ISCR Case 03-24891.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-24891.h1

deniedApr 7, 2005· Hon. Henry Lazzaro· hearing

Summary

A 57-year-old computer systems analyst was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), Guideline E (Personal Conduct), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The applicant was found to have engaged in a sham marriage with an illegal immigrant and allowed an illegal immigrant couple to reside in her home.

Specifically, the applicant entered into a sham marriage with a Peruvian man to help him obtain U.S. citizenship and remain in the country, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1186. She also allowed an illegal immigrant couple to live in her residence, with the woman caring for the applicant's daughter, and failed to report their illegal status. Although the applicant did not know the Peruvian man was already lawfully married when they wed, she falsified her divorce petition to facilitate their marriage.

The denial was based on the finding that the applicant knowingly engaged in a sham marriage to prevent the loss of her daughter's surrogate mother and sister, allowed illegal immigrants to reside in her home, and failed to report their status. Her actions demonstrated a willingness to prioritize personal interests over U.S. laws, and she failed to mitigate these security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant knowingly engaged in a sham marriage with an illegal alien to prevent the loss of her daughter's surrogate mother and sister.
The applicant allowed illegal immigrants to reside in her home and failed to report their illegal status to her security officer.
The applicant's actions demonstrated a willingness to prioritize personal interests over U.S. laws.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1appliedAn Immediate Family Member, or a Person to Whom the Individual Has Close Ties of Affection or Obligation, Is a Citizen Of, or Resident or Present In, a Foreign Country.
DC 2appliedSharing Living Quarters with a Person or Persons, Regardless of Their Citizenship Status, If the Potential for Adverse Influence or Duress Exists.
DC 6appliedConduct Which May Make the Individual Vulnerable to Coercion, Exploitation, or Pressure by a Foreign Government.
DC 1appliedAllegations or Admission of Criminal Conduct, Regardless of Whether the Person Was Formally Charged.
DC 2appliedA Single Serious Crime or Multiple Lesser Offenses.

Mitigating

MC 5rejectedThe Individual Has Taken Positive Steps to Significantly Reduce or Eliminate Vulnerability to Coercion, Exploitation, or Duress.The applicant's failure to report the illegal status of the family and the true nature of the marriage prevent applicability.

Key Rule Quoted

“The objective of the security-clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 25, 2004
Answer filedJun 24, 2004
Hearing heldFeb 3, 2005
Decision dateApr 7, 2005

Cite For

Foreign Influence Due to Close Ties with Illegal Immigrants
Personal Conduct Concerns Arising From Illegal Activities
Criminal Conduct Related to Sham Marriages for Immigration Purposes

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
1.a	Applicant allowed an illegal immigrant couple to live in her residence so the woman could care for Applicant's daughter.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Immediate Family	—	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	—	—
2.a	Applicant entered into a sham marriage with the man so he could obtain U.S. citizenship.	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Peru	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest (c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government	—	—
2.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant allowed an illegal immigrant couple to live in her residence so the woman could care for Applicant's daughter.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Immediate Family

—

Admitted

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government

—

2.a

Applicant entered into a sham marriage with the man so he could obtain U.S. citizenship.

Against Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Peru

Admitted

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(c) failure to report or disclose association with a foreign person/group/government

—

2.b

specific text not stated in this decision

For Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Unknown

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant allowed illegal immigrants to reside in her home.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.b	Applicant entered into a sham marriage with an illegal immigrant to allow him to remain in the United States.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.c	Applicant failed to report the illegal status of the couple residing in her home.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.d	Applicant did not know the Peruvian man was lawfully married to another person at the time of their marriage.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	(g) association was unwitting, has ceased, or casts no doubt	—
2.e	Applicant falsified her divorce petition to marry the Peruvian man.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	(g) association was unwitting, has ceased, or casts no doubt	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant allowed illegal immigrants to reside in her home.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.b

Applicant entered into a sham marriage with an illegal immigrant to allow him to remain in the United States.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.c

Applicant failed to report the illegal status of the couple residing in her home.

Against Applicant

Rules Violation at Workplace

—

Denied

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form

(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official

(c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern

—

2.d

Applicant did not know the Peruvian man was lawfully married to another person at the time of their marriage.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

(g) association was unwitting, has ceased, or casts no doubt

—

2.e

Applicant falsified her divorce petition to marry the Peruvian man.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

(g) association was unwitting, has ceased, or casts no doubt

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	Applicant entered into a sham marriage with a Peruvian man for the purpose of evading U.S. immigration laws.	Against Applicant	Fraud or Deception Criminal	Conduct No Charge	Denied	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability (b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction	—	—
3.b	Applicant's conduct violated 8 U.S.C. § 1186.	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	Conduct No Charge	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Offense

Criminal disposition

Response

Disqualifying (¶31)

Mitigating applied (¶32)

Mitigation

3.a

Applicant entered into a sham marriage with a Peruvian man for the purpose of evading U.S. immigration laws.

Against Applicant

Fraud or Deception Criminal

Conduct No Charge

Denied

(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability

(b) evidence of criminal conduct, regardless of charge or conviction

—

3.b

Applicant's conduct violated 8 U.S.C. § 1186.

For Applicant

Unspecified Criminal Conduct

Conduct No Charge

Denied

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

SYNOPSIS

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES