ISCR Case 09-06772.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-06772.h1

deniedFeb 24, 2011· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

The applicant, a 60-year-old U.S. citizen and former Merchant Marine, sought a security clearance under Guidelines B and C. He admitted to holding Australian citizenship and passport, using them for travel, and maintaining financial interests in Australia, including properties and retirement funds. The judge denied the application, citing significant foreign preference and influence concerns due to the applicant's ties to Australia and family connections in the People's Republic of China.

Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant’s wife is a citizen of the PRC, who maintains a work visa to reside in the United States. His wife holds a permanent visa from Australia. Applicant testified that his wife, who is 32 years old, was born in the PRC and lived there until 2004. In anticipation of Applicant taking an employment position in Australia, she was able to apply for and receive a permanent visa from Australia. (Tr at 51-54.) Applicant’s wife never worked for the PRC Government (2.a). Applicant's wife’s mother and father are citizens and residents of the PRC. His wife contacts them “a couple of times a week just on the telephone” and also on the computer by Skype. Her mother is employed in a toy factory as a factory worker, and her father is retired, but was an accountant and/or a machinist; Applicant’s was not certain. His wife also has one sister who resides in the PRC. She is employed as a sales clerk. None of his wife’s family was ever employed by the PRC Government. (Tr at 54-57.) Since Applicant speaks no Chinese and his in-laws speak no English, he has no contact with them (2.b). Applicant has two daughters, who are citizens and residents of Australia. He also has four grandchildren who are citizens and residents of Australia. He has one grandson who lives in the United States. (Tr at 58.) (2.c). Applicant’s best friend is a citizen and resident of Australia. He is 74 and retired. He was previously employed as an officer in the Australia Signal Corp. (Tr at 58-59.) (2.d). The SOR also alleges that allegations 1.d. and 1.e., above should also be considered adversely under Guideline B (2.e). It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant possessed an Australian passport that was issued on September 25, 2002, and would not expire until September 25, 2012 (1.a). It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant used his Australian passport in lieu of his United States passport, to travel to China in May 2007, and to Australia on several occasions (1.b). It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant applied for Australian retirement and health benefits (1.c). It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant maintains two mutual funds in Australia with approximate values of $10,000 and $3,000 in Australian currency (1.d). It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant maintains two residential properties in Australia with approximate values of $350,000 and $250,000 in Australian currency (1.e).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 10 (a), AG ¶ 7 (a), AG ¶ 7 (b), AG ¶ 7 (e). The decision turned on the following: The applicant retained Australian citizenship and passport, indicating a preference for a foreign country over the U.S; The applicant's financial interests and family ties in Australia and the PRC raised significant foreign influence concerns; The applicant's unwillingness to renounce his Australian citizenship or passport contributed to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant retained Australian citizenship and passport, indicating a preference for a foreign country over the U.S.
The applicant's financial interests and family ties in Australia and the PRC raised significant foreign influence concerns.
The applicant's unwillingness to renounce his Australian citizenship or passport contributed to the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 10 (a)raisedForeign Preference
AG ¶ 7 (a)raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 7 (b)raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 7 (e)raisedForeign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 30, 2010
Answer filedUndated
Hearing heldNov 26, 2010
Decision dateFeb 24, 2011

Cite For

Foreign Preference Concerns Under Guideline C Due to Dual Citizenship
Foreign Influence Risks Associated with Family Ties in the PRC
The Impact of Financial Interests in Foreign Countries 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
2.a	Applicant’s wife is a citizen of the PRC, who maintains a work visa to reside in the United States. His wife holds a permanent visa from Australia. Applicant testified that his wife, who is 32 years old, was born in the PRC and lived there until 2004. In anticipation of Applicant taking an employment position in Australia, she was able to apply for and receive a permanent visa from Australia. (Tr at 51-54.) Applicant’s wife never worked for the PRC Government.	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	People’s Republic of China 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 (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	—
2.b	Applicant's wife’s mother and father are citizens and residents of the PRC. His wife contacts them “a couple of times a week just on the telephone” and also on the computer by Skype. Her mother is employed in a toy factory as a factory worker, and her father is retired, but was an accountant and/or a machinist; Applicant’s was not certain. His wife also has one sister who resides in the PRC. She is employed as a sales clerk. None of his wife’s family was ever employed by the PRC Government. (Tr at 54-57.) Since Applicant speaks no Chinese and his in-laws speak no English, he has no contact with them.	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	People’s Republic of China 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 has two daughters, who are citizens and residents of Australia. He also has four grandchildren who are citizens and residents of Australia. He has one grandson who lives in the United States. (Tr at 58.)	Against Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	Australia	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.d	Applicant’s best friend is a citizen and resident of Australia. He is 74 and retired. He was previously employed as an officer in the Australia Signal Corp. (Tr at 58-59.)	Against Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend	Australia	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.e	The SOR also alleges that allegations 1.d. and 1.e., above should also be considered adversely under Guideline B.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant’s wife is a citizen of the PRC, who maintains a work visa to reside in the United States. His wife holds a permanent visa from Australia. Applicant testified that his wife, who is 32 years old, was born in the PRC and lived there until 2004. In anticipation of Applicant taking an employment position in Australia, she was able to apply for and receive a permanent visa from Australia. (Tr at 51-54.) Applicant’s wife never worked for the PRC Government.

Against Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

People’s Republic of China

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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

2.b

Applicant's wife’s mother and father are citizens and residents of the PRC. His wife contacts them “a couple of times a week just on the telephone” and also on the computer by Skype. Her mother is employed in a toy factory as a factory worker, and her father is retired, but was an accountant and/or a machinist; Applicant’s was not certain. His wife also has one sister who resides in the PRC. She is employed as a sales clerk. None of his wife’s family was ever employed by the PRC Government. (Tr at 54-57.) Since Applicant speaks no Chinese and his in-laws speak no English, he has no contact with them.

Against Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

People’s Republic of China

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 has two daughters, who are citizens and residents of Australia. He also has four grandchildren who are citizens and residents of Australia. He has one grandson who lives in the United States. (Tr at 58.)

Against Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

Australia

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.d

Applicant’s best friend is a citizen and resident of Australia. He is 74 and retired. He was previously employed as an officer in the Australia Signal Corp. (Tr at 58-59.)

Against Applicant

Friend in Foreign Country

Friend

Australia

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.e

The SOR also alleges that allegations 1.d. and 1.e., above should also be considered adversely under Guideline B.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Admitted

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant possessed an Australian passport that was issued on September 25, 2002, and would not expire until September 25, 2012.	Against Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country	—	—
1.b	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant used his Australian passport in lieu of his United States passport, to travel to China in May 2007, and to Australia on several occasions.	Against Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country	—	—
1.c	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant applied for Australian retirement and health benefits.	Against Applicant	Foreign Benefits or Education	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country	—	—
1.d	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant maintains two mutual funds in Australia with approximate values of $10,000 and $3,000 in Australian currency.	Against Applicant	Foreign Benefits or Education	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country	—	—
1.e	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant maintains two residential properties in Australia with approximate values of $350,000 and $250,000 in Australian currency.	Against Applicant	Foreign Benefits or Education	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant possessed an Australian passport that was issued on September 25, 2002, and would not expire until September 25, 2012.

Against Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country

—

1.b

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant used his Australian passport in lieu of his United States passport, to travel to China in May 2007, and to Australia on several occasions.

Against Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country

—

1.c

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant applied for Australian retirement and health benefits.

Against Applicant

Foreign Benefits or Education

Admitted

(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country

—

1.d

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant maintains two mutual funds in Australia with approximate values of $10,000 and $3,000 in Australian currency.

Against Applicant

Foreign Benefits or Education

Admitted

(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country

—

1.e

It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant maintains two residential properties in Australia with approximate values of $350,000 and $250,000 in Australian currency.

Against Applicant

Foreign Benefits or Education

Admitted

(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country

—

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION