Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 50-year-old software engineer and naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Colombia, faced security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to family ties in Colombia and a past $15,000 bank deposit that raised questions about its source. The judge found that the applicant mitigated these concerns through credible testimony, a long history of holding security clearances, and the absence of any current ties to the Colombian government.

Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant’s mother-in-law is a Columbian citizen, and lives with Applicant and his wife. Applicant and his wife “sponsored” his mother-in-law to move to the U.S. in February 2004 to care for their three year old son. His mother-in-law is not married, and telephones her 74-year-old mother in Columbia “probably once a month,” and sends her “$100 maybe” a month. Neither Applicant’s wife nor any of her family members are employed, associated or affiliated with the Columbian government. Applicant’s mother-in-law is “seriously thinking” about applying for U.S. citizenship when eligible in February 2009 (1.a). Applicant’s younger brother, age 48, and he is a Columbian citizen residing in Columbia. He is separated from his second wife, has three children, and lives in Columbia. He has been deported twice from the U.S. back to Columbia in 1988 and 2000, both times for selling drugs. He is not allowed to return to the U.S. Applicant stays in contact with his younger brother “two times a year” by telephone or e-mail. It is Applicant’s understanding is that his brother “has a small business in which he sells gas station supplies.” (1.b). Applicant’s only sister, age 55, and she is a Columbian citizen residing in Columbia. She is married and a homemaker with two children, a daughter (Applicant’s niece) and a son (Applicant’s nephew). Her husband (Applicant’s brother-in-law) has been employed by the Columbian government for 30 years as an electrician. Applicant’s niece, age 25, attended college in the U.S. and works for a mortgage company in the U.S. Applicant’s niece lives near Applicant and he communicates with her “twice a month.” She plans on becoming a U.S. citizen when eligible. Applicant’s nephew, age 30, is currently unemployed, and lives in Columbia. Applicant communicates with his sister by telephone “[o]nce a month maybe.” (1.c). Since immigrating to the U.S. in 1973, Applicant has traveled to Columbia four times. He returned to Columbia to attend his mother’s funeral in 1984, and again in 1992, 2002, and 2007. Except for his 1984 visit, the remaining visits were primarily for “pleasure” and visiting family members (1.d). In 1988, Applicant made a $15,000 cash deposit into an international bank account located in the U.S, which resulted in Applicant being queried about the source of the deposited funds. The money belonged to two resident citizens of Columbia. Subsequent to that transaction, Applicant was interviewed or provided information on three separate occasions on September 7, 2000, February 12, 2001, and November 15, 2007. It was alleged that Applicant provided inconsistent explanations regarding this transaction (1.e). Applicant “sponsored” two of his “second cousins” from Columbia for student visas in the U.S. in 2001 and 2006. The second cousin he sponsored in 2001 recently graduated from college and lives in the U.S., discussed supra under Sister (age 55). The other second cousin is 23 years old and studying English in the U.S (1.f). In 1988, Applicant made a $15,000 cash deposit into an international bank account located in the U.S, which resulted in Applicant being queried about the source of the deposited funds. The money belonged to two resident citizens of Columbia. Subsequent to that transaction, Applicant was interviewed or provided information on three separate occasions on September 7, 2000, February 12, 2001, and November 15, 2007. It was alleged that Applicant provided inconsistent explanations regarding this transaction (2.a). The SOR alleged Applicant stated his former sister-in-law asked him to make a $15,000 deposit into her husband’s account in a September 2000 signed, sworn statement (2.b). The SOR alleged Applicant stated he was asked by a friend to make a $15,000 deposit into her brother-in-law’s international bank account in a February 2001 memorandum to the Defense Investigative Service (DIS) (2.b.1). The SOR alleged Applicant stated his girlfriend at the time asked him to take her mother to the bank to make a deposit into a joint international bank account belonging to her daughter and her son-in-law, adding the mother was unable to speak English clearly and Applicant made the deposit to help her (the mother) in a November 2007 signed, sworn statement (2.b.2).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 6(a), AG ¶ 16(a). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(a), AG ¶ 17(a). The decision turned on the following: The applicant has held a security clearance since 1981 and has a credible history of service; He provided a reasonable explanation for the past bank deposit and demonstrated a lack of intent to conceal information; The applicant's family members in Colombia do not have affiliations with the Colombian government.

Why the applicant prevailed

• The applicant has held a security clearance since 1981 and has a credible history of service.
• He provided a reasonable explanation for the past bank deposit and demonstrated a lack of intent to conceal information.
• The applicant's family members in Colombia do not have affiliations with the Colombian government.

Conditions referenced

Key rule quoted

“The absence of evidence of intent to conceal or mislead is a significant factor in determining whether security concerns are mitigated.”

Procedural posture

• SOR issuedMar 18, 2008
• Answer filedApr 2, 2008
• Hearing heldJul 17, 2008
• Decision dateOct 30, 2008

Cite for

• Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Family Ties
• Credibility of Applicant's Testimony Regarding Past Conduct
• Absence of Current Ties to Foreign Governments as a Mitigating Factor