Federal investigators examining Rep. Ilhan Omar’s immigration history could focus on the circumstances surrounding her citizenship and representations made during her family’s naturalization process, while a longstanding allegation concerning her former husband remains unsubstantiated and has been repeatedly denied by Omar.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Federal scrutiny of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s immigration history is focusing attention on how the Minnesota Democrat obtained U.S. citizenship and whether information submitted during her family’s naturalization process was accurate, according to immigration officials cited in a New York Post report.
The review comes as senior Trump administration officials publicly acknowledge an ongoing federal investigation involving Omar. White House border czar Tom Homan said Sunday that Homeland Security Investigations is conducting an inquiry but declined to disclose its details. No charges have been announced, and federal authorities have not publicly released evidence establishing immigration fraud by Omar.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin separately alleged last week that Omar married her brother and suggested she could face immigration consequences. The allegation concerns Ahmed Elmi, a British national whom Omar married in 2009 and legally divorced in 2017.
Omar has repeatedly denied that Elmi is her brother, and the allegation has never been publicly substantiated. The existence of the marriage itself does not establish that it was fraudulent.
According to the Post, a former Immigration and Customs Enforcement lawyer said that even if a fraudulent marriage were established, the marriage by itself would not make a current U.S. citizen immediately deportable.
Federal law makes knowingly entering a marriage to evade immigration law a criminal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The general federal limitations period for noncapital offenses is five years, and federal appellate decisions have applied that period to marriage-fraud prosecutions. A marriage dating to 2009 would therefore raise significant limitations issues for a prosecution based solely on entering that marriage.
The potentially more consequential issue, according to immigration officials interviewed by the Post, is whether Omar’s citizenship or the citizenship through which she derived her status was obtained through material misrepresentation or concealment.
“If there’s enough evidence that she or [her father] lied on her immigration application to become a United States citizen, whether it was one time or several times, the Trump administration could initiate a denaturalization process that would strip her of her citizenship,” an immigration official told the Post.
Federal law permits the government to seek revocation of naturalization that was illegally obtained or procured through concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation. The law also contains provisions addressing citizenship derived through a parent whose naturalization is subsequently revoked on those grounds. Any such action would require a legal process and proof meeting the applicable standards; an investigation or allegation alone does not revoke citizenship.
Omar was born in Mogadishu, Somalia, on Oct. 4, 1982, according to official congressional records. Her family fled Somalia’s civil war, spent several years in a refugee camp in Kenya and later came to the United States. Omar’s congressional biography says her family moved to Minneapolis in 1997, and her office has stated that she became a U.S. citizen in 2000. Congressional records place her birth in October 1982, meaning she was 17 for most of 2000.
Omar has said she obtained citizenship as a minor through her father.
The Post reported that investigators could therefore examine information her father provided during his own immigration and naturalization process, as well as any representations relevant to Omar’s derivative citizenship.
The newspaper cited Somali-language accounts describing Omar’s father as having served as a colonel in the Somali National Army under the government of Siad Barre. An immigration attorney interviewed by the Post said knowingly false material statements regarding a parent’s history could potentially become relevant if they affected the validity of the parent’s naturalization and a child subsequently derived citizenship through that parent.
The report does not establish that Omar or her father made such a false statement.
Questions surrounding Omar’s immigration history have circulated for years, but the current federal inquiry marks a renewed government examination of the allegations. Homan’s confirmation that authorities are investigating did not include details about the evidence being reviewed or what potential violations investigators are examining.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., has also called on the Trump administration to make any evidence it possesses concerning Omar available so Congress can review it. Comer said the material should be released publicly if federal officials have evidence relevant to potential congressional action.
Any decision involving Omar’s status as a member of Congress would be separate from an immigration investigation.
Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution gives each chamber authority to discipline its own members and provides that a member may be expelled with the concurrence of two-thirds of that chamber. Omar currently represents Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District as a Democrat.
For now, the federal investigation remains unresolved. Omar continues to deny wrongdoing, the claim that Elmi is her brother has not been publicly proven, and authorities have not announced charges or a denaturalization proceeding.
Original article
Comments