ISCR Case 15-07079.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-07079.h1

deniedAug 8, 2017· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from India, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to significant familial and financial ties to India. The applicant's parents and three siblings, along with her parents-in-law, are all citizens and residents of India. The applicant admitted these familial connections, asserting that her and her husband's long-term residency in the U.S., and their U.S.-born children, mitigated these concerns.

However, the applicant and her spouse also maintain substantial financial interests in India. This includes a joint bank account valued at approximately $6,000, intended for the applicant's financially dependent parents. Additionally, her spouse holds five bank accounts in India totaling about $27,000, to support his financially dependent parents and siblings. The spouse also owns eight properties in India valued at approximately $560,000, mostly inherited or purchased before moving to the U.S., and an Indian life insurance policy worth about $9,000.

The judge determined that these significant family connections and substantial financial interests in India raised unmitigated security concerns. The applicant's claims of loyalty to the U.S. and her family's intention to remain in the U.S. were insufficient to overcome the potential for foreign influence and conflict of interest. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has significant familial ties to India, including parents and siblings who are citizens and residents.
The applicant's spouse has substantial financial interests in India, including properties and bank accounts.
The applicant's financial support for her family in India creates a potential conflict of interest.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign Persons Creating Potential Conflict of Interest
AG ¶ 7(f)raisedSubstantial Business, Financial, or Property Interests in a Foreign Country

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 21, 2016
Answer filedMay 17, 2016Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateAug 8, 2017

Cite For

Significant Familial Ties to Foreign Countries Under Guideline B
Substantial Financial Interests in Foreign Countries as a Disqualifying Condition
The Importance of Resolving Doubts in Favor of National Security.

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
1.a	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s parents and three siblings are citizens and residents of India. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that this should not be a concern because her husband has lived in the United States for 16 years; she has lived in the United States for 13 years; and her two children are United States born citizens. She also added that they are going to live the rest of their lives in the United States. (Item 3.)	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	—	—
1.b	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s parents-in-law are citizens and residents of India. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she added the same answer concerning them that she had provided to 1.a., above. (Item 3.)	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	—	—
1.c	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant and her spouse maintain a bank account in India with an approximate value of $6,000. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that this money is kept there for medical emergencies for her parents. Her father is 74 and her mother is 66; they have no income and are financially dependent on her. (Item 3.)	Against Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Financial or Property Interest	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests	—	—
1.d	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s spouse maintains five bank accounts in India with an approximate value of $27,000. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that her husband is the eldest son in his family, and he is responsible to take care of his parents and siblings. She added that they are financially dependent on her husband, as her father-in-law is retired and has no income. (Item 3.)	Against Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Financial or Property Interest	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests	—	—
1.e	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s spouse owns eight properties in India with an approximate value of $560,000. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that most of the property was inherited from Applicant's husband’s father and a few were bought in Applicant's husband’s name before he moved to the United States. (Item 3.)	Against Applicant	Foreign Real Estate Financial or Property Interest	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests	—	—
1.f	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s spouse owns an Indian life insurance policy with an approximate value of $9,000. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that her husband purchased this policy before he moved to the United States. He has not cancelled the policy, because if he did he would lose all the money paid for the policy many years ago. (Item 3.)	Against Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Financial or Property Interest	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s parents and three siblings are citizens and residents of India. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that this should not be a concern because her husband has lived in the United States for 16 years; she has lived in the United States for 13 years; and her two children are United States born citizens. She also added that they are going to live the rest of their lives in the United States. (Item 3.)

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

—

1.b

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s parents-in-law are citizens and residents of India. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she added the same answer concerning them that she had provided to 1.a., above. (Item 3.)

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

—

1.c

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant and her spouse maintain a bank account in India with an approximate value of $6,000. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that this money is kept there for medical emergencies for her parents. Her father is 74 and her mother is 66; they have no income and are financially dependent on her. (Item 3.)

Against Applicant

Foreign Bank Account or Investment

Financial or Property Interest

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests

—

1.d

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s spouse maintains five bank accounts in India with an approximate value of $27,000. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that her husband is the eldest son in his family, and he is responsible to take care of his parents and siblings. She added that they are financially dependent on her husband, as her father-in-law is retired and has no income. (Item 3.)

Against Applicant

Foreign Bank Account or Investment

Financial or Property Interest

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests

—

1.e

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s spouse owns eight properties in India with an approximate value of $560,000. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that most of the property was inherited from Applicant's husband’s father and a few were bought in Applicant's husband’s name before he moved to the United States. (Item 3.)

Against Applicant

Foreign Real Estate

Financial or Property Interest

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests

—

1.f

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s spouse owns an Indian life insurance policy with an approximate value of $9,000. Applicant admitted this allegation in her RSOR, and she wrote that her husband purchased this policy before he moved to the United States. He has not cancelled the policy, because if he did he would lose all the money paid for the policy many years ago. (Item 3.)

Against Applicant

Foreign Bank Account or Investment

Financial or Property Interest

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(f) substantial foreign business, financial, or property interests

—

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