ISCR Case 09-08417.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-08417.h1

deniedFeb 8, 2011· Hon. Michael H. Leonard· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen and software engineer, originally from China, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to unmitigated concerns about his ties to family members in China. The applicant's spouse is a lawful U.S. resident alien from China, with whom he has one U.S.-born child. While his mother is a naturalized U.S. citizen, his father, brother, and sister are Chinese citizens residing in the U.S. and awaiting alien registration cards.

However, his wife's parents remain citizens and residents of China, with whom his wife maintains regular contact. The applicant himself traveled to China five times between 2005 and 2007, primarily to visit his wife, using a Chinese passport for all but the last trip.

The denial was based on the finding that these connections, particularly to family members in China, created a heightened risk of foreign exploitation. The judge determined that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate these security concerns, and his relatively new relationships in the U.S. did not outweigh the risks posed by his foreign ties.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's ties to China, including family members who are citizens and residents there, create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.
The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns related to his foreign connections.
The applicant's relationships in the U.S. are relatively new and do not outweigh the risks posed by his ties to China.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)appliedContact with Foreign Family MembersThe applicant's ties to China create a heightened risk of foreign exploitation.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe applicant's ties to China are of sufficient magnitude to negate this condition.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedConflict of InterestThe applicant's sense of loyalty to his family in China is not minimal, and his relationships in the U.S. are not deep and longstanding.

Key Rule Quoted

“The decision to deny a person a security clearance is not a determination of an applicant’s loyalty. Instead, it is a determination that an applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has established for granting eligibility for access.”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 21, 2010
Answer filedAug 1, 2010
Hearing heldOct 20, 2010pursuant to written notice
Decision dateFeb 8, 2011

Cite For

Heightened Risk of Foreign Exploitation Due to Ties to Family in China Under Guideline B
Insufficient Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns
Importance of Deep and Longstanding Relationships in the U.S. for 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’s spouse is a citizen of China. They married in 2005 in China, where she remained with her parents until 2008, when she immigrated to the United States. She is a lawful U.S. resident alien, and she intends to apply for U.S. citizenship as soon as she is allowed to apply. They have one child who was born in the United States within the last year.	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.b	Applicant’s father, brother, and sister are citizens of China and residents of the United States. His mother, who was also born in China, is a naturalized U.S. citizen. His security clearance application reflects that his father, brother, and sister are waiting to obtain an alien registration card. His parents work in a restaurant. His immediate family members intend to remain in the United States and have no intention to return to China to reside there permanently.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.c	Applicant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law are citizens of and residents in China. Applicant last saw them in person in 2007, and he has limited telephonic contact with them. His wife has regular telephone calls with her parents.	Against Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
1.d	Applicant traveled to China approximately five times during 2005–2007. The 2005 trip was to marry his wife. There were two trips in 2006 to visit his wife. And there were two trips in 2007 to visit his wife who was recovering from a medical procedure. He made all but the last trip using a Chinese passport, as he did not possess a U.S. passport until October 2007. He used his U.S. passport for the last trip. Applicant denies anything but routine interaction (e.g., customs and immigration) with Chinese authorities during these five trips.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	China HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s spouse is a citizen of China. They married in 2005 in China, where she remained with her parents until 2008, when she immigrated to the United States. She is a lawful U.S. resident alien, and she intends to apply for U.S. citizenship as soon as she is allowed to apply. They have one child who was born in the United States within the last year.

Against Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

—

1.b

Applicant’s father, brother, and sister are citizens of China and residents of the United States. His mother, who was also born in China, is a naturalized U.S. citizen. His security clearance application reflects that his father, brother, and sister are waiting to obtain an alien registration card. His parents work in a restaurant. His immediate family members intend to remain in the United States and have no intention to return to China to reside there permanently.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

—

1.c

Applicant’s father-in-law and mother-in-law are citizens of and residents in China. Applicant last saw them in person in 2007, and he has limited telephonic contact with them. His wife has regular telephone calls with her parents.

Against Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

—

1.d

Applicant traveled to China approximately five times during 2005–2007. The 2005 trip was to marry his wife. There were two trips in 2006 to visit his wife. And there were two trips in 2007 to visit his wife who was recovering from a medical procedure. He made all but the last trip using a Chinese passport, as he did not possess a U.S. passport until October 2007. He used his U.S. passport for the last trip. Applicant denies anything but routine interaction (e.g., customs and immigration) with Chinese authorities during these five trips.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

China

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

—

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 MATTERS

FINDINGS OF FACT

ANALYSIS

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES