Summary
The applicant, a 39-year-old senior software engineer and U.S. citizen originally from China, faced security concerns under Guideline B due to her close ties with her parents and parents-in-law, who are citizens and residents of China. Despite maintaining casual contact with other relatives, the judge found that the applicant did not demonstrate that her family members were not in a position to be exploited by a foreign power, leading to the denial of her security clearance.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant's parents are citizens and residents of China. They are both in their seventies and are retired. Applicant's father was a professor and her mother was an engineer. Both worked for the government and receive pensions. Applicant is their only child and maintains weekly contact with them by telephone. They visited her for approximately six months in 1996-97 and for approximately one year in 1999-2000 (1.a). Applicant's parents-in-law are citizens and residents of China. They are both retired and receive pensions from their jobs with the government. Applicant and her husband maintain weekly contact with them by telephone. Her parents-in-law visited them for approximately six months in 1995 and for approximately one year in 1998 (1.b). Applicant has relatives and friends who are citizens and residents of China with whom she generally maintains contact no more than once a year (1.c). Applicant has a cousin who is a citizen and resident of China and works for the Chinese Treasury Department. She sees her cousin once a year during the cousin's annual business trip to the United States. Applicant had monthly contact with her cousin's husband, a Chinese citizen, when he worked in the United States in 2001-2002 (1.d). Applicant has other relatives and friends who are citizens of China, Taiwan, or Canada and who currently reside in the United States. She maintains contact with them every few months (1.e). Applicant was employed by the China Textile Institute, a governmental organization, from 1988-1990 (1.f). Applicant submitted a sworn statement to a DSS special agent in which she said: "if I come across something that might hurt my family simply because of their geographical location, I would consider making up a story to get them away from that location as to prevent any harm from coming to them." (1.g). Applicant has traveled to China to visit her family on multiple occasions, including a three month visit in 1994 and a three week visit in 2001 (1.h).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A2.1.2.1, E2.A2.1.2.3. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A2.1.3.3. The decision turned on the following: The applicant failed to demonstrate that her parents and parents-in-law, who are citizens of China, are not in a position to be exploited by a foreign power; Both sets of parents receive pensions from the Chinese government, indicating potential vulnerability to coercion; The applicant's frequent contact with her family in China and their visits to the U.S. under Chinese government visas raised security concerns.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- The applicant failed to demonstrate that her parents and parents-in-law, who are citizens of China, are not in a position to be exploited by a foreign power.
- Both sets of parents receive pensions from the Chinese government, indicating potential vulnerability to coercion.
- The applicant's frequent contact with her family in China and their visits to the U.S. under Chinese government visas raised security concerns.
Conditions Referenced
- E2.A2.1.2.1appliedDisqualifying Condition 1
- E2.A2.1.2.3appliedDisqualifying Condition 3
- E2.A2.1.3.3appliedMitigating Condition 3Applicant's contact with other relatives is generally casual and infrequent.
Key Rule Quoted
“Family ties in a foreign country raise a prima facie security concern that requires the applicant to present evidence of rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to meet the burden of persuasion that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedAug 11, 2003
- Answer filedAug 26, 2003
- Hearing heldMar 3, 2004
- Decision dateAug 12, 2004
Cite For
- Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
- Impact of Family Ties in a Foreign Country on Security Clearance Eligibility
- Burden of Persuasion on Applicants Regarding Foreign Influence Risks