ISCR Case 12-05593.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-05593.h1

grantedApr 18, 2013· Hon. Francisco Mendez· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old U.S. citizen, originally from India, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The applicant had several family members who are citizens and residents of India, including her mother, two sisters, mother-in-law, and a brother-in-law. Another sister, a U.S. citizen, was temporarily residing in India for her husband's work. The applicant maintained frequent contact with her family and visited them in India.

Financial connections included an Indian non-resident bank account, opened in 2006 to facilitate travel, and a dormant foreign investment account co-owned with her husband, valued at approximately $10,000. The applicant voluntarily disclosed all foreign connections on her application and during her background interview. Prior to becoming a U.S. citizen in 2003, she renewed her Indian passport, but formally renounced her Indian citizenship and surrendered her passport in 2010.

The clearance was granted because the applicant demonstrated strong mitigating factors. She has resided in the U.S. for over 20 years, became a U.S. citizen in 2003, and formally renounced her Indian citizenship. The applicant established substantial ties to the U.S., including family, home ownership, and a stable job. The judge concluded that her loyalty lies with the U.S. and found no likely conflict of interest due to her foreign family ties.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant has continuously resided in the U.S. for over 20 years and became a U.S. citizen in 2003.
Applicant formally renounced her Indian citizenship and surrendered her Indian passport.
Applicant has substantial ties to the U.S., including family, home ownership, and a stable job.
The judge found it unlikely that the applicant would face a conflict of interest between her family in India and her obligations to the U.S.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to a Foreign Country Creating Potential Conflict of Interest
AG ¶ 7(d)raisedSharing Living Quarters with Foreign Persons

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons Unlikely to Create Conflict
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedMinimal Loyalty to Foreign Persons Due to Strong U.S. Ties
AG ¶ 8(f)appliedRoutine Nature of Foreign Financial Interests Unlikely to Result in Conflict

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual’s familial ties to a foreign country can raise the foreign influence concern. However, there is no per se rule against applicants for a public trust position who have familial ties to a foreign country.”
— ISCR Case No. 11-04980 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 21, 2012)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 14, 2012
Answer filedDec 7, 2012
Hearing heldMar 5, 2013
Decision dateApr 18, 2013

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Resolution of Foreign Preference Issues After Renouncing Citizenship
Consideration of Familial Ties in Security Clearance Determinations

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 mother and two of her sisters are citizens and residents of India. Her mother is a widow, who never worked outside the home and financially supports herself through her late husband’s pension. One of her sisters is also a widow and works as a clerk for an insurance company. The other sister is married and does not work outside the home. Applicant is close to her mother and sisters. She maintains frequent contact with them, and visits them when she travels to India.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	(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.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.b	Applicant’s third sister is a U.S. citizen. She is currently living in India with her husband and children, because her husband’s U.S. job transferred him there for a short-term project. Once her husband’s project in India is completed, Applicant’s sister plans to return to the United States, where she owns a home. Her sister’s husband and their children are U.S. citizens.	Against Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	(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.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.c	Applicant’s mother-in-law and one of her husband’s three brothers are citizens and residents of India. Her mother-in-law has lawful permanent residency status in the United States (green card), and spends part of the year in the United States with Applicant and her family. Applicant’s mother-in-law never worked outside the home, is a widow, and spends her time visiting her children and grandchildren. She supports herself from her late husband’s pension, though Applicant’s husband and his three brothers do provide some support to their mother. Applicant’s brother-in-law in is a manager of a company in India. Applicant has no other relatives or close friends in India.	Against Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	(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.	Credited Deep U.S. Ties
1.d	In 2006, Applicant opened an Indian non-resident bank account through the branch office of an Indian bank, located in the United States. It allows Applicant to deposit money in the United States and withdraw it in India. Applicant did so to minimize the amount of cash she travels with when traveling to India. She does not use the account to financially support her family in India.	Against Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Financial or Property Interest	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	(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 Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation
1.e	Applicant is also the co-owner, with her husband, of stocks her husband received from his former employer in India prior to their marriage and immigrating to the United States in 1992. This foreign investment account is dormant, and Applicant and her husband have not had access to it for over 18 years. They believe the stocks in the account have grown in value from approximately $1,000, when her husband received the stocks, to their current value of approximately $10,000. Applicant and her husband have no interest in this investment, and have not been motivated to look for and submit the necessary paperwork to reactivate the account. If and when they retire, they might look for and provide the necessary information to access the account and transfer the money to the United States. Applicant does not have any other financial interest or property in India or any other foreign country. She voluntarily disclosed her foreign bank account, foreign investment account, and foreign family members on her application for a public trust position. She also fully discussed these foreign connections during her ensuing background interview for a position of trust.	Against Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Financial or Property Interest	India HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	(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 Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Unknown	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s mother and two of her sisters are citizens and residents of India. Her mother is a widow, who never worked outside the home and financially supports herself through her late husband’s pension. One of her sisters is also a widow and works as a clerk for an insurance company. The other sister is married and does not work outside the home. Applicant is close to her mother and sisters. She maintains frequent contact with them, and visits them when she travels to India.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(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.

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

1.b

Applicant’s third sister is a U.S. citizen. She is currently living in India with her husband and children, because her husband’s U.S. job transferred him there for a short-term project. Once her husband’s project in India is completed, Applicant’s sister plans to return to the United States, where she owns a home. Her sister’s husband and their children are U.S. citizens.

Against Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(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.

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

1.c

Applicant’s mother-in-law and one of her husband’s three brothers are citizens and residents of India. Her mother-in-law has lawful permanent residency status in the United States (green card), and spends part of the year in the United States with Applicant and her family. Applicant’s mother-in-law never worked outside the home, is a widow, and spends her time visiting her children and grandchildren. She supports herself from her late husband’s pension, though Applicant’s husband and his three brothers do provide some support to their mother. Applicant’s brother-in-law in is a manager of a company in India. Applicant has no other relatives or close friends in India.

Against Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(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.

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

1.d

In 2006, Applicant opened an Indian non-resident bank account through the branch office of an Indian bank, located in the United States. It allows Applicant to deposit money in the United States and withdraw it in India. Applicant did so to minimize the amount of cash she travels with when traveling to India. She does not use the account to financially support her family in India.

Against Applicant

Foreign Bank Account or Investment

Financial or Property Interest

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(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

Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation

1.e

Applicant is also the co-owner, with her husband, of stocks her husband received from his former employer in India prior to their marriage and immigrating to the United States in 1992. This foreign investment account is dormant, and Applicant and her husband have not had access to it for over 18 years. They believe the stocks in the account have grown in value from approximately $1,000, when her husband received the stocks, to their current value of approximately $10,000. Applicant and her husband have no interest in this investment, and have not been motivated to look for and submit the necessary paperwork to reactivate the account. If and when they retire, they might look for and provide the necessary information to access the account and transfer the money to the United States. Applicant does not have any other financial interest or property in India or any other foreign country. She voluntarily disclosed her foreign bank account, foreign investment account, and foreign family members on her application for a public trust position. She also fully discussed these foreign connections during her ensuing background interview for a position of trust.

Against Applicant

Foreign Bank Account or Investment

Financial or Property Interest

India

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(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

Voluntary Disclosure Before Confrontation

2.a

specific text not stated in this decision

Unknown

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
2.a	Prior to becoming a U.S. citizen in 2003, Applicant renewed her Indian passport, which was set to expire at the end of 2012. Applicant formally renounced her Indian citizenship and surrendered her Indian passport in 2010. No evidence was presented that Applicant used her Indian passport after becoming a U.S. citizen or that she has an Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) card, which is similar to a U.S. green card and confers to its holder certain benefits. Applicant is not eligible for an Indian passport in the future, because India does not recognize dual citizenship.	For Applicant	Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status	Admitted	—	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests (b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference	—
1.a	Applicant’s mother and two of her sisters are citizens and residents of India. Her mother is a widow, who never worked outside the home and financially supports herself through her late husband’s pension. One of her sisters is also a widow and works as a clerk for an insurance company. The other sister is married and does not work outside the home. Applicant is close to her mother and sisters. She maintains frequent contact with them, and visits them when she travels to India.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country (b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests (b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference	—
1.b	Applicant’s third sister is a U.S. citizen. She is currently living in India with her husband and children, because her husband’s U.S. job transferred him there for a short-term project. Once her husband’s project in India is completed, Applicant’s sister plans to return to the United States, where she owns a home. Her sister’s husband and their children are U.S. citizens.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant’s mother-in-law and one of her husband’s three brothers are citizens and residents of India. Her mother-in-law has lawful permanent residency status in the United States (green card), and spends part of the year in the United States with Applicant and her family. Applicant’s mother-in-law never worked outside the home, is a widow, and spends her time visiting her children and grandchildren. She supports herself from her late husband’s pension, though Applicant’s husband and his three brothers do provide some support to their mother. Applicant’s brother-in-law in is a manager of a company in India. Applicant has no other relatives or close friends in India.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	In 2006, Applicant opened an Indian non-resident bank account through the branch office of an Indian bank, located in the United States. It allows Applicant to deposit money in the United States and withdraw it in India. Applicant did so to minimize the amount of cash she travels with when traveling to India. She does not use the account to financially support her family in India.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant voluntarily disclosed her foreign bank account, foreign investment account, and foreign family members on her application for a public trust position. She also fully discussed these foreign connections during her ensuing background interview for a position of trust.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

2.a

Prior to becoming a U.S. citizen in 2003, Applicant renewed her Indian passport, which was set to expire at the end of 2012. Applicant formally renounced her Indian citizenship and surrendered her Indian passport in 2010. No evidence was presented that Applicant used her Indian passport after becoming a U.S. citizen or that she has an Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) card, which is similar to a U.S. green card and confers to its holder certain benefits. Applicant is not eligible for an Indian passport in the future, because India does not recognize dual citizenship.

For Applicant

Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status

Admitted

—

(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests

(b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference

—

1.a

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Admitted

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

(b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.

(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests

(b) dual citizenship is based solely on parental citizenship or birth in a foreign country, and there is no evidence of foreign preference

—

1.b

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Admitted

—

1.c

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Admitted

—

1.d

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Admitted

—

1.e

Applicant voluntarily disclosed her foreign bank account, foreign investment account, and foreign family members on her application for a public trust position. She also fully discussed these foreign connections during her ensuing background interview for a position of trust.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Admitted

—

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