Summary
The applicant, a 45-year-old laboratory analyst and U.S. citizen originally from Colombia, faced security clearance concerns under Guideline B due to her family ties in Colombia. Despite admitting to the allegations of foreign influence, the judge found that the applicant's strong commitment to the U.S. and lack of vulnerability to coercion mitigated the risks. Consequently, the security clearance was granted.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant's father and mother are citizens of Columbia, and are currently residing in that country. They are both in their early 70s and are practicing attorneys (1.a). Applicant has monthly telephone contact with her parents in Columbia. Applicant is mindful of their health and the conversations relate primarily to family matters (1.b). Applicant's three sisters are citizens of Columbia and currently reside in that country (1.c). One of Applicant's brothers is a citizen of Columbia, currently residing in that country. He began as a lower court judge right out of law school and worked his way up. He is now a Supreme Court Judge in Columbia (1.d). A second brother, who was residing in the U.S. when Applicant migrated here, was deported to Columbia in 2000/2001 after a criminal conviction. Applicant is not aware of all the circumstances, but assumes it was drug-related (1.e). A third brother, who is a citizen of Columbia, currently resides in that country. Applicant is petitioning for him to gain entry into the United States (1.f). Applicant's aunts and uncles are citizens of Columbia and currently reside in that country (1.g). Applicant provides financial support to her family members when they need it. She sends money as gifts to her parents and siblings (1.h). Applicant traveled to Columbia in December 1997, June 2000, and June 2002. Each occasion was on family business, including a wedding and her parents 50th wedding anniversary (1.i).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions DC 1, DC 3. The judge applied mitigating conditions MC 1, MC 2. The decision turned on the following: The applicant demonstrated a strong commitment to the United States and identified as an American only; There was no evidence of improper conduct or vulnerability to foreign influence despite family ties in Colombia; The applicant's character and integrity were supported by positive testimonials from coworkers.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant demonstrated a strong commitment to the United States and identified as an American only.
- There was no evidence of improper conduct or vulnerability to foreign influence despite family ties in Colombia.
- The applicant's character and integrity were supported by positive testimonials from coworkers.
Conditions referenced
- DC 1raisedAn Immediate Family Member Is a Citizen Of, or Resident or Present In, a Foreign Country.
- DC 3raisedRelatives Who Are Connected with Any Foreign Government.
- MC 1rejectedThe Immediate Family Member(s) in Question Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power or in a Position to Be Exploited by a Foreign Power.The applicant's brother is a Supreme Court Judge in Colombia, which precludes the application of this mitigating condition.
- MC 2appliedThe Individual Has a Long History of Residence in the United States and Has Established Ties to the Community.
Key rule quoted
“A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based upon trust and confidence.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedApr 29, 2004
- Answer filedMay 14, 2004Applicant elected for a hearing.
- Hearing heldAug 23, 2004
- Decision dateJan 19, 2005
Cite for
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
- Consideration of Familial Relationships in Security Clearance Determinations
- The Importance of an Applicant's Demonstrated Loyalty to the United States Despite Foreign Ties.