ISCR Case 02-12617.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-12617.h1

grantedJun 10, 2003· Hon. Barry M. Sax· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old university professor and consultant, originally from Argentina, was granted a security clearance after review under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence), C (Foreign Preference), and L (Outside Activities). The applicant, who became a U.S. citizen in 1999, initially considered himself a dual citizen of the U.S. and Argentina. However, after the hearing, he researched Argentine law and documented the suspension of his Argentine citizenship. His Argentine passport expired in December 2002 and was not renewed; he now uses only his U.S. passport.

The applicant's family, including his parents, brother, and in-laws, reside in Argentina. He traveled to Argentina six times since June 1994, most recently in late 2000/early 2001, to visit his elderly parents. Additionally, he engaged in several international speaking engagements, including lecturing at a university in Hong Kong in March 2000, giving two lectures at a university in France in summer 2001, and lecturing at an international conference in Italy during the summer of 2001. These trips were reimbursed by the respective universities or organizers.

Ultimately, the judge determined that the applicant's renunciation of his Argentine citizenship and the expiration of his Argentine passport addressed concerns regarding foreign preference. His family ties in Argentina were found not to pose an unacceptable security risk, and his international speaking engagements were deemed not to conflict with his security responsibilities. Consequently, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant renounced his Argentine citizenship and allowed his Argentine passport to expire.
The applicant's family ties in Argentina were deemed not to pose an unacceptable security risk.
The applicant's international speaking engagements were not considered a conflict with his security responsibilities.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

B.1raisedForeign Influence - Immediate Family Member Is a Citizen of a Foreign Country.
C.1raisedForeign Preference - Exercise of Dual Citizenship.
C.2raisedForeign Preference - Possession And/or Use of a Foreign Passport.
L.3.araisedOutside Activities - Service with a Foreign Country.

Mitigating

C.4appliedForeign Preference - Individual Has Expressed a Willingness to Renounce Dual Citizenship.
B.1appliedForeign Influence - Determination That Immediate Family Members Would Not Constitute an Unacceptable Security Risk.
L.1appliedOutside Activities - Evaluation Indicates Outside Employment Does Not Pose a Conflict with Security Responsibilities.

Key Rule Quoted

“An applicant's admission of the information in specific allegations relieves the Government of having to prove those allegations.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 23, 2002
Answer filedDec 13, 2002
Hearing heldMar 12, 2003
Decision dateJun 10, 2003

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Preference Under Guideline C
Mitigation of Foreign Influence Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Evaluation of Outside Employment Under Guideline L

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 mother, father, brother, mother-in-law, and father-in-law reside in Argentina and are citizens of that country.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Argentina	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely	Credited Deep U.S. Ties

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant's mother, father, brother, mother-in-law, and father-in-law reside in Argentina and are citizens of that country.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Argentina

Admitted

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

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

Credited

Deep U.S. Ties

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was a citizen of Argentina and possessed an Argentinean passport when he moved to the U.S. with his wife in 1986, to continue his education. He became a U.S. citizen on September 3, 1999. At the time Applicant completed his security clearance application on March 1, 2001, he considered himself to be a dual citizen of the U.S. and Argentina. He reiterated this belief in his sworn statement of February 15, 2002, based on his understanding that "Argentina will not remove [his] citizenship, no matter what." Applicant expressed his willingness to renounce his Argentinean citizenship. After the hearing on March 12, 2003, Applicant researched Argentinean law and learned of the process by which Argentina will suspend the citizenship of someone who becomes a citizen of another country. He has documented his use of this process and the suspension of his Argentinean citizenship by that country's government.	For Applicant	Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application	Admitted	—	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests	Credited Other
1.b	Prior to the end of 2002, Applicant possessed a valid Argentinean passport, but the passport expired on December 29, 2002, and was not renewed. Applicant retained the now invalid passport, but "is willing to surrender it." Applicant is now a U.S. citizen only and uses his U.S. passport for all purposes.	For Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	—	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests	Credited Other
1.c	Applicant traveled to Argentina six times since June 1994, with his most recent visit being in December 2000/January 2001. The purpose of these journeys was to visit his elderly parents.	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Admitted	—	(a) the foreign citizenship is not in conflict with U.S. national security interests	Credited Other

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was a citizen of Argentina and possessed an Argentinean passport when he moved to the U.S. with his wife in 1986, to continue his education. He became a U.S. citizen on September 3, 1999. At the time Applicant completed his security clearance application on March 1, 2001, he considered himself to be a dual citizen of the U.S. and Argentina. He reiterated this belief in his sworn statement of February 15, 2002, based on his understanding that "Argentina will not remove [his] citizenship, no matter what." Applicant expressed his willingness to renounce his Argentinean citizenship. After the hearing on March 12, 2003, Applicant researched Argentinean law and learned of the process by which Argentina will suspend the citizenship of someone who becomes a citizen of another country. He has documented his use of this process and the suspension of his Argentinean citizenship by that country's government.

For Applicant

Foreign Citizenship Acquisition or Application

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Other

1.b

Prior to the end of 2002, Applicant possessed a valid Argentinean passport, but the passport expired on December 29, 2002, and was not renewed. Applicant retained the now invalid passport, but "is willing to surrender it." Applicant is now a U.S. citizen only and uses his U.S. passport for all purposes.

For Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Other

1.c

Applicant traveled to Argentina six times since June 1994, with his most recent visit being in December 2000/January 2001. The purpose of these journeys was to visit his elderly parents.

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Admitted

—

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

Credited

Other

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶37)	Mitigating applied (¶38)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant attended and lectured at a University in Hong Kong from March 27, 2000 to April 2, 2000. The trip was paid for by the University. Eighty percent of the attendees were from the U.S. (Tr at 57 - 64).	For Applicant	Service with Foreign Entity or National	Admitted	—	—	—
3.b	Applicant gave two lectures at a university in France in the summer of 2001. He was reimbursed by the university for this trip (Tr at 65).	For Applicant	Service with Foreign Entity or National	Admitted	—	—	—
3.c	Applicant lectured at an international conference in Italy during the summer of 2001. Applicant was reimbursed for this trip by the Italians.	For Applicant	Service with Foreign Entity or National	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶37)

Mitigating applied (¶38)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant attended and lectured at a University in Hong Kong from March 27, 2000 to April 2, 2000. The trip was paid for by the University. Eighty percent of the attendees were from the U.S. (Tr at 57 - 64).

For Applicant

Service with Foreign Entity or National

Admitted

—

3.b

Applicant gave two lectures at a university in France in the summer of 2001. He was reimbursed by the university for this trip (Tr at 65).

For Applicant

Service with Foreign Entity or National

Admitted

—

3.c

Applicant lectured at an international conference in Italy during the summer of 2001. Applicant was reimbursed for this trip by the Italians.

For Applicant

Service with Foreign Entity or National

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

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES