NEW: Immigration Judge Gives Ilhan Omar Brutal Legal Update

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) could face criminal charges and even lose her U.S. citizenship as federal investigators examine allegations of immigration fraud involving the Minnesota Democrat, according to a former federal immigration judge.

Nathan Hansen, a veteran attorney who briefly served as an immigration judge earlier this year, told Fox News Digital that the outcome could depend on whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing connected to Omar’s original citizenship application.

The congresswoman is reportedly facing two separate federal investigations, one involving allegations of immigration fraud and another examining her financial disclosures, which showed a dramatic change in reported assets over a single year.

Hansen cautioned that a criminal conviction would not automatically strip Omar, a naturalized American citizen, of her citizenship.

“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,” Hansen told Fox News Digital. “They would be handled by any type of other normal punishment that would come from the court.”

Hansen, who has practiced law for 23 years, was appointed to the immigration bench by former Attorney General Pam Bondi. He served for four months.

His comments come after federal agents reportedly raided Omar’s Washington, D.C., residence on Oct. 12, seizing her passport, cellphone and computer.

The operation was carried out by Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security. Fox News subsequently reported that authorities had also obtained Omar’s DNA.

Investigators are reportedly examining whether Omar or her late father provided fraudulent information during the citizenship process. Sources familiar with the investigation have also claimed that the congresswoman’s “real name” is Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, though that allegation has not been independently established.

WATCH:

POLL: Ilhan Omar Now Claims She’s Broke – Do You Believe Her?

Hansen explained that any effort to revoke Omar’s citizenship would require a separate legal proceeding, regardless of whether prosecutors pursue criminal charges.

“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,” said Hansen.

The former judge suggested that evidence connecting a potential criminal offense to the naturalization process could increase the likelihood of such action.

“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.”

Another potential obstacle is the statute of limitations, particularly if any alleged misconduct occurred years ago.

Hansen argued that concealed fraud could complicate those legal deadlines.

RELATED: Ilhan Omar Resurfaces In Somali Safe Haven After Raid

“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,” said Hansen. “That’s just sort of a general principle of law.”

However, fraud does not automatically suspend every criminal statute of limitations. Whether prosecutors could pursue older allegations would depend on the specific offenses and applicable federal law.

Beyond the allegations involving Ilhan Omar, Hansen raised broader concerns about the immigration system, describing a crushing backlog of cases and widespread problems with questionable asylum applications.

He estimated that Minnesota alone has between 20,000 and 30,000 pending removal cases without scheduled court dates.

“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 explained.

During his time on the immigration bench, Hansen said he encountered asylum claims that “just totally didn’t add up,” along with supporting 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.'”

POLL: Ilhan Omar Now Claims She’s Broke – Do You Believe Her?