CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01030.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01030.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01030.h1

grantedFeb 15, 2017· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Taiwan, was granted a security clearance despite concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's mother, two brothers, and a sister as citizens and residents of Taiwan.

However, the judge applied mitigating conditions, finding that the applicant's strong ties to the United States and her financial assets outweighed these concerns. Specifically, the applicant's financial assets were primarily located in the U.S., with no assets held in Taiwan.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the familial ties in Taiwan did not create doubt about the applicant's reliability or trustworthiness, leading to the favorable decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant is a naturalized U.S. citizen with significant ties to the United States.
Applicant's financial assets are primarily in the U.S., with none in Taiwan.
The judge concluded that the applicant's familial ties do not create doubt about her reliability or trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedThe Nature of the Relationships with Foreign Persons Is Such That They Do Not Pose a Security Risk.
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedThe Applicant Has Established a Long-term Residence in the United States and Has Significant Ties to the Community.
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedThe Applicant Has Financial Interests in the United States That Are Substantial and Outweigh Any Foreign Connections.

Key Rule Quoted

“The concerns over Applicant’s relatives in Taiwan do not create doubt about her current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 25, 2016
Answer filedJul 28, 2016
Hearing heldJan 26, 2017
Decision dateFeb 15, 2017

Cite For

Mitigating Factors Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Importance of U.S. Ties in Security Clearance Decisions
Summary Disposition in Favor of Applicants with Strong Evidence of Mitigating Circumstances

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's ties to Taiwan, including family members who are citizens and residents there, did not create doubt about her reliability or trustworthiness. The applicant's significant ties to the United States, including her citizenship, marriage to a U.S. citizen, and financial assets, were deemed to outweigh her foreign connections. The judge concluded that the security concerns were mitigated and granted the applicant eligibility for access to classified information.

Country conditions:the decision took administrative notice of official facts about the foreign country (the Government’s country submission).

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Spouse or Partner · U.S. Children · U.S. Financial Assets Predominant · Intent to Remain in U.S.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a mother, two brothers, and a sister who are citizens and residents of Taiwan.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Taiwan	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.b–1.d	3 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—		—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline B). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 16-01030 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

February 15, 2017

______________

DECISION

______________

ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e- QIP) on April 9, 2015. On June 25, 2016, after reviewing the application and information gathered during a background investigation, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility issued a statement of reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) concerning Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing on July 28, 2016, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on September 7, 2016. The case was assigned to me on September 12, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled on January 26, 2017. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 and 2, which were admitted without objection. The Government also requested that I take administrative notice of various facts concerning Taiwan. (Tr. 16- 17.) Applicant testified on her own behalf and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through W, which were also admitted without objection.

At the close of the evidence and closing arguments, I proposed to the parties that this case was appropriate for a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor.1 Applicant did not object. Department Counsel had 10 days to consider the matter and provided written notice on January 31, 2017, that Department Counsel did not object. (Tr. 47-50; Judge Exhibit I.)

Applicant has a mother, two brothers, and a sister who are citizens and residents of Taiwan. Applicant entered the United States in 1994, and became an American citizen in 2001. She has been married to a native-born American citizen since 1993, and has two native-born American children. Applicant has considerable financial assets in the United States and none in Taiwan. Her ties to the United States far outweigh her ties to Taiwan. Based on the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that Department Counsel presented sufficient evidence to establish the facts alleged in the SOR under Guideline B. I also conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by Applicant or proven by Department Counsel. In particular, I conclude that the security concerns are resolved under the following mitigating conditions: AG ¶¶ 8 (a), 8(b), and 8(c).

The concerns over Applicant’s relatives in Taiwan do not create doubt about her current reliability, trustworthiness, good judgment, and ability to protect classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I weighed the evidence as a whole and considered if the favorable evidence outweighed the unfavorable evidence or vice versa. I also gave due consideration to the whole-person concept. Accordingly, I conclude that she met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. This case is decided for Applicant.

Wilford H. Ross Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Summary Disposition is appropriate in cases where the undisputed evidence justifies a favorable decision of the case, with no potential appellate issues. This decision is issued in accordance with instructions from the Director, DOHA, contained in an email dated November 12, 2016.