I know of some people that are US citizens but do not want to obtain OCI cards because they think it could risk their ability to obtain government jobs or others that require security clearances. This is because the background check questionnaires usually ask if you possess a passport or "other travel document" from another country, and many people think they have to answer yes if they have an OCI. Plus poorly trained investigators might automatically (and wildly incorrectly) assume that OCI means the person has "dual citizenship".

In my view, an OCI card is NOT a travel document, since you CANNOT use it to travel internationally. It only has utility as a long-term entry visa to India, but only when accompanied by an actual passport. Thus I think OCI holders can truthfully answer no to the question about having another travel document.

But I've never seen this written down anywhere or officially stated or voiced as a legal opinion that could be referenced. Does anyone know if it is? And is my interpretation appropriate?

I can't tell you how mad I am at the Indian govt for coming up with such a horrible name for what is nothing more than a long-term visa and causing unnecessary grief to so many.

Technically a Visa is a travel document, however, it can only be used with a valid passport. The OCI is pretty much the same thing, just with a much more confusing name.

I don't think there is any problem with OCI holders answering in the negative to the question about having another travel document.

I took a new look at the current background check questionnaire, and apparently I was mistaken on terminology, it actually says:

"Have you EVER been issued a passport (or identity card for travel) by a country other than the U.S.?" (bolding mine)
If you answer yes then you have to provide all the details, including what countries you travelled to on that identity card.

So not "travel document", but "identity card for travel". By wording it as "passport (or identity card for travel)" it implies something that can be used IN PLACE of a passport, which the OCI simply cannot, so I think that actually makes it a stronger NO.
I just wish I were able to point to some official reference/statement/whatever that backs this up, to be able to provide to someone in case they query about OCI related to a background investigation.

This is not an ID card for travel. My suggestion would still be to answer 'no'.

The OCI card is technically just a visa in a separate booklet. The coding of the machine readable ICAO part of the biometric page is clear: it has V<IND.... in the first line identifying it as a Visa.

I absolutely 100% agree with both of you.

My concern is the consequences if someone doesn't understand that, e.g.:
1. A background investigator that recommends someone be denied a job/security clearance because the applicant put down that they have an OCI and thus investigator thinks the applicant is a "dual citizen", and the applicant generally isn't told the reason for denial thus can't debunk the misunderstanding.
2. Someone who repeatedly goes through the hassle of getting visas instead of getting the OCI because they're afraid of #1.

I'm just wishing for some official document/statement/website that says it's not a travel ID card and is just a long-term visa that people could reference.

Just can't believe the rank idiocy of the Indian Govt in naming this visa as "Overseas Citizen of India". Yes, I know the OCI was in some ways the response to calls by former citizens for India to establish some form of 'dual-citizenship', but this is completely stupid. Did they not think of the confusion this would cause?
I mean, what other country officially refers to non-citizens as "citizens"??
What were they thinking/smoking?

It was renamed into OCIC in the early 2010s. This was done exactly to clarify that it's not a citizenship. There are thousands of US citizens with OCI and security clearances... if you are in doubt you can ask for clarification.

Maybe Britain - https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-...erseas-citizen

I have no issue with the OCI name. I do think they give it out like candy though, its very generous as it gives right to live and work to foreign born spouses and kids and grandkids without asking for anything in return. The old regime of PIO was painful at times with FRRO registration requirements etc. even for foreign spouses of Indian citizens resident in India permanently

I'm not sure what the confusion is - A green card is a travel document, technically a passport is not required for entry into US by LPR's. An OCI is just a visa in a booklet linked to a passport and they recommend you update it using OCI Misc Services if the linked passport changes.

It's not a big deal as you make it out to be ... calm down

Yes, not a big deal, but quite silly. Citizen but not citizen. This was done to satisfy the Indian origin foreign citizen lobby, who wanted dual citizenship, so they said "Let's put the word citizen in the name and they will be fooled".

I am fully and personally aware that many US citizens have OCI and clearances. Doesn't mean it's not a source of potential confusion.

But looks like British Overseas Citizens are in fact given some level of British citizenship status with passports reflecting that. Indian OCI holders have no 'citizenship' rights per se (voting, holding office, serving in military).
Can one actually enter the US with only a green card and not also a passport of your country of citizenship? I remember doing that maybe 50 years ago at Niagara Falls and going to Canada and back, but thought passports have been required for quite some time now.
The confusion is not for the OCI holder nor Indian govt, but for others that assume OCI holders possess some form of dual citizenship with India.

Well, maybe not a big deal to you, but having recently had to provide a detailed explanation that OCI was NOT a dual-citizenship document to background investigator for a US security-related agency (who was completely unaware of that fact) for the nth time, I assure you it can get tiresome. And I'm quite calm about it, thank you, doesn't mean I can't opine on the naming stupidity.