ISCR Case 14-05412.h2

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05412.h2

grantedOct 19, 2015· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from India, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence) and C (Foreign Preference). The Statement of Reasons cited her parents and in-laws, all Indian citizens and residents, with whom she maintains regular contact and provides financial support for emergency medical expenses. Her parents are 65 and 60, and her in-laws are 69 and 60; none have worked for the Indian government or military.

The applicant owns a house in India, valued at approximately $300,000, which she uses during annual family visits and allows her parents and in-laws to manage and use, particularly for medical needs. She also held an Indian bank account, once valued at about $75,000, which her relatives used for property management and healthcare. By June 2015, this account contained $4,300, with approximately $60,000 having been used for house renovations. Additionally, the applicant possessed a current foreign passport.

The judge determined that the applicant had taken significant steps to mitigate these concerns. She renounced her Indian citizenship and surrendered her Indian passport. Her financial ties to the U.S. were found to be stronger than those to India, and character references attested to her trustworthiness and commitment to the U.S. These factors led to the decision to grant her eligibility for access to sensitive information.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant renounced her Indian citizenship and surrendered her Indian passport after becoming a U.S. citizen.
The applicant's financial ties to the U.S. were stronger than her ties to India, as evidenced by her substantial assets in the U.S.
The applicant provided character references attesting to her trustworthiness and commitment to the U.S.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

C10(a)(1)raisedPossession of a Current Foreign Passport
C10(b)raisedAction to Acquire or Obtain Recognition of a Foreign Citizenship
C10(d)raisedAny Statement or Action That Shows Allegiance to a Country Other Than the United States
B7(a)raisedContact with a Foreign Family Member
B7(b)raisedConnections to a Foreign Person That Create a Potential Conflict of Interest
B7(d)raisedSharing Living Quarters with a Person That Creates a Heightened Risk
B7(e)raisedSubstantial Business, Financial, or Property Interest in a Foreign Country
B7(i)raisedConduct That May Make the Individual Vulnerable to Exploitation

Mitigating

C11(a)appliedDual Citizenship Based Solely on Parents' Citizenship
C11(b)appliedWillingness to Renounce Dual Citizenship
C11(e)appliedPassport Has Been Destroyed or Invalidated
B8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons Is Unlikely to Create a Conflict
B8(b)appliedNo Conflict of Interest Due to Minimal Loyalty to Foreign Persons
B8(c)appliedThe Individual Has Taken Steps to Mitigate Foreign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 27, 2015
Answer filedFeb 24, 2015Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—Decision made on written record.
Decision dateOct 15, 2015Decision on remand.

Cite For

Mitigating Factors for Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Mitigating Factors for Foreign Preference Under Guideline C
Considerations for Dual Citizenship and Foreign Contacts in Security Clearance Cases.

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 parents are citizens and residents of India. Applicant’s Response stated her parents were 65 and 60 years of age, respectively. Her father is a retired banker and her mother a homemaker. Neither of them ever worked for the Indian government or military, according to Applicant’s Response. Applicant visits them yearly in India, talks to them weekly by telephone, and sends them money for any of their emergency medical expenses. The money is also used for expenses on Applicant’s house in India. They are not co-owners with Applicant of any property in 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 (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	(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. (e) promptly complied with reporting requirements	Claimed Deep U.S. Ties Claimed Other
2.b	Applicant’s parents-in-law are citizens and residents of India. Her father-in-law is 69 years old and a retired college professor. Her mother-in-law is 60 and a homemaker. Neither of them ever worked for the Indian government or military, according to Applicant’s Response. When Applicant and her family return to India annually they also visit her in-laws. Applicant talks to them monthly. They visited Applicant in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Applicant does not have any assets co-owned with them.	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 (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	(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. (e) promptly complied with reporting requirements	Claimed Deep U.S. Ties Claimed Other
2.c	Applicant owns a house in India worth about $300,000 in U.S. currency. Applicant uses the house during her family visits to India instead of staying in hotels. She purchased some of the real estate and inherited other properties. The properties are managed and used by her parents and parents-in-law. They can use the house, which is located in a larger Indian city with better health care facilities than where they live, when they need medical treatment.	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 (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	(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. (e) promptly complied with reporting requirements	Claimed Deep U.S. Ties Claimed Other
2.d	Applicant has a bank account in India alleged in the SOR to be worth about $75,000 in U.S. currency at one time. Applicant labelled it a non-resident rupee external bank account that is used by her parents and parents-in-law to take care of the real estate and her relatives’ health care needs. Applicant states in her Response that withdrawals can only be made in India. She also stated about $60,000 from the account was used for renovations on the house. The Response document states the account in June 2015 contains $4,300.	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 (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	(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. (e) promptly complied with reporting requirements	Claimed Deep U.S. Ties Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant’s parents are citizens and residents of India. Applicant’s Response stated her parents were 65 and 60 years of age, respectively. Her father is a retired banker and her mother a homemaker. Neither of them ever worked for the Indian government or military, according to Applicant’s Response. Applicant visits them yearly in India, talks to them weekly by telephone, and sends them money for any of their emergency medical expenses. The money is also used for expenses on Applicant’s house in India. They are not co-owners with Applicant of any property in 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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

(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.

(e) promptly complied with reporting requirements

Claimed

Deep U.S. Ties

Claimed

Other

2.b

Applicant’s parents-in-law are citizens and residents of India. Her father-in-law is 69 years old and a retired college professor. Her mother-in-law is 60 and a homemaker. Neither of them ever worked for the Indian government or military, according to Applicant’s Response. When Applicant and her family return to India annually they also visit her in-laws. Applicant talks to them monthly. They visited Applicant in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Applicant does not have any assets co-owned with them.

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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

(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.

(e) promptly complied with reporting requirements

Claimed

Deep U.S. Ties

Claimed

Other

2.c

Applicant owns a house in India worth about $300,000 in U.S. currency. Applicant uses the house during her family visits to India instead of staying in hotels. She purchased some of the real estate and inherited other properties. The properties are managed and used by her parents and parents-in-law. They can use the house, which is located in a larger Indian city with better health care facilities than where they live, when they need medical treatment.

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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

(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.

(e) promptly complied with reporting requirements

Claimed

Deep U.S. Ties

Claimed

Other

2.d

Applicant has a bank account in India alleged in the SOR to be worth about $75,000 in U.S. currency at one time. Applicant labelled it a non-resident rupee external bank account that is used by her parents and parents-in-law to take care of the real estate and her relatives’ health care needs. Applicant states in her Response that withdrawals can only be made in India. She also stated about $60,000 from the account was used for renovations on the house. The Response document states the account in June 2015 contains $4,300.

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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

(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.

(e) promptly complied with reporting requirements

Claimed

Deep U.S. Ties

Claimed

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	Possession of a current foreign passport.	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	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 (e) the exercise of the entitlements or benefits of foreign citizenship do not present a national security concern	Claimed Other

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

Possession of a current foreign passport.

For Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

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

(e) the exercise of the entitlements or benefits of foreign citizenship do not present a national security concern

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION