would bring a denaturalization proceeding,” Hansen continued. “But I think it would be a discretionary matter within the people who are running the Justice Department.”
Homeland Security Investigations, the primary investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, raided Omar’s Washington, D.C., residence in the early morning hours of Oct. 12.
Investigators reportedly took the congresswoman’s phone, passport and computer during the raid. Fox News later confirmed that authorities also have her DNA.
Some observers have questioned whether the statute of limitations could prevent a prosecution if Omar did violate the law. Hansen said he is aware of those arguments but does not believe they apply.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: US Launches Nationwide Nuclear Readiness Drills Using ‘Doomsday Planes’
“My view of that is generally that fraud stops any statute of limitations. In other words, if something isn’t disclosed or something’s hidden, then it would be unfair to the other party to toll a statute of limitations against them,” Hansen said. “That’s just sort of a general principle of law.”
The latest on the federal immigration investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar
Hansen was also asked how widespread immigration fraud is. He pointed to the enormous number of immigration and removal cases pending nationwide, including in Minnesota.
“I think I would take it from a 30,000-foot view of just the amount of cases that the United States is facing right now of people coming here,” he said. “It’s got to be in the tens of millions of people coming here, I think, but certainly millions.”
Hansen said Minnesota alone has between 20,000 and 30,000 pending removal cases without scheduled court dates, a backlog he attributed to the volume of immigration cases.
“Whether you want to call it fraud or whatever, it’s like an overwhelming of the system and the system is not being used in the way in which it was intended,” he said.
Hansen also identified what he described as bogus asylum claims as another factor contributing to the backlog.
“Asylum relief has to do with protected grounds,” he said. “The most common ones are that, ‘I was persecuted at the acquiescence or directly at the behest at the government I am fleeing from based upon my race, my religion, my ethnicity [or] my political views.’ These are common claims.”
During his time as an immigration judge, Hansen said he regularly encountered claims that “just totally didn’t add up” and documents that were “clearly fake.”
“There were other asylum applications that just clearly lacked merit under existing law,” he continued. “I mean, people would — I’ve seen cases where people would say, ‘Well, people insulted me in my country.’ And my response to that is, ‘Your country probably provides more protection against insults than the United States. In the United States, we have freedom of speech, and for the most part, you can be as rude as you want to someone and insult them, and it’s not a crime.’”
