CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02916.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02916.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02916.a1

Nov 22, 2019· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A U.S. citizen, originally from Iraq, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The denial was based on the applicant's familial ties to Iraq, specifically three siblings who are Iraqi citizens and residents. One of these siblings holds a high-ranking position in the Iraqi military.

The security clearance board determined that these connections presented an unacceptable risk of foreign pressure or exploitation. This risk was heightened by the ongoing instability and terrorism in Iraq.

Despite the applicant's assertions of estrangement from family members and professional detachment, the appeal board upheld the denial, concluding that the potential for foreign influence posed an unacceptable security risk.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG B2raisedForeign Influence

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 9, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 11, 2019
Decision dateNov 22, 2019

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Impact of Familial Ties on Security Clearance Decisions
Risks Associated with Foreign Connections in Unstable Regions

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 a denial of a security clearance based on foreign influence concerns due to the applicant's familial connections in Iraq. The applicant argued that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Administrative Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the ruling.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowCaroline E. Heintzelman — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued 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 decision was supported by substantial evidence and did not violate any procedural requirements. The applicant's claims did not demonstrate that the Judge's analysis was arbitrary or capricious.

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decisionNo new evidence on appealDeference to the judge’s credibility calls

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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 DIGEST: Applicant has three siblings who were citizens and residents of Iraq, including one who is a high-ranking officer in the Iraqi military and another who works for the Iraqi Government. He also has a sibling who is a citizen of Iraq and resident of another middle eastern country. Additionally, he has three siblings-in-law who are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant indicated that he is estranged from his siblings. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 18-02916.a1 DATE: 11/22/2019 DATE: November 22, 2019 ) In Re: ) ) ------------ ) ISCR Case No. 18-02916

) ) 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 January 9, 2019, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On September 11, 2019, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Caroline E. Heintzelman denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s adverse decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact Applicant was born in Iraq. He entered the United States illegally and shortly thereafter applied for political asylum. He, his wife, and their children became U.S. citizens about nine years ago. He has worked for defense contractors in Iraq for various periods between 2006 and 2011, including in combat areas where he was subjected to indirect fire. Since 2018, he has been working for a defense contractor in another middle eastern country. He and his wife have about $1,000,000 in equity in U.S. real estate. Applicant has three siblings who were citizens and residents of Iraq, including one who is a high-ranking officer in the Iraqi military and another who works for the Iraqi Government. He also has a sibling who is a citizen of Iraq and resident of another middle eastern country. Additionally, he has three siblings-in-law who are citizens and residents of Iraq. Applicant indicated that he is estranged from his siblings. While working in Iraq between 2006 and 2011, Applicant worked with his sibling who serves in the Iraqi military. He testified that his contact with this sibling was solely professional in nature. He has not talked to his foreign siblings since at least 2014. He is described as a dedicated professional and has received certificates of appreciation and letters of recommendation.

Numerous terrorist and insurgent groups are active in Iraq and regularly attack Iraqi security forces and civilians. The U.S. Department of State warns that travel there is very dangerous. Iraq also has widespread corruption and human rights problems. The Judge’s Analysis “Applicant has ongoing familial connections with his three siblings and their families [in Iraq]. Although his contact with these individuals has decreased over time, these relationships create a heightened risk of foreign pressure or attempted exploitation because of the risk of terrorism.” Decision at 6. Instability and terrorism in Iraq presents an unacceptable risk that Applicant may be placed in position of having to choose between U.S. and foreign interests. Moreover, his sibling’s position as a high-ranking military officer creates an undue risk.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant states that he has successfully served as a Federal contractor for almost 15 years, that he has received numerous accolades, and that he has never had a relationship with his sibling who serves in the Iraqi military. His arguments fail to establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Directive ¶ E3.1.32.3. Applicant has not established that the Judge committed any harmful error. The decision is sustainable on the record.

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael 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