ISCR Case 02-00543.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-00543.h1

grantedApr 29, 2003· Hon. Kathryn Moen Braeman· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from India, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons detailed several foreign connections, including a sister in India, a sister in Canada, and a stepson in South Korea. Additionally, the applicant's wife had multiple relatives residing in South Korea. The applicant also maintained contact with a friend in the Dominican Republic who was a former employee of the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Historical concerns included frequent visits to the Indian Embassy in Seoul between 1980 and 1982 while stationed with the U.S. military, during which time he was still an Indian citizen, befriended an Indian citizen, occasionally spent the night at the embassy, and was invited to the Indian Ambassador's residence.

Disqualifying conditions B1 and B3 were raised, pertaining to immediate family members and other persons to whom the individual has ties who are citizens of a foreign country, and contact with a foreign government, respectively. However, mitigating conditions B1 and B3 were applied.

The clearance was granted because the applicant had resided in the U.S. for 25 years, becoming a naturalized citizen in 1984, and possessed a 20-year history of responsible conduct and security clearances in the U.S. military. He had no overseas property or financial interests and had not traveled to India in over two decades. The judge concluded that, given his military service and lack of recent contact with foreign relatives, his family ties were unlikely to lead to foreign influence.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant has lived in the U.S. for 25 years and became a naturalized citizen in 1984.
He has a long history of responsible conduct in the U.S. military, holding security clearances for 20 years.
The applicant has no overseas property or financial interests and has not traveled to India in over 20 years.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

B1raisedForeign Influence Due to Family Ties
B3raisedRelatives Connected with Foreign Government

Mitigating

B1appliedImmediate Family Members Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power
B3appliedContact with Foreign Citizens Is Casual and Infrequent

Key Rule Quoted

“Security clearance decisions are predictive judgments about an applicant's security eligibility in light of the applicant's past conduct and present circumstances.”
— Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528-29 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 29, 2002
Answer filedNov 18, 2002Notarized response to SOR allegations.
Hearing heldFeb 14, 2003Applicant represented himself.
Decision dateApr 29, 2003

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Importance of Long-term Residency and Citizenship in Security Clearance Decisions
Evaluation of Familial Ties and Their Potential for Foreign Influence

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 has a brother who became a naturalized US citizen in July 2001 and has resided in the US for ten years; he has a sister who is a citizen of India, but has resided in the US for seven years, has a green card, and has applied for US citizenship in July 2002.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	He has a sister who is a citizen of India and resides in India; she is a housewife with no contact with the government of India. She has applied to come to the US.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	India	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	He has a sister who is a citizen of Canada and resides in Canada; she and her husband have a shop and have no ties to the government of Canada. He saw her a year ago in Canada.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Canada	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	He has a stepson who is 24 who is a citizen of and resident of South Korea and was brought up by his father in South Korea; Applicant has no personal relationship with him and very limited contact with him. His wife did not have contact with her son for twenty years, and now has only limited contact with him.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	South Korea	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	His wife has a brother, sister, aunt and uncle, and a niece who are citizens of and reside in South Korea, but he does not have much contact with his wife's relatives; none of them work for the government.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	South Korea	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Also, Applicant has a friend who is a citizen of India who resides in the Dominican Republic and was a former employee of the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Applicant saw him at his home in the US in 1998, and this friend has visited Applicant at his home in State #1 in 2000; they communicate by e-mail and telephone. His friend has a business in the Dominican Republic, but no ties to any government.	For Applicant	Friend in Foreign Country Friend	India	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	While he was stationed with the US military in the Republic of Korea between 1980 to 1982, Applicant was still a citizen of India. He visited the Indian Embassy in Seoul to see his friends at least once or twice weekly.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other GOVT-AFFILIATED	South Korea	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	While visiting there he befriended an Indian citizen and socialized with him on a weekly basis between 1980 to 1982.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	South Korea	Denied	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant occasionally would spend the night at the Indian Embassy in Seoul.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other GOVT-AFFILIATED	South Korea	Denied	—	—	—
1.j	The Indian Ambassador to the Republic of Korea invited Applicant to his residence for a social visit in 1981.	For Applicant	Foreign Government Contact Other GOVT-AFFILIATED	South Korea	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has a brother who became a naturalized US citizen in July 2001 and has resided in the US for ten years; he has a sister who is a citizen of India, but has resided in the US for seven years, has a green card, and has applied for US citizenship in July 2002.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Denied

—

1.b

He has a sister who is a citizen of India and resides in India; she is a housewife with no contact with the government of India. She has applied to come to the US.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

India

Denied

—

1.c

He has a sister who is a citizen of Canada and resides in Canada; she and her husband have a shop and have no ties to the government of Canada. He saw her a year ago in Canada.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Canada

Denied

—

1.d

He has a stepson who is 24 who is a citizen of and resident of South Korea and was brought up by his father in South Korea; Applicant has no personal relationship with him and very limited contact with him. His wife did not have contact with her son for twenty years, and now has only limited contact with him.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

South Korea

Denied

—

1.e

His wife has a brother, sister, aunt and uncle, and a niece who are citizens of and reside in South Korea, but he does not have much contact with his wife's relatives; none of them work for the government.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

South Korea

Denied

—

1.f

Also, Applicant has a friend who is a citizen of India who resides in the Dominican Republic and was a former employee of the Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Applicant saw him at his home in the US in 1998, and this friend has visited Applicant at his home in State #1 in 2000; they communicate by e-mail and telephone. His friend has a business in the Dominican Republic, but no ties to any government.

For Applicant

Friend in Foreign Country

Friend

India

Denied

—

1.g

While he was stationed with the US military in the Republic of Korea between 1980 to 1982, Applicant was still a citizen of India. He visited the Indian Embassy in Seoul to see his friends at least once or twice weekly.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

GOVT-AFFILIATED

South Korea

Denied

—

1.h

While visiting there he befriended an Indian citizen and socialized with him on a weekly basis between 1980 to 1982.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

South Korea

Denied

—

1.i

Applicant occasionally would spend the night at the Indian Embassy in Seoul.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

GOVT-AFFILIATED

South Korea

Denied

—

1.j

The Indian Ambassador to the Republic of Korea invited Applicant to his residence for a social visit in 1981.

For Applicant

Foreign Government Contact

Other

GOVT-AFFILIATED

South Korea

Denied

—

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES