Summary
Applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, has strong family ties in the U.S. and minimal foreign connections. Despite having family members in Pakistan and a sister-in-law in China, the judge found that his long-term commitment to the U.S. and lack of foreign government ties mitigated security concerns. Clearance was granted under Guideline B.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant's sister and step sister are citizens and residents of Pakistan. They are both housewives, not working outside of the home, and they have never worked for the Pakistani Government. The husbands of both women have their own businesses, and they have no affiliation with the Pakistani Government (1.a). Applicant's sister-in-law is a citizen of France and currently resides in the PRC. She is not employed in the PRC. She lives there with her husband, who works for a French company and is assigned there until 2006. The company is not a defense company, and it is not involved with the Government of the PRC. Applicant has minimal contact with his sister-in-law and her husband (1.b). Applicant's wife, was born in France. She moved to the United States in 1986 and became a permanent resident in 1988. At the time Applicant completed his SCA, his wife was still a citizen of France. In February 2004, she became a United States citizen (1.c). Applicant traveled to Pakistan on two occasions in 1997. These trips were to make sure that his mother, who had become extremely ill with a brain hemorrhage while visiting Pakistan, was receiving proper care and then to bring her back to the United States. His mother ultimately died and was buried in the United States. Applicant has not returned to Pakistan since 1997 and has no intentions of traveling there in the future (1.d). In 2002, Applicant traveled to Egypt and Syria. His sole purpose for this trip was to accompany his elderly father who wanted to visit these two countries. Applicant has no relatives or other contacts in either of these countries and has no plans to visit either country in the future (1.e).
The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions E2.A2.1.2.1. The judge applied mitigating conditions E2.A2.1.3.1. The decision turned on the following: Applicant demonstrated a strong attachment to the United States and a successful history since immigrating; The judge found no evidence of foreign influence that would compromise U.S. interests; Applicant's family members abroad are not involved with foreign governments.
Why the applicant prevailed
- Applicant demonstrated a strong attachment to the United States and a successful history since immigrating.
- The judge found no evidence of foreign influence that would compromise U.S. interests.
- Applicant's family members abroad are not involved with foreign governments.
Conditions referenced
- E2.A2.1.2.1raisedImmediate Family Members, Who Are Citizens Of, or Resident In, a Foreign Country.
- E2.A2.1.3.1appliedA Determination That the Immediate Family Members in Question Are Not Agents of a Foreign Power or in a Position to Be Exploited by a Foreign Power.
Key rule quoted
“The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept.”
Procedural posture
- SOR issuedMar 1, 2005
- Answer filedMar 17, 2005
- Hearing heldAug 17, 2005
- Decision dateNov 3, 2005
Cite for
- Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
- Importance of Family Ties in Assessing Security Risk
- Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Adjudication