Summary
The applicant, a 33-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen originally from China, faced security concerns under Guideline B (foreign influence) and Guideline E (personal conduct) due to his wife's Chinese citizenship and his visit to China in 2004. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate foreign influence concerns, leading to a denial of his trustworthiness determination.
Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant's wife is a citizen of the People's Republic of China (China) (1.a). Her parents are citizens and residents of China (1.b). Applicant traveled to China in 2004 to visit his in-laws (1.c). Applicant signed a Public Trust Position Application (SF 85P) on January 15, 2004, in which he answered "No" to question 16: Your Police Record In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s)? (Leave out traffic fines of less than $150.) In the statement he provided to a Special Investigator for the Office of Professional Management (OPM) on September 30, 2004, Applicant stated he didn't list the 1999 arrest in the SF 85P because he didn't realize the incident was considered criminal (2.a).
The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions DC 1, DC 2. The judge applied mitigating conditions MC 1, MC 3. The decision turned on the following: Applicant's wife is a citizen of China, and her parents are residents of China, creating foreign influence concerns; Applicant did not provide evidence to mitigate the foreign influence concerns raised by his family ties; The judge found that the applicant's admissions did not sufficiently address the potential for foreign influence.
Why the Applicant Was Denied
- Applicant's wife is a citizen of China, and her parents are residents of China, creating foreign influence concerns.
- Applicant did not provide evidence to mitigate the foreign influence concerns raised by his family ties.
- The judge found that the applicant's admissions did not sufficiently address the potential for foreign influence.
Conditions Referenced
- DC 1raisedForeign Influence - Immediate Family Member Is a Citizen of a Foreign Country
- DC 2raisedForeign Influence - Sharing Living Quarters with a Person Who May Be Subject to Foreign Influence
- MC 1rejectedForeign Influence - Immediate Family Members Are Not Agents of a Foreign PowerApplicant failed to provide evidence that his family members are not in a position to be exploited by a foreign power.
- MC 3rejectedForeign Influence - Contact with Foreign Citizens Is Casual and InfrequentThe applicant's ties to his in-laws in China do not support this mitigating condition.
Key Rule Quoted
“The clearly consistent standard indicates that trustworthiness determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”
Procedural Posture
- SOR issuedOct 28, 2005
- Answer filedDec 2, 2005Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
- Hearing held—No hearing was conducted.
- Decision dateMay 16, 2006
Cite For
- Foreign Influence Concerns Related to Family Ties Under Guideline B
- Failure to Mitigate Foreign Influence Due to Lack of Evidence
- Personal Conduct Implications of Failing to Disclose an Arrest Under Guideline E