A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 03-22052.h1
GrantedDecided Aug 15, 2005 · Administrative Judge Joseph Testan · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, a 27-year-old U.S. citizen originally from Hong Kong, sought a security clearance despite his father's British citizenship and residence in Hong Kong. The judge found that the applicant successfully rebutted the Government's prima facie case of foreign influence by demonstrating that his father does not present a security risk. Consequently, the applicant was granted clearance under Guideline B.
Why the applicant prevailed
- The applicant presented convincing evidence that his father does not present a security risk.
- The applicant's father is not an agent of Hong Kong and cannot be exploited to force a loyalty conflict.
- The applicant's family ties in the U.S. and their plans to remain in the country were significant mitigating factors.
Conditions referenced
Disqualifying
- E2.A2.1.2.1 Foreign Influenceraised
Mitigating
- E2.A2.1.3.1 Foreign Influenceapplied
Key rule quoted
“It is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issued
- 09/15/2004
- Answer filed
- 10/13/2004
- Hearing held
- 05/20/2005
- Decision date
- 08/15/2005
Cite for
- Rebuttal of Prima Facie Case Under Guideline B
- Mitigating Factors Related to Family Ties and Foreign Influence
- Evaluation of Foreign Family Members' Potential Security Risks
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline B
Reading the 1 per allegation row needs a free account.
1 row in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Foreign Influence
DIGEST: The Government established a prima facie case under Guideline B based on the fact applicant's father is a British citizen residing in Hong Kong. The applicant has, however, presented convincing evidence that his father does not present a security risk. I therefore conclude that applicant has rebutted the Government's prima facie case. Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 03-22052.h1
DATE: 08/15/2005
DATE: August 15, 2005
In Re:
-------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
ISCR Case No. 03-22052
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOSEPH TESTAN
Appearances
SYNOPSIS
The Government established a prima facie case under Guideline B based on the fact applicant's father is a British citizen residing in Hong Kong. The applicant has, however, presented convincing evidence that his father does not present a security risk. I therefore conclude that applicant has rebutted the Government's prima facie case. Clearance is granted.
Statement of Case
On September 15, 2004, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on October 13, 2004. The case was assigned to the undersigned on March 29, 2005. A Notice of Hearing was issued on April 7, 2005, and the hearing was held on May 20, 2005. The transcript was received on June 6, 2005. RULINGS ON PROCEDURE
At the hearing SOR Allegation 1a was amended. As amended, SOR Allegation 1a is as follows:
1a. Your father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and currently resides in Hong Kong.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 27 years of age.
Applicant was born in Hong Kong. In 1990, when applicant was 12 years old, he, his parents, and brother moved to the United States. They made the move because of the uncertainty involved with Hong Kong being turned over to the Peoples Republic of China (PRC).
Applicant attended middle school and high school in the United States. Following his graduation from high school, he attended a four year university in the United States. From the time he received his degree to the present time, he has worked in the United States. He became a United States citizen in 1996 because he is "set on spending the rest of [his] life in the United States" (TR at 39).
Applicant's father has worked for a large and successful company based in Hong Kong (1) since before applicant was born. Within a month or two of moving his family to the United States, he moved back to Hong Kong to continue with his job. Applicant speaks with him an average of once a month. The father is a British citizen. He plans on retiring in two years and then moving back to the United States to live with his family. Applicant's mother will be sponsoring him (Exhibit I). When he is eligible he will be applying for United States citizenship (Exhibit G). Applicant's mother and brother still live in the United States, both are United States citizens, and both plan on remaining in the United States. Applicant has a grandmother, aunt and uncle (on his father's side) who are United States citizens living in the United States. Applicant's parents have substantial assets in the United States, including two houses, bank accounts and mutual funds (Exhibit J).
Applicant testified credibly that if he were ever approached by anyone looking for classified information he would report the approach to his security department.
Applicant's supervisor at his place of employment appeared at the hearing and testified on applicant's behalf. She testified that applicant has an excellent work ethic, is highly regarded by coworkers and supervisors, and is reliable, dependable, and trustworthy.
Conclusion
Although applicant, his mother and brother are United States citizens living in the United States, applicant's father is a British citizen residing in Hong Kong. This fact requires application of Disqualifying Condition E2.A2.1.2.1 (an immediate family member, or a person to whom the individual has close ties of affection or obligation, is a citizen of, or resident of or present in, a foreign country).
Based on the evidence presented, I conclude that applicant's father is not an agent of Hong Kong. I further conclude that he is not in a position to be exploited by Hong Kong in a way that could force applicant to choose between loyalty to him and loyalty to the United States. Based on the foregoing, Mitigating Condition E2.A2.1.3.1 (a determination that the immediate family member(s) . . . in question are not agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could force the individual to choose between loyalty to the person(s) involved and the United States) is applicable to this case. Based on the evidence as a whole, I conclude that applicant's evidence was sufficient to overcome the Government's prima facie case.
Formal Findings
GUIDELINE B: FOR THE APPLICANT
Decision
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for applicant.
____________________________
Joseph Testan
Administrative Judge
1. The company is now owned by a corporation based in a democratic country that is one of America's closest allies.
Footnotes
FOR GOVERNMENT file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-22052.h1.htm[7/2/2021 3:15:43 PM] Jennifer I. Campbell, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT William F. Savarino, Esq.