Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, could face criminal charges and a separate effort to revoke her citizenship as two federal investigations examine alleged immigration fraud and her financial disclosures, according to a former federal immigration judge who spoke with Fox News Digital.

One probe concerns alleged immigration fraud tied to how Omar or her late father completed her citizenship paperwork. The second involves her financial disclosures and a sharp discrepancy reported just one year apart.

Nathan Hansen, an attorney of 23 years, was appointed by former Attorney General Pam Bondi to serve as an immigration judge earlier this year. He held that position for four months.

"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 said. "They would be handled by any type of other normal punishment that would come from the court."

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.

Hansen explained that denaturalization would not automatically follow from a criminal conviction. Instead, it would require a separate civil proceeding, distinct from any criminal prosecution that might result from the federal investigation.

"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.

Sources familiar with the investigation said Omar's "real name" is Ilhan Nur Said Elmi. Hansen said any connection between a criminal conviction and a person's citizenship could affect whether the Justice Department pursues denaturalization.

"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 said. "But I think it would be a discretionary matter within the people who are running the Justice Department."

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

Homeland Security Investigations searched Omar's Washington, D.C., home during the early morning hours of Oct. 12. Investigators reportedly seized her phone, passport and computer, while Fox News later confirmed that authorities possess her DNA.

Some observers have suggested that statutes of limitations could complicate a potential prosecution if Omar is found to have broken the law. Hansen said he had seen those claims but did not consider them persuasive.

"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."

Hansen also pointed to the scale of pending immigration and removal proceedings nationwide and in Minnesota. He said Minnesota alone has between 20,000 and 30,000 removal cases awaiting court dates because of a massive case backlog.

"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," Hansen said. "It's got to be in the tens of millions of people coming here, I think, but certainly millions."

WATCH:

Hansen described the situation as an overwhelming of the immigration system and said the system was not being used as intended. He also identified bogus asylum claims as a contributor to the backlog.

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." He added that other asylum applications plainly lacked merit under existing law.

Hansen said asylum relief requires claims connected to protected grounds, commonly involving alleged persecution based on race, religion, ethnicity, or political views. He also recalled applicants citing insults in their home countries, which he said generally would not qualify because rude or insulting speech is largely protected in the United States.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of BoredTrashPanda.com. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.