ISCR Case 15-02890.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-02890.h1

grantedMay 24, 2016· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from India, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The applicant maintained family ties in India, including a 92-year-old father, three brothers, two sisters, and her in-laws, all of whom are citizens and residents of India. Her father and in-laws are retired, and her sisters are housewives. One brother works for a private company, while another works in a technology division providing software services to the Indian government, though he is a civilian. The applicant contacts her family periodically, but does not provide financial support, and none of them are familiar with the nature of her work or have connections to the Indian government.

Additional concerns included an Indian bank account with approximately $5,000, opened in 2007 or 2008 for travel, which she intends to close. She also owns a gifted property in India valued at about $6,000, which she has not yet disposed of due to time constraints and the bureaucratic process. The applicant also held an Overseas Citizens of India Program visa card, which she believed was a long-term travel visa, but she cancelled her Indian passport in 2007 and uses her U.S. passport for travel.

The judge granted the clearance, finding that the applicant's connections did not pose a significant risk of foreign influence or coercion. This decision was based on her renunciation of Indian citizenship, her significant ties to the U.S. (including her U.S. citizen husband and children), and the lack of government connections or financial dependence among her family members in India. The applicant also demonstrated a commitment to U.S. security through her long-term residence, work with government contractors, and training in security measures.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant is a naturalized U.S. citizen who renounced her Indian citizenship and surrendered her Indian passport.
She has significant ties to the U.S., including her husband and children, all of whom are U.S. citizens.
The applicant's family members in India do not have connections to the Indian government and are not financially dependent on her.

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)notedSubstantial Business or Financial Interest in a Foreign Country

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedThe Individual Has a Long History of Residence in the U.S.
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedThe Individual Has Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to the U.S.
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedThe Individual Has No Significant Foreign Financial Interests

Key Rule Quoted

“"The risk of coercion, persuasion, or duress is significantly greater if the foreign country has an authoritarian government, a family member is associated with or dependent upon the government, or the country is known to conduct intelligence operations against the United States."”
— ISCR Case No. 02-26130 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2006)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 27, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldApr 26, 2016
Decision dateMay 24, 2016

Cite For

Granting Security Clearance Despite Foreign Family Ties Under Guideline B
Consideration of Applicant's Long-term U.S. Residency and Citizenship
Mitigating Factors Related to Foreign Influence and Family Connections

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 father is a citizen and resident of India. He is 92 years old and is confined to his home due to his age and health. He lives alone. Applicant contacts him twice per month to check on his health or wish him a Happy Birthday. She does not support him financially. He does not have any connection with the Indian government. He has been retired for about 35 years.	For 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	—	Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant has three brothers who are citizens and residents of India. Her oldest brother is 68 and is retired. She speaks to him about three times a year. The conversations are short and they talk about their families. His children live in the United States. Her second brother is 56 and works for a private company in India. She speaks to him once or twice a year at holidays. The conversations are short, rarely lasting more than 15 minutes. The third brother is 53 and works in a technology division providing software services to the Indian government. However, he is a civilian and is not directed by the government. She speaks to him once or twice a year. None of her brothers are familiar with Applicant’s job.	For 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	—	Claimed Other
1.c	Applicant has two sisters who are citizens and residents of India. She states they are now 66 and 62, respectively. They are housewives and work at home. They do not understand computers. Applicant speaks to them every four months for special occasions. They speak about their family members. Applicant does not support them financially. They do not know the nature of Applicant’s work and have no connections to the Indian government.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Extended 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	—	Claimed Other
1.d	Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens and residents of India. They are 75 and 80 years old, respectively. She talks to them once every three or four months. Her husband talks to them more frequently. They talk about family health issues. Applicant’s in-laws are retired. She does not support them financially. Her mother-in-law does not speak English. They are not savvy with technology and do not know the nature of Applicant’s work.	For 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	—	Claimed Other
1.e	Applicant has a bank account in India with approximately $5,000. She opened the account in 2007 or 2008. The account was used for local currency when she and her husband travelled to India. Applicant had no idea that it could be an issue. Once she received the SOR, she told the bank she wanted to close the account. She was informed that she has to be there physically to do so. It is a joint account with her husband and will be closed the next time she or her husband goes to India.	For Applicant	Foreign Bank Account or Investment Other	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 (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	Claimed Other
1.f	Applicant owns a property in India which is valued at about $6,000. When her mother died, she was gifted this property from her mother. The land does not generate any income. Applicant has no emotional attachment to the land and she has no intention of using it in the future. The land in India is an insignificant part of holdings, given her assets in the United States. The process of selling land in India is time consuming and bureaucratic. Applicant has to go personally to India to give a power of attorney to her brothers or sisters. She has not yet disposed of it due to her time constraints in the United States with work. Also, at the time she did not understand the significance of a possible security concern.	For Applicant	Foreign Real Estate 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 (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	Claimed Other
1.g	Applicant has a visa card under the Overseas Citizens of India Program or the Person of Indian Origin Program (PIO). Applicant believed it was a long term visa. It allowed her to travel to India easier. She used it in 2013 when her father became ill. She cancelled her Indian passport in 2007 after achieving her U.S. citizenship. She does not have dual citizenship. She always uses her U.S. passport when traveling.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	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	—	Claimed Other
1.h	Applicant has worked her adult life in the United States and has deep and long-term relationships. She has provided service to the U.S. Government through her work with government contractors. Applicant was credible when she explained that, in the unlikely situation that there would be pressure on her or her family, she would immediately contact her facility security officer. She noted that she has had extensive training in security measures.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Unknown	—	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Documented Deep U.S. Ties

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant's father is a citizen and resident of India. He is 92 years old and is confined to his home due to his age and health. He lives alone. Applicant contacts him twice per month to check on his health or wish him a Happy Birthday. She does not support him financially. He does not have any connection with the Indian government. He has been retired for about 35 years.

For 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

—

Claimed

Other

1.b

Applicant has three brothers who are citizens and residents of India. Her oldest brother is 68 and is retired. She speaks to him about three times a year. The conversations are short and they talk about their families. His children live in the United States. Her second brother is 56 and works for a private company in India. She speaks to him once or twice a year at holidays. The conversations are short, rarely lasting more than 15 minutes. The third brother is 53 and works in a technology division providing software services to the Indian government. However, he is a civilian and is not directed by the government. She speaks to him once or twice a year. None of her brothers are familiar with Applicant’s job.

For 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

—

Claimed

Other

1.c

Applicant has two sisters who are citizens and residents of India. She states they are now 66 and 62, respectively. They are housewives and work at home. They do not understand computers. Applicant speaks to them every four months for special occasions. They speak about their family members. Applicant does not support them financially. They do not know the nature of Applicant’s work and have no connections to the Indian government.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Extended 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

—

Claimed

Other

1.d

Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens and residents of India. They are 75 and 80 years old, respectively. She talks to them once every three or four months. Her husband talks to them more frequently. They talk about family health issues. Applicant’s in-laws are retired. She does not support them financially. Her mother-in-law does not speak English. They are not savvy with technology and do not know the nature of Applicant’s work.

For 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

—

Claimed

Other

1.e

Applicant has a bank account in India with approximately $5,000. She opened the account in 2007 or 2008. The account was used for local currency when she and her husband travelled to India. Applicant had no idea that it could be an issue. Once she received the SOR, she told the bank she wanted to close the account. She was informed that she has to be there physically to do so. It is a joint account with her husband and will be closed the next time she or her husband goes to India.

For Applicant

Foreign Bank Account or Investment

Other

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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

Claimed

Other

1.f

Applicant owns a property in India which is valued at about $6,000. When her mother died, she was gifted this property from her mother. The land does not generate any income. Applicant has no emotional attachment to the land and she has no intention of using it in the future. The land in India is an insignificant part of holdings, given her assets in the United States. The process of selling land in India is time consuming and bureaucratic. Applicant has to go personally to India to give a power of attorney to her brothers or sisters. She has not yet disposed of it due to her time constraints in the United States with work. Also, at the time she did not understand the significance of a possible security concern.

For Applicant

Foreign Real Estate

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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

Claimed

Other

1.g

Applicant has a visa card under the Overseas Citizens of India Program or the Person of Indian Origin Program (PIO). Applicant believed it was a long term visa. It allowed her to travel to India easier. She used it in 2013 when her father became ill. She cancelled her Indian passport in 2007 after achieving her U.S. citizenship. She does not have dual citizenship. She always uses her U.S. passport when traveling.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

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

—

Claimed

Other

1.h

Applicant has worked her adult life in the United States and has deep and long-term relationships. She has provided service to the U.S. Government through her work with government contractors. Applicant was credible when she explained that, in the unlikely situation that there would be pressure on her or her family, she would immediately contact her facility security officer. She noted that she has had extensive training in security measures.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Unknown

—

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

Documented

Deep U.S. Ties

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