Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 28-year-old engineer and naturalized U.S. citizen born in Hong Kong, faced concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to family ties in Hong Kong and under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) for a misstatement on his security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant's family members were not agents of a foreign power and that he would not be susceptible to foreign influence, leading to the granting of his security clearance.

Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant's brother, grandfather, and grandmother are citizens of Hong Kong and currently reside in Hong Kong (1.a). Applicant's brother and his wife are physicians employed at a Hong Kong hospital; they are paid on a government scale and are considered to be government workers (1.b). Applicant's father and mother are citizens of Hong Kong, but reside in the U.S (1.c). Applicant's parents own a home in Hong Kong, where they stay while visiting and caring for Applicant's grandparents. As far as he knows, he is not likely to receive any financial benefit from this property (1.d). Applicant's girlfriend is a citizen of Hong Kong and resides in the U.S (1.e). Applicant has traveled to Hong Kong on at least 15 occasions since 1994; twice in 2002, three times in 2001, three times in 2000, once in 1999 and 1997, three times in 1996, and once each in 1995 and 1994. These visits are to see his elderly grandparents (1.f). Applicant traveled to the PRC in April 2000 on business for his U.S. employer (1.g). Applicant did not intentionally falsify his answer to Question 9 - Your Relatives and Associates on his security clearance application (SCA), filed on July 23, 2001 when he incorrectly stated that his brother lived in the U.S., when in fact he resided in Hong Kong. Because of their infrequent contacts and less than close relationship, Applicant discovered only after he completed the SCA that his brother had returned to Hong Kong (2.a).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions DC 1, DC 8. The judge applied mitigating conditions MC 1, MC 5. The decision turned on the following: The applicant credibly asserted he would reject any request to disclose classified information and report such contacts to U.S. authorities; The judge determined that the applicant's family members in Hong Kong would not constitute an unacceptable security risk; The applicant's financial interests in Hong Kong were minimal and not sufficient to affect his security responsibilities.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant credibly asserted he would reject any request to disclose classified information and report such contacts to U.S. authorities.
• The judge determined that the applicant's family members in Hong Kong would not constitute an unacceptable security risk.
• The applicant's financial interests in Hong Kong were minimal and not sufficient to affect his security responsibilities.

Conditions Referenced

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 issuedJun 3, 2003
• Answer filedJun 19, 2003
• Hearing heldSep 25, 2003
• Decision dateJan 16, 2004

Cite For

• Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
• Credibility of Applicant's Assertions Regarding Loyalty to the U.S.
• Evaluation of Personal Conduct in Relation to Security Clearance Applications.