ISCR Case 07-17092.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-17092.h1

grantedJul 1, 2007· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from India, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to family ties in India. The Statement of Reasons highlighted the applicant's frequent contact with his father, a resident citizen of India, and less frequent contact with his mother, sister, and in-laws, all resident citizens of India. These relationships were seen as potentially creating a risk of foreign pressure, especially given that entities in India have sought U.S. intelligence.

Further concerns included the applicant's father operating a small business in India and the applicant's past subcontracting with his father's company, which represented approximately 1.33% of the applicant's $18 million total revenue. The applicant's wife, also a naturalized U.S. citizen born in India, has parents who are resident citizens of India, with whom the applicant has limited contact.

The applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. He demonstrated strong ties to the U.S., having lived there for over 16 years, owning a company with over 200 employees that contracts with federal agencies, and having two U.S.-born children. Crucially, he renounced his Indian citizenship, surrendered his Indian passport, terminated the contract with his father's company in January 2008 due to security concerns, and maintained limited contact with his foreign relatives. The judge found no significant risk of foreign influence and granted the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant renounced his Indian citizenship and surrendered his Indian passport, demonstrating loyalty to the U.S.
He has lived in the U.S. for over 16 years and has strong ties to the country, including a successful business.
The applicant's limited contact with foreign relatives and termination of contracts with his father's company mitigated potential foreign influence.

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(d)notedSharing Living Quarters with Foreign Persons
AG ¶ 7(e)raisedSubstantial Business Interests in a Foreign Country

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons Unlikely to Create Conflict
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedMinimal Conflict of Interest Due to Strong U.S. Ties
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedInfrequent Contact with Foreign Citizens
AG ¶ 8(f)appliedValue of Foreign Business Interests Unlikely to Create Conflict

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 14, 2007
Answer filedJan 17, 2008Applicant elected to decide on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateMar 21, 2008

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Importance of U.S. Citizenship and Residency in Security Clearance Decisions
Impact of Limited Foreign Contacts on Security Clearance Eligibility

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	Applicant has frequent contact with his father, who is a resident citizen of India. He has less frequent contacts with his mother, sister, and in-laws. However, these relationships with family members create a heightened risk of foreign pressure or exploitation because entities in India have sought U. S. intelligence or proprietary information.	For 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) 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 (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.b	Applicant’s parents are resident citizens of India, as is his sister. Since retiring from private industry in 2003, his father has operated a small business, which works with private industry and not the Indian government. His mother is a housewife. His sister is a physician, who practices in a private hospital. He contacts his father once every two to four weeks, and speaks to his mother, sister and in-laws every couple months.	For 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) 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 (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.c	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.d	Applicant married his spouse in July 1992. She was born in India and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in May 2004. They have two children, both born in the United States. His wife’s parents are resident citizens of India. His father-in-law is a doctor, working in the private sector and his mother-in-law is a housewife. He has limited contact with them, speaking to them once every few months.	For 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) 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 (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.e	In or about August 1998, Applicant started his own company for which he is the CEO. The company employs more than 200 employees, and contracts with numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, as well as private commercial clients. It provides professional services to its customers in various fields and areas. For a period of time, Applicant subcontracted with his father’s company to perform certain services for Applicant’s clients. The contract represented approximately 1.33% of Applicant’s $18 million total revenue. In January 2008, Applicant terminated the contract between the two companies as a result of the Government’s security concerns. He has no other foreign business or property interests.	For Applicant	Business Associate in Foreign Country Business or Professional Associate	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	(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 (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.f	Applicant’s contacts with his family appear to be infrequent, in general, but it is not clear that they are so casual that they could not create any risk of foreign influence. Applicant established the application of AG ¶ 8(b).	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(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 (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has frequent contact with his father, who is a resident citizen of India. He has less frequent contacts with his mother, sister, and in-laws. However, these relationships with family members create a heightened risk of foreign pressure or exploitation because entities in India have sought U. S. intelligence or proprietary information.

For 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) 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

(f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence

—

1.b

Applicant’s parents are resident citizens of India, as is his sister. Since retiring from private industry in 2003, his father has operated a small business, which works with private industry and not the Indian government. His mother is a housewife. His sister is a physician, who practices in a private hospital. He contacts his father once every two to four weeks, and speaks to his mother, sister and in-laws every couple months.

For 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) 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

(f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence

—

1.c

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Denied

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

—

1.d

Applicant married his spouse in July 1992. She was born in India and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in May 2004. They have two children, both born in the United States. His wife’s parents are resident citizens of India. His father-in-law is a doctor, working in the private sector and his mother-in-law is a housewife. He has limited contact with them, speaking to them once every few months.

For 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) 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

(f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence

—

1.e

In or about August 1998, Applicant started his own company for which he is the CEO. The company employs more than 200 employees, and contracts with numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, as well as private commercial clients. It provides professional services to its customers in various fields and areas. For a period of time, Applicant subcontracted with his father’s company to perform certain services for Applicant’s clients. The contract represented approximately 1.33% of Applicant’s $18 million total revenue. In January 2008, Applicant terminated the contract between the two companies as a result of the Government’s security concerns. He has no other foreign business or property interests.

For Applicant

Business Associate in Foreign Country

Business or Professional Associate

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

(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

(f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence

—

1.f

Applicant’s contacts with his family appear to be infrequent, in general, but it is not clear that they are so casual that they could not create any risk of foreign influence. Applicant established the application of AG ¶ 8(b).

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Admitted

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

(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

(f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES