ISCR Case 12-03286.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-03286.h1

grantedApr 30, 2013· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

The applicant, a 26-year-old consultant for a defense contractor, sought a trustworthiness determination under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) after receiving a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns about her foreign connections. The judge found that the applicant's relationships with her foreign family members and friends did not create a heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation, leading to a decision to grant her eligibility for a public trust position.

Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant admitted the allegations of the SOR 1.a, but denied the allegations of SOR 1.b. She is a 26-year-old consultant employed by a defense contractor since October 2008. She has not previously had a trustworthiness determination, but had interim access granted in December 2008 and May 2009, on different contracts with her current employer. Applicant was born in India in February 1987, and immigrated to the U.S. with her parents and older brother shortly thereafter. Their purpose was to obtain legal permanent resident (LPR) status for themselves, but particularly for their children because of the educational opportunities available in the U.S. The family obtained LPR status in 1991. They moved to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where Applicant’s father ran a perfume business. Her mother was a homemaker, occasionally helping with the business. From August 2000 to May 2004, Applicant attended highschool in the UAE. After graduating from highschool, Applicant returned to the U.S. to attend college, from which she graduated in August 2008. In November 2009, Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen, and obtained her U.S. passport. Her brother is also a naturalized U.S. citizen. India does not recognize dual citizenship, and Applicant states she renounced her Indian citizenship when she became a U.S. citizen (1.a). Applicant’s parents are citizens of India, residing in the UAE, where they run a perfume business. As mentioned above, they are also LPRs of the U.S. Her father’s business connections are largely in Italy and France, although he hopes to expand his business to the U.S. They also plan to return to the U.S when they retire. Neither of them have ever had any connection to the Indian government. Applicant reported her foreign relatives as required on her clearance application (GE 1). She discussed her contacts with her foreign relations extensively during a subject interview in January 2011 (GE 2). She usually visits her parents in the UAE once a year in December, and they visit her in the U.S. at least once a year. She speaks with them regularly by telephone. Their business is self-sustaining, and she does not provide them with any financial support. She has no financial or property interests in either India or the UAE. What financial interests she has are in the U.S (1.b).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 6. The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(a), AG ¶ 8(b), AG ¶ 8(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant's parents are lawful permanent residents of the U.S. and have no connections to the Indian government; The applicant has no financial interests in India or the UAE, and her financial interests are solely in the U.S; The nature of the applicant's foreign contacts is infrequent and casual, reducing the risk of foreign influence.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant's parents are lawful permanent residents of the U.S. and have no connections to the Indian government.
The applicant has no financial interests in India or the UAE, and her financial interests are solely in the U.S.
The nature of the applicant's foreign contacts is infrequent and casual, reducing the risk of foreign influence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedMitigating Condition 1The nature of the relationships with foreign persons is such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual and the interests of the U.S.
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedMitigating Condition 2There is no conflict of interest due to the applicant's deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S.
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedMitigating Condition 3Contact with foreign citizens is so casual and infrequent that there is little likelihood it could create a risk for foreign influence.

Key Rule Quoted

“Trustworthiness decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s access to sensitive information.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 5, 2012
Answer filed—Applicant requested a hearing.
Hearing heldApr 11, 2013
Decision dateApr 30, 2013

Cite For

Evaluation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Mitigating Factors Related to Foreign Contacts
Trustworthiness Determinations Involving Foreign Family Members

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 admitted the allegations of the SOR 1.a, but denied the allegations of SOR 1.b. She is a 26-year-old consultant employed by a defense contractor since October 2008. She has not previously had a trustworthiness determination, but had interim access granted in December 2008 and May 2009, on different contracts with her current employer. Applicant was born in India in February 1987, and immigrated to the U.S. with her parents and older brother shortly thereafter. Their purpose was to obtain legal permanent resident (LPR) status for themselves, but particularly for their children because of the educational opportunities available in the U.S. The family obtained LPR status in 1991. They moved to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where Applicant’s father ran a perfume business. Her mother was a homemaker, occasionally helping with the business. From August 2000 to May 2004, Applicant attended highschool in the UAE. After graduating from highschool, Applicant returned to the U.S. to attend college, from which she graduated in August 2008. In November 2009, Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen, and obtained her U.S. passport. Her brother is also a naturalized U.S. citizen. India does not recognize dual citizenship, and Applicant states she renounced her Indian citizenship when she became a U.S. citizen.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India, United Arab Emirates HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant’s parents are citizens of India, residing in the UAE, where they run a perfume business. As mentioned above, they are also LPRs of the U.S. Her father’s business connections are largely in Italy and France, although he hopes to expand his business to the U.S. They also plan to return to the U.S when they retire. Neither of them have ever had any connection to the Indian government. Applicant reported her foreign relatives as required on her clearance application (GE 1). She discussed her contacts with her foreign relations extensively during a subject interview in January 2011 (GE 2). She usually visits her parents in the UAE once a year in December, and they visit her in the U.S. at least once a year. She speaks with them regularly by telephone. Their business is self-sustaining, and she does not provide them with any financial support. She has no financial or property interests in either India or the UAE. What financial interests she has are in the U.S.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India, United Arab Emirates HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admitted the allegations of the SOR 1.a, but denied the allegations of SOR 1.b. She is a 26-year-old consultant employed by a defense contractor since October 2008. She has not previously had a trustworthiness determination, but had interim access granted in December 2008 and May 2009, on different contracts with her current employer. Applicant was born in India in February 1987, and immigrated to the U.S. with her parents and older brother shortly thereafter. Their purpose was to obtain legal permanent resident (LPR) status for themselves, but particularly for their children because of the educational opportunities available in the U.S. The family obtained LPR status in 1991. They moved to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), where Applicant’s father ran a perfume business. Her mother was a homemaker, occasionally helping with the business. From August 2000 to May 2004, Applicant attended highschool in the UAE. After graduating from highschool, Applicant returned to the U.S. to attend college, from which she graduated in August 2008. In November 2009, Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen, and obtained her U.S. passport. Her brother is also a naturalized U.S. citizen. India does not recognize dual citizenship, and Applicant states she renounced her Indian citizenship when she became a U.S. citizen.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India, United Arab Emirates

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

—

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

Claimed

Other

1.b

Applicant’s parents are citizens of India, residing in the UAE, where they run a perfume business. As mentioned above, they are also LPRs of the U.S. Her father’s business connections are largely in Italy and France, although he hopes to expand his business to the U.S. They also plan to return to the U.S when they retire. Neither of them have ever had any connection to the Indian government. Applicant reported her foreign relatives as required on her clearance application (GE 1). She discussed her contacts with her foreign relations extensively during a subject interview in January 2011 (GE 2). She usually visits her parents in the UAE once a year in December, and they visit her in the U.S. at least once a year. She speaks with them regularly by telephone. Their business is self-sustaining, and she does not provide them with any financial support. She has no financial or property interests in either India or the UAE. What financial interests she has are in the U.S.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India, United Arab Emirates

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

—

(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely

(b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S.

Claimed

Other

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

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES