Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 26-year-old software engineer and U.S. citizen, faced security clearance denial under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) due to concerns about his Chinese wife's ties to the Communist Party and her family's residence in China. Despite mitigating factors regarding his personal conduct, the judge found that the risks associated with his foreign connections were significant enough to deny his application.

Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant's wife is a citizen of the PRC. She has lived in the United States less than one year. She was a member of the Communist Party until 2009. Her parents are citizens and residents of the PRC. Her uncle, aunt, and cousin are citizens and reside in the PRC, and are members of the Communist Party (1.b). Applicant's wife has an uncle, aunt, and cousin who are citizens of and reside in the PRC. All three are members of the Communist Party. Her aunt had a position with the district government where she resides. She recently retired from that position. Her uncle is an airport administrator for the district and a higher ranking official in the Communist Party than his wife. Her cousin is a speechwriter for a local official (1.c). Applicant traveled to the PRC the four times alleged in the SOR (July 2008, December 2008, May 2009, December 2009). The first trip was with his bible study group. The purpose of the trip was to teach English to Chinese children. He first met his wife-to-be when he was on this trip. His second trip was with his brother and a friend. The purpose was to visit his wife-to-be and let his brother and friend meet her. The third trip was when Applicant proposed to his wife-to-be and attend her college graduation. The fourth trip allowed him to assist her as she sought a visa to come to the United States (1.d). Applicant admitted that he made a number of acquaintances who are citizens and residents of China on his trips there. They do not keep in close contact and he may only hear from them once or twice a year. He has extensively reported all of his contacts to his company’s security representative (1.e). Applicant’s sister, who is a U.S. citizen, is a teacher who taught in South Korea, but she no longer teaches there. She is currently teaching English in Saudi Arabia (1.f). Applicant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law are both citizens and residents of the PRC. Neither are members of the Communist Party. Applicant has minimum contact with his wife’s parents. He chatted with them, using a computer phone service, a “handful” of times since his wife came to the United States. His wife initially contacted her parents every day using the computer phone service. More recently, her telephone contact with her parents has been about once a month (1.g).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 7(a), AG ¶ 7(b), AG ¶ 7(d). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(b), AG ¶ 8(e), AG ¶ 8(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's wife is a citizen of the PRC and a former member of the Communist Party, creating a heightened risk of foreign exploitation; The applicant has close ties to his wife's family, who are active members of the Communist Party, raising concerns about divided loyalties; The applicant's frequent visits to China and the nature of the Chinese government contribute to significant security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

• The applicant's wife is a citizen of the PRC and a former member of the Communist Party, creating a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
• The applicant has close ties to his wife's family, who are active members of the Communist Party, raising concerns about divided loyalties.
• The applicant's frequent visits to China and the nature of the Chinese government contribute to significant security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration and any doubt must be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedOct 6, 2010
• Answer filedOct 15, 2010
• Hearing heldFeb 17, 2011
• Decision dateMay 31, 2011

Cite For

• Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
• Impact of Foreign Family Ties on Security Clearance Eligibility
• Consideration of Personal Conduct in the Context of Foreign Influence Risks