KEYWORD: Foreign Influence
DIGEST: Applicant, born in Hong Kong, came to the United States in 1986, at age 18, and became
a United States citizen in 2003.  His wife also became a U.S. citizen. Applicant’s mother is a
permanent resident of the U.S., living most of the time here, and his father now lives in Hong Kong,
but plans to move permanently to the United States. His sister is a  U. S. resident. None of his family
members belong to, or are active with any government agency of Hong Kong.  They are not in a
position to be exploited by Hong Kong in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty
to these family members and his loyalty to the United States. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance
is granted. 
CASENO: 05-01317.h1
DATE: 1/31/2007
DATE: January 31, 2007
In Re:
----------------------
SSN: --------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 05-01317
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARTIN H. MOGUL
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Candace Le’i, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant, born in Hong Kong, came to the United States in 1986, at age 18, and became a
United States citizen in 2003.  His wife also became a U.S. citizen. Applicant’s mother is a
permanent resident of the U.S., living most of the time here, and his father now lives in Hong Kong,
but plans to move permanently to the United States. His sister is a  U. S. resident. None of his family
members belong to, or are active with any government agency of Hong Kong.  They are not in a
position to be exploited by Hong Kong in a way that could force Applicant to choose between loyalty
to these family members and his loyalty to the United States. Mitigation has been shown. Clearance
is granted.   
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865
(as amended by Executive Orders 10909, 11328 and 12829) and Department of Defense Directive
5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992 (as amended by Change 4), issued a Statement of Reasons
(SOR), dated September 28, 2006, 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. DOHA recommended referral to an
Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and determine whether clearance should be granted
or denied.
Applicant filed a notarized Response to the allegations set forth in the SOR, dated October
5, 2006, and he requested a hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge. On November 9, 2006,
the case was assigned to me to conduct a hearing, and pursuant to formal notice, dated December
12, 2006, a hearing was conducted on January 3, 2007.
At the hearing, Department Counsel offered seven documentary exhibits (Government
Exhibits 1- 7) and no witnesses were called. Applicant offered four  documentary exhibits (Exhibits
A-D) and offered his own testimony. The transcript (Tr) was received on January 10, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR was based on Foreign Influence (Guideline B) concerns because of the foreign
residency and/or citizenship of close family members and foreign travel. The SOR contains three
allegations, 1.a., through 1.c., under Guideline B. Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.c., and
denied 1.a and 1.b. The admission is incorporated herein as a finding of fact. 
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's
Answer to the SOR, the admitted documents, and testimony of Applicant, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the additional findings of fact: 
Applicant is 38 years old. He is employed by a United States defense contractor that wants
him to have a security clearance.
3
Applicant was born in Hong Kong in 1968 and first came to the United States in 1986, at the
age of 18, to enter a United States university. He received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Systems
Engineering in 1990 and a Masters degree in Computer Science, both from United States
universities.
Applicant became a naturalized U. S. citizen in 2003. He is married to a Hong Kong born,
naturalized U. S. citizen, and they have no children. Her parents live in the United States. 
(Guideline B - Foreign Influence) 
The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has immediate
family members or people to whom he may be bound by affection or obligation, who are not citizens
of the United States, or may be subject to duress. 
Applicant’s parents are Hong Kong  citizens. They both have resident alien status from the
U. S.   His mother resides most of the time in the United States, living for approximately a month
in Hong Kong to receive medical care. His mother is retired.  His father still resides most of the year
in Hong Kong, where he works part time as a security guard under a contract that expires at the end
of 2007.   He plans to move to the U. S. permanently, when his contract term is completed.   Neither
of his parents ever worked for, or had any affiliation with, the Hong Kong Government. 
Applicant has a sister, who was born in Hong Kong, but now lives in the United States. 
Since Applicant came to the United States, he has traveled to Hong Kong on four occasions
from 1999 to his last visit in October 2006.  The primary reason for these visits was to see his family
during vacations, and the most recent visit was as part of his honeymoon.
Applicant does not have any financial interest in Hong Kong, nor is he aware of the potential
of receiving any inheritance there. He has owns his home in the United States and has additional
financial holdings in this country. Applicant also testified that he has voted in the last three U.S.
elections since he has become a citizen, and he plans to remain in the United States for the rest of
his life. 
Finally, Applicant testified that if pressure was exerted upon Applicant to compromise
classified information, he would resist it, and he would  report the incident to the proper authorities
(Tr at 62-64).
Since Applicant’s father resides in Hong Kong at the present time, this country was also
considered. Hong Kong is one of the world’s most open and dynamic economies. On July 1, 1997,
the People’s Republic of China (PRC) resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, ending
more than 150 years of British Colonial rule. Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the
PRC, with a high degree of autonomy in all matters except foreign and defense affairs. Hong Kong
will retain its political, economic, and judicial systems and unique way of life for 50 years after
4
reversion and will continue to participate in international agreements and organizations under the
name, “Hong Kong, China” (Exhibit G).
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines that must be carefully
considered in evaluating an individual's security eligibility and making the overall common sense
determination required. The Administrative Judge must take into account the conditions raising or
mitigating security concerns in each area applicable to the facts and circumstances presented.
Although the presence or absence of a particular condition for or against clearance is not
determinative, the specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be
measured against this policy guidance, as the guidelines reflect consideration of those factors of
seriousness, recency, motivation, etc. 
The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept. All available, reliable
information about the person, past and present, is to be taken into account in reaching a decision as
to whether a person is an acceptable security risk.
Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of: (1) the nature, extent, and
seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, and the extent of
knowledgeable participation; (3) how recent and frequent the behavior was; (4) the individual's age
and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or
absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct;
(8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation
or recurrence (See Directive, Section E2.2.1. of Enclosure 2).  
BURDEN OF PROOF
Initially, the Government must prove controverted facts alleged in the Statement of Reasons.
If the Government meets that burden, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the applicant to
establish his security suitability through evidence of refutation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient
to demonstrate that, despite the existence of disqualifying conduct, it is nevertheless clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the security clearance. Assessment of an
applicant's fitness for access to classified information requires evaluation of the whole person, and
consideration of such factors as the recency and frequency of the disqualifying conduct, the
likelihood of recurrence, and evidence of rehabilitation.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the U.S. Government that is predicated upon trust and confidence. Where facts proven by the
Government raise doubts about an applicant's judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness, the applicant
has a heavy burden of persuasion to demonstrate that he or she is nonetheless security worthy. As
noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531
(1988), "the clearly consistent standard indicates that security-clearance determinations should err,
if they must, on the side of denials."
5
CONCLUSIONS
Having considered the evidence of record in light of the appropriate legal precepts and
factors, and having assessed the credibility of Applicant, I conclude the following with respect to
Guideline B:
Based on the evidence of record, the Government has established an initial reason to deny
Applicant a security clearance because of Guideline B (Foreign Influence). Applicant’s parents are
citizens of Hong Kong, and his father is still a resident there. The Hong Kong citizenship and
residency of Applicant's father creates the potential for foreign influence that could result in the
compromise of classified information because it makes Applicant potentially vulnerable to coercion,
exploitation, or pressure. The possession of such ties raises a security concern sufficient to require
Applicant to present evidence in rebuttal, extenuation, or mitigation sufficient to meet his burden
of persuasion that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security
clearance for him. This Applicant has done.
The evidence of existence of an immediate family member, who is a  citizen and resident of
Hong Kong comes within Disqualifying Condition (DC) 7 (a), contact with a foreign family member,
if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, pressure or coercion.
I have reviewed the overall record and the totality of the evidence, and considered: the lack
of Hong Kong government involvement of Applicant’s parents, currently and in the past; the fact that
his wife is now a United States citizen; his mother and sister now live in the United States and his
father plans to reside here after 2007; his history since coming to the United States and living here
half of his life, attending two universities and receiving two degrees; and his strong feelings
concerning this country. Based on this,  I have determined that his father in Hong Kong does not
constitute an unacceptable security risk and Mitigating Condition (MC) 8 (b), there is no conflict
because the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that
the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest, applies
to this case.
 
        After considering all of the evidence of record on Guideline B , I conclude that the mitigating
evidence substantially outweighs the evidence supporting the SOR and even in the unlikely event
pressure was exerted upon Applicant to compromise classified information, he would resist it, and
he would, as he has testified,  report the incident to the proper authorities. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1. Guideline B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant 
6
Subparagraph 1.c.: For 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.
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge