CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02177.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02177.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02177.a1

Nov 14, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, an Iraqi-born U.S. citizen, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial was affirmed by the appeal board, which highlighted the risks associated with his connections to Iraq and his inconsistent statements.

Specifically, the applicant maintained regular contact with relatives residing in Iraq, which raised foreign influence concerns under Disqualifying Conditions B2 and B3. Further issues arose from his conflicting statements regarding his loyalty to the U.S. and his intent to renounce Iraqi citizenship, impacting his credibility under Guideline E.

The decision also factored in the geopolitical situation in Iraq, including ongoing risks of violence. While Mitigating Condition E2 was applied, it was insufficient to overcome the significant security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

B2raisedForeign Contacts
B3raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

E2rejectedHonesty and CandorThe applicant's inconsistent statements undermined claims of honesty.

Key Rule Quoted

“The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2018
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 5, 2019
Decision dateNov 14, 2019

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B Due to Family Ties Abroad
Impact of Conflicting Statements on Credibility in Security Clearance Cases
The Standard for Granting Security Clearance Related to National Security Interests

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Appeal at a glance· Full written decision

Affirmed

The appeal involved an applicant seeking a security clearance who was denied due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were erroneous and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowPamela C. Benson — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline E

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge's findings concerning his intent to return to Iraq and the frequency of his contact with Iraqi relatives were erroneous.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contended that the Judge's adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The applicant's conflicting statements and ongoing connections to Iraq were deemed significant security concerns.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appeal

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
James E. Moody
James F. Duffy

Descriptive structured reading of this decided, public Appeal Board decision — what the case says, not a prediction or advice.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

APPEAL

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline E DIGEST: Applicant maintains regular contact with numerous relatives–aunts, uncles, and cousins–who are citizens and residents of Iraq. He made conflicting statements concerning his security-significant circumstances. For example, he advised his clearance interviewer and he had no plans to renounce his Iraqi citizenship, though at about the same time he presented a signed statement announcing his willingness to do so. In a security-screening interview conducted about two months later, he stated that he would not renounce his Iraqi citizenship. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02177.a1 DATE: 11/14/2019 DATE: November 14, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------ ) ISCR Case No. 18-02177

) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro se The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 7, 2018, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 5, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Pamela C. Benson denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge’s findings of fact contained errors and whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline E are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal: Applicant was born in Iraq. He came to the U.S. in the late 2000s, along with his parents and siblings. He and his family became U.S. citizens about five years later. Applicant is unmarried and has no children. He is seeking a security clearance in connection with an offer of employment. Applicant maintains regular contact with numerous relatives–aunts, uncles, and cousins–who are citizens and residents of Iraq. He made conflicting statements concerning his security-significant circumstances. For example, he advised his clearance interviewer and he had no plans to renounce his Iraqi citizenship, though at about the same time he presented a signed statement announcing his willingness to do so. In a security-screening interview conducted about two months later, he stated that he would not renounce his Iraqi citizenship. Applicant made other inconsistent statements. In his security-screening interview, for example, he advised that he was uncertain if he would remain in the U.S. because Iraq is his home. He also stated that he is more loyal to Iraq, though he changed that response to the effect that he is loyal to the U.S. first but considers himself loyal to the country of his birth as well. At the hearing, he denied having stated that he was more loyal to Iraq, surmising that the interviewer misunderstood his answer. Iraq is a key partner with the U.S. in the Middle East and plays an increasingly constructive role in the region. However, U.S. citizens in Iraq are at high risk of violence or kidnaping, and the State Department warns them not to travel there. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, a terrorist organization, operates within Iraq, although its territorial control has drastically diminished over the past two years. Human rights violations continue to be a problem in Iraq. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge noted evidence that “Applicant maintains regular and continuing contact with his uncles, aunts, and cousins in Iraq.” Decision at 9. She cited to Applicant’s inconsistent statements about his devotion to Iraq and his intent to return there in the future. She concluded that Applicant’s connections in Iraq are “too significant to mitigate in the circumstances” arising from his connections in Iraq. Id. The Judge cited to official notice documents that described the ongoing danger of terrorist violence in Iraq, concluding that Applicant’s connections in Iraq, viewed in the context of that country’s geopolitical situation, are not consistent with a favorable Guideline B decision.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s appeal brief includes matters from outside the record, which we cannot consider. Directive ¶ E3.1.29. He challenges the Judge’s findings concerning his intent to return to Iraq as well as those concerning the frequency of his contact with his Iraqi relatives. We have examined these findings and conclude that they are based upon “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the same record.” Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. See ISCR Case No. 18-01564 at 3 (App. Bd. May 30, 2019). Applicant cites to favorable aspects of the record, such as his clean criminal record and a lack of evidence that he poses a threat to U.S. security interests. Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 18-02250 at 3 (App. Bd. May 23, 2019). The record supports a conclusion that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)). The Judge’s adverse decision is sustainable on this record. “The general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). See also Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board