ISCR Case 15-05864.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05864.h1

deniedAug 10, 2017· Hon. Jennifer I. Goldstein· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from India, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The applicant's close family ties in India, specifically his mother and sister, were central to the decision. His mother, an 80-year-old Indian citizen and resident, lives with his sister and receives a family pension. The applicant reported weekly telephonic contact with his mother.

His sister, a 50-year-old homemaker and Indian citizen, also resides in India, cares for their mother, and is married with one child. The applicant communicates with his sister and her family one to two times per month. Additionally, his brother-in-law, an Indian citizen and retired accountant, has quarterly telephonic contact with the applicant.

The judge determined that these close family ties, combined with frequent communication and visits to India, created a heightened risk of foreign influence and potential coercion. Despite the applicant's long-term U.S. residency, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate these risks or demonstrate that he would prioritize U.S. interests over those of his family in India. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has close family ties in India, including a mother and sister, which create a heightened risk of foreign influence.
The applicant's frequent communication and visits to India raise concerns about potential coercion or pressure from foreign interests.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he would prioritize U.S. interests over those of his family in India.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedPotential Conflict of Interest
AG ¶ 7(e)notedShared Living Quarters with Foreign Persons

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe applicant's relationships with family members in India create a heightened risk of foreign influence.
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedNo Conflict of InterestThe applicant has significant ties to the U.S., but these do not sufficiently mitigate the risks.
AG ¶ 8(c)rejectedCasual and Infrequent ContactThe applicant's contacts with family members in India are frequent and not casual.

Key Rule Quoted

“The mere possession of close family ties with a person in a foreign country is not, as a matter of law, disqualifying under Guideline B.”
— ISCR Case No. 03-02382 at 5 (App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2006); ISCR Case No. 99-0424 (App. Bd. Feb. 8, 2001)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 24, 2016
Answer filedApr 27, 2016
Hearing held—Decided on the written record without a hearing.
Decision dateAug 10, 2017

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Impact of Family Ties in Foreign Countries on Security Clearance Eligibility
Evaluation of Mitigating Conditions in the Context of Foreign Contacts

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admits that his mother is a citizen and resident of India. (Item 4.) She is approximately 80 years old and resides with Applicant’s sister in India. She is supported by a “family pension” she receives as a result of her deceased husband’s work as a state government employee in the “irrigation department.” (AE A.) Applicant estimated that he has weekly telephonic contact with his mother on his SF-86. (Item 4; Item 5.)	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
2.b	Applicant admits that his sister is a citizen and resident of India. (Item 4.) She is a 50-year-old homemaker. She cares for Applicant’s mother. She is married. Her husband works for a state-run auto insurance company. They have one child. Applicant communicates with his sister and her family once or twice per month by telephone. (AE A; Item 4; Item 5.)	Against Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
2.c	Applicant admits that his brother-in-law (his wife’s brother) is a citizen and resident of India. (Item 4.) He is a retired accountant for a private firm. Applicant has telephonic contact with him on a quarterly basis. (AE A; Item 4; Item 5.)	Against Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant admits that his mother is a citizen and resident of India. (Item 4.) She is approximately 80 years old and resides with Applicant’s sister in India. She is supported by a “family pension” she receives as a result of her deceased husband’s work as a state government employee in the “irrigation department.” (AE A.) Applicant estimated that he has weekly telephonic contact with his mother on his SF-86. (Item 4; Item 5.)

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

2.b

Applicant admits that his sister is a citizen and resident of India. (Item 4.) She is a 50-year-old homemaker. She cares for Applicant’s mother. She is married. Her husband works for a state-run auto insurance company. They have one child. Applicant communicates with his sister and her family once or twice per month by telephone. (AE A; Item 4; Item 5.)

Against Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

2.c

Applicant admits that his brother-in-law (his wife’s brother) is a citizen and resident of India. (Item 4.) He is a retired accountant for a private firm. Applicant has telephonic contact with him on a quarterly basis. (AE A; Item 4; Item 5.)

Against Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Unknown	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

specific text not stated in this decision

Unknown

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Unknown

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES