KEYWORD: Foreign Influence
DIGEST: The Applicant’s mother and two sisters reside in Hong Kong.  He also has in-laws who
reside in China.  However, the Applicant has lived in the U.S. since 1989, where he obtained a
Ph.D. from an American university.  He became a U.S. citizen in 2004.  His wife and two
children are all Americans.  Their assets in the U.S. total more than $800,000.  He is active in his
local church, and his minister thinks highly of the Applicant.  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is
granted.
CASENO: 06-24783.h1
DATE: 08/09/2007
DATE: August 9, 2007
In Re:
-------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24783
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
RICHARD A. CEFOLA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jennifer Goldstein, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
The Applicant’s mother and two sisters reside in Hong Kong.  He also has in-laws who reside
in China.  However, the Applicant has lived in the U.S. since 1989, where he obtained a Ph.D. from
an American university.  He became a U.S. citizen in 2004.  His wife and two children are all
Americans.  Their assets in the U.S. total more than $800,000.  He is active in his local church, and
his minister thinks highly of the Applicant.  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is granted.
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 30, 2007, 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 the Applicant, which detailed the 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 the Applicant and
recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied
or revoked.
Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on February 26, 2007.
The case was received by the undersigned on March 22, 2007.  A notice of hearing was
issued on March 27, 2007, and the case was heard on April 16, 2007.  The Government submitted
documentary evidence.  Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted documentary
evidence.  The transcript (TR) was received on April 26, 2007.  The issues raised here are whether
the Applicant's perceived Foreign Influence militates against the granting of a security clearance.
[The Applicant admits the underlying facts of all of the allegations, to include an amended
subparagraph 1.d.  This subparagraph was amended to allege that Applicant’s last visit to Hong
Kong was in 2006, and not in 2005 as originally alleged.]
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the documents
and the live testimony.  The Applicant is 41, and is employed by a defense contractor who seeks a
security clearance on behalf of the Applicant.  After a complete and thorough review of the evidence
in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following additional findings of
fact.
Guideline B - Foreign Influence
The Applicant came to the U.S. in 1989, eight years prior to Hong Kong’s reversion to China
in 1997 (TR at page 20 line 15 to page 23 line 24).  He obtained a Ph.D. from an American
university in 1995 (TR at page 20 lines 5~14).  The Applicant was married in 1997 (TR at page 21
lines 11~18).  He met his spouse at their church in the U.S. (Id).  He became a U.S. citizen in 2004
(TR at page 22 lines 5~22).  His wife and two children are all Americans (TR at page 22 line 23 to
page 23 line 23).
1.a., and 1.d.  The Applicant’s 72 year old mother is a citizen of and lives in Hong Kong (TR
at page 24 line 15 to page 25 line 19).  She never worked for the Hong Kong or Chinese
governments, nor was she ever a member of the Communist Party (TR at page 28 line 10 to page 29
line 23).  When she dies, the Applicant stands to inherit property in Hong Kong worth about
$30,000~$40,000 (TR at page 47 line 23 to page 49 line 8).  This pales in comparison to his net
worth in the U.S. of over $800,000 (TR at page 51 lines 5~22).
The Applicant traveled to Hong Kong in 2000 and 2002, to visit his parents (TR at page 25
4
line 20 to page 27 line 4).  He traveled to Hong Kong twice in 2003, once to attend his father’s
funeral (Id).  The last time the Applicant visited Hong Kong was in 2006, to visit his mother (TR at
page 25 line 20 to page 27 line 4).
1.b.  The Applicant has two sisters who reside in Hong Kong (Government Exhibit (GX) 1
at page 4).  His oldest sister is a British national, and is employed “as a part-time nurse in a hospital”
(TR at page 31 lines 8~24).  His younger sister is a citizen of Hong Kong, and is employed as “a
High School teacher” (TR at page 34 lines 4~10).  Neither of his sisters is a member of the
Communist Party (TR at page 30 line 23 to page 38 line 19).  Both sisters are seeking to emigrate
from Hong Kong to the U.S.; and as such, have applied for permanent resident status in the U.S. (TR
at page 53 lines 6~15).
1.c.  The Applicant’s in-laws are citizens of Hong Kong, but reside in China, where the cost
of living is cheaper (TR at page 39 line 15 to page 42 line 9).  They are both retired, and have never
worked for the Hong Kong or Chinese governments (TR at page 43 line 20 to page 44 line 13).
The Applicant would report any attempt at coercion vis-a-vis any of his foreign relatives to
the appropriate authorities (TR at page 52 line 11 to page 53 line 5).
As all of the Applicant’s relatives, except for his oldest sister, are citizens of Hong Kong, the
Special Administrative Region must be considered.  Hong Kong is one of the world’s most open and
dynamic economies.  In July of 1997, China resumed the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong,
ending 150 years of British Colonial rule.  Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy in all matters,
except for foreign and defense affairs.  Hong Kong will retain its political, economic, and judicial
systems and unique way of life for 50 years after reversion and will continue to participate in
international agreements and organizations under the name, “Hong Kong, China.”
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and
conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern.  Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive,
each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon
consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication
policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate:
a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding
circumstances.
b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.
c. Age and maturity of the applicant.
5
d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct
was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of
the consequence involved.
e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.
f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in
the future.”
The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have
a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or
conclusions based on evidence that is speculative or conjectural in nature.
The Government must make out a case under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), which
establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.  While a rational
connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and his ability to
effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational
connection, objective or direct evidence is not required.
Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation,
explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely
to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance.
An individual who is subject to Foreign Influence, may be prone to provide information or
make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.  The Government must be able
to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance holder to abide by all security rules and
regulations at all times and in all places.
CONCLUSIONS
The Applicant's mother, and two sisters reside in Hong Kong.  He also has in-laws who
reside in China.  The first and second disqualifying conditions are arguably applicable as this contact
“creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion,"
and creates “a potential conflict of interests between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive
information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign person . . . by providing that
information.”  Under the facts of this particular case, however, these are clearly countered by the first
and second mitigating conditions.  The nature of the Applicant’s relationship with his Hong Kong
relatives is “such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose
between the interests of . . . [his family] and the interests of the U.S.”  Also, the Applicant “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.”
Not alleged; but argued by the Government, is the Applicant’s potential $30,000~$40,000
property interest in Hong Kong.  This is not “a substantial . . . property interest in a foreign country,”
as required by the fifth disqualifying condition.  If it were, however, it pales in comparison to his
over $800,000 in net worth in the U.S.  Clearly, under the last mitigating condition, “the value of .
6
. . [the] property interests is such that they are unlikely to result in a conflict and could not be used
effectively to influence, manipulate, or pressure the individual.”
Furthermore, I am not limited to the mitigating conditions, delineated in the Directive, in
deciding if an Applicant has demonstrated extenuation or mitigation.  The Applicant’s church
minister speaks most highly of him (Appellant’s Exhibit B).  The totality of the Applicant’s conduct
and circumstances, as set forth at length above, clearly warrants a favorable recommendation under
the “whole person concept.”  Mitigation is shown.  Guideline B is found for the Applicant.
Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding his
perceived Foreign Influence.  The Applicant has thus met the mitigating conditions of Guideline B,
and of Section E.2.2. of the Directive.  Accordingly, he has met his ultimate burden of persuasion
under Guideline B.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Foreign Influence FOR THE APPLICANT
a.   For the Applicant.
b.   For the Applicant.
c.   For the Applicant.
d.   For the Applicant.
Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and
CONCLUSIONS, supra.
DECISION
In light of 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 the Applicant.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge