ISCR Case 10-08261.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-08261.h1

grantedJul 1, 2010· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from India, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The Statement of Reasons cited extensive family ties in India, including parents, a sister, brother-in-law, grandmother, and uncle, all citizens and residents of India. The applicant's spouse is an Indian citizen residing in the U.S., and their two children hold dual U.S. and Indian citizenship. Further concerns included the applicant's ownership of a $120,000 vacation home in India and a checking account used to deposit approximately $500 every two months for parental support and home expenses.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline B included allegations of immediate family members and other relatives being foreign citizens, and the applicant's financial interests in a foreign country. However, the judge applied mitigating conditions, noting the applicant's strong ties to the U.S. and minimal foreign financial interests.

The clearance was granted because the applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen, had not returned to India since gaining citizenship. Prior to the hearing, he surrendered his Indian passport and officially renounced his Indian citizenship. His financial interests in India were deemed minimal after he deeded his property to his father and provided only limited financial support to his parents.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant is a naturalized U.S. citizen who has not returned to India since gaining citizenship.
He surrendered his Indian passport and officially renounced his Indian citizenship prior to the hearing.
The applicant's financial interests in India were deemed minimal, as he deeded his property to his father and only provides limited financial support to his parents.

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)rejectedSubstantial Business or Financial Interest in a Foreign CountryThe applicant's financial interests in India were not substantial.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons Unlikely to Create ConflictThe applicant's family ties to India raised security concerns.
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedNo Conflict of Interest Due to Strong U.S. TiesThe applicant's assets in the U.S. significantly outweighed his minimal interests in India.

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 8, 2011
Answer filedMay 20, 2011
Hearing heldJul 14, 2011
Decision dateAug 9, 2011

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Consideration of Family Ties in Security Clearance Decisions
Evaluation of Financial Interests in Foreign Countries

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	The applicant's spouse is a citizen of India, residing in the United States.	For Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	India 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 (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	—	—
2.b	The applicant's two children are dual citizens of the United States and India.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	India 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 (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	—	—
2.c	The applicant's parents are citizens and residents of India.	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) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	—	—
2.d	The applicant's sister and brother-in-law are citizens and residents of India.	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) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	—	—
2.e	The applicant's brother-in-law is employed as a clerk for a state government agency in India.	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) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	—	—
2.f	The applicant's grandmother is a citizen and resident of India.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	India 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 (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	—	—
2.g	The applicant's uncle is a citizen and resident of India.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	India 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 (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	—	—
2.h	The applicant has friends who are citizens and residents of India.	For Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend	India 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 (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	—	—
2.i	The applicant owns a vacation home in India, valued at approximately $120,000 USD.	For Applicant	Foreign Real Estate Financial or Property Interest	India 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 (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	—	—
2.j	The applicant maintains a checking account in India and deposits approximately $500 every two months to help support his parents and pay for his home in India.	For Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Financial or Property Interest	India 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 (d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

The applicant's spouse is a citizen of India, residing in the United States.

For Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

India

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

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

—

2.b

The applicant's two children are dual citizens of the United States and India.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Immediate Family

India

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

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

—

2.c

The applicant's parents are citizens and residents of India.

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) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

—

2.d

The applicant's sister and brother-in-law are citizens and residents of India.

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) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

—

2.e

The applicant's brother-in-law is employed as a clerk for a state government agency in India.

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) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

—

2.f

The applicant's grandmother is a citizen and resident of India.

For Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

India

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

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

—

2.g

The applicant's uncle is a citizen and resident of India.

For Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

India

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

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

—

2.h

The applicant has friends who are citizens and residents of India.

For Applicant

Friend in Foreign Country

Friend

India

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

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

—

2.i

The applicant owns a vacation home in India, valued at approximately $120,000 USD.

For Applicant

Foreign Real Estate

Financial or Property Interest

India

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

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

—

2.j

The applicant maintains a checking account in India and deposits approximately $500 every two months to help support his parents and pay for his home in India.

For Applicant

Foreign Bank Account or Investment

Financial or Property Interest

India

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

(d) counterintelligence information indicating unacceptable risk

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a–1.j	10 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown).	Mixed			—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a–1.j

10 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown).

Mixed

—

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