MINNEAPOLIS — A former federal immigration judge says Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who is under investigation, could face both criminal charges and denaturalization.

There are two federal probes ongoing into the congresswoman — the first into alleged immigration fraud and the second involving her financial disclosures and a sharp discrepancy reported just one 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, an attorney of 23 years, told Fox News Digital. "They would be handled by any type of other normal punishment that would come from the court." Hansen was appointed by former Attorney General Pam Bondi to serve as an immigration judge earlier this year. He served in the role for four months.

Denaturalization proceedings are separate from any criminal case that could arise from the federal investigation into Omar, whose "real name," according to sources familiar with the investigation, is Ilhan Nur Said Elmi. Omar is under investigation for alleged immigration fraud related to the way she or her late father filled out her 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," said Hansen.

"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."

Omar's Washington, D.C. home was raided by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the principal investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in the early morning hours of Oct. 12.

During the raid, investigators reportedly seized the congresswoman's phone, passport and computer. Fox News later confirmed that authorities are in possession of her DNA.

Regarding the case, observers have speculated that if indeed Omar has broken the law, statutes of limitations could hinder a prosecution. Hansen has seen those claims, but doesn't believe them to be valid.

"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."

Asked about the prevalence of immigration fraud in general, Hansen pointed to the sheer number of pending immigration and removal cases across the country an 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."

He said that in Minnesota alone, there are 20,000 to 30,000 removal cases pending that do not have a scheduled court date, due to a massive backlog of immigration-related 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 explained. Bogus asylum claims are also contributing to the backlog, Hansen explained.

"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."

Hansen said that during the time when he was an immigration judge, he frequently saw claims that "just totally didn't add up," or documents provided by the applicant 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.'"