AI Generated Image (not the documents in this case)
A marriage-based green card applicant who once guarded Rep. Ilhan Omar was charged over his interview answers, and the case was dropped the day after he testified to a grand jury, The New York Times reported.
Answers given at a routine green card interview became the basis for a federal criminal charge against Abdullahi Mohamed, a Somali and British citizen who briefly worked as a bodyguard for Rep. Ilhan Omar, The New York Times reported Nov. 11. According to the Times, Mohamed was indicted this spring on a charge of lying under oath, testified on Sept. 3 before a Washington grand jury examining Omar, and saw the government move to drop his case the next day, citing his expected deportation. The account, drawn from court records, Mohamed’s lawyer and a Justice Department statement, shows how a sworn adjustment interview can become leverage in a far larger investigation.
Mohamed had married a U.S. citizen in Minnesota and was seeking permanent residence through that marriage, the Times reported, citing court records and his attorney, Bruce Rivers of Minneapolis. At the interview in October 2025, Rivers told the Times, the officer asked whether Mohamed had worked for the Somali government in the United States and whether he had had any interactions with U.S. government officials or politicians. Mohamed said no to both. Rivers said his client, who has limited English, did not understand the questions; Mohamed had been on Omar’s security detail in Puntland, in Somalia, and had visited her Capitol Hill office. His green card case was later denied, and the government placed him in deportation proceedings in August, according to the Times.
The charge carries up to five years in prison, the Times reported. That ceiling matches the general federal perjury and false-statement statutes, 18 U.S.C. 1621 and 1001, though the Times did not say which statute was charged. On Sept. 4, prosecutors moved to dismiss, writing that there was “no longer a federal interest in continuing prosecution in light of his anticipated removal from the United States.” Mohamed then left the country and was reached by the Times in Nairobi, Kenya, where he declined to comment.
Competing accounts of what the green card interview case was for
The sharpest dispute is over motive. Rivers told the Times that prosecutors spent months trying to turn Mohamed into an informant, offered to intervene in his deportation in exchange for damaging information about Omar, and offered immunity for his testimony. Rivers also said a prosecutor told him the case was “coming from the White House.” Before the grand jury, Rivers said, Mohamed repeated what he had told prosecutors about a $10,000 payment that court records mention without explaining the government’s theory, and said he knew nothing of Omar’s immigration or marriage history.
The Justice Department declined to answer the Times’ questions and said in an emailed statement that the case was “completely unrelated to any current investigations.” Omar’s spokesperson, Jackie Rogers, said Omar had never directly employed Mohamed and called the reported deportation offer “outrageous,” describing it as “a blatant weaponization of the full federal government to intimidate political opponents.” Omar has not been charged with any crime. The investigation has drawn scrutiny since federal agents searched her home in October, with reporting since then focused on her 2009 marriage and a name listed in a Justice Department filing.
None of these claims has been tested in court, and with the case dismissed, Mohamed abroad and grand jury testimony secret, they may never be. What the episode does show is the machinery available to prosecutors. Every adjustment applicant signs Form I-485 under penalty of perjury and is placed under oath at the interview, so a false answer is potentially a federal crime as well as an immigration problem. Prosecutors would still have to prove the statement was knowingly false and material. A question about contact with politicians is not a standard item on the form, and whether such an answer could matter to a green card decision is exactly the issue a defense lawyer would have pressed at trial.
Dismissing a criminal case because the defendant is about to be deported is common practice, and it usually ends the matter. The immigration consequences can last longer. A finding of willful misrepresentation of a material fact under section 212(a)(6)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act makes a person permanently inadmissible. The spouse of a U.S. citizen can seek a waiver under section 212(i), but only by showing extreme hardship to that spouse.
For applicants, the lesson is narrower than the politics: questions at a green card interview can go beyond the printed form, answers are sworn, and a wrong “no” can follow a person into criminal court and every later visa application. For the Omar investigation, the open question is whether Mohamed’s grand jury testimony ends up in a case that, so far, has not been filed.
This article is for general information and is not legal advice.
Sources
- The New York Times: Somali Bodyguard Was Indicted in a Bid to Incriminate Ilhan Omar (Nov. 11, 2026), as republished by GV Wire
- USCIS: Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status
- 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) and 1182(i), INA 212; 18 U.S.C. 1621; 18 U.S.C. 1001
About the Author
