CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-01046.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-01046.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-01046.a1

Aug 12, 2020· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A U.S. citizen, originally from Iraq, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to concerns about his familial connections. The applicant has numerous relatives residing in Iraq, some of whom have ties to the Iraqi Government. Additionally, his wife maintains regular contact with her family in Iraq, which the board identified as a potential risk for coercion.

Despite the applicant's assertions of loyalty to the United States and his efforts to distance himself from his extended family in Iraq, these claims were deemed insufficient to mitigate the identified security risks. The appeal board concluded that the potential for foreign influence, stemming from these family ties, outweighed the applicant's mitigating arguments.

The denial underscored the paramount importance of national security in all clearance determinations. The decision highlighted that the disqualifying conditions related to foreign influence, specifically the extensive family connections in Iraq and the ongoing contact, were not adequately mitigated, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8rejectedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant's efforts to sever ties with his family were not sufficient to mitigate the risks associated with his familial connections.

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 issuedJul 15, 2019
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMay 20, 2020
Decision dateAug 12, 2020

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
The Importance of National Security in Clearance Determinations
The Standard for Granting Security Clearances as Consistent with 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 who was denied a security clearance based on foreign influence concerns under Guideline B. The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error in the proceedings.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowMatthew E. Malone — denied the clearance (split findings)

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

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 considered all relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming that the decision was sustainable on the record.

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’s arguments are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence nor sufficient to show that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision is affirmed. CASE NO: 19-01046.a1 DATE: 08/12/2020 DATE: August 12, 2020 ) In Re: ) ) ---------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 19-01046

) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) )

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Brittany D. Honeycutt, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On July 15, 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 May 20, 2020, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Matthew E. Malone 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 and Analysis Applicant, who is in his late 40s, was born and educated in Iraq. In the mid-2000s, he left Iraq for a few months because he was warned that a militia was targeting him. About two years later, he left Iraq again and then lived in a couple of Middle Eastern countries before immigrating to the United States in the late 2000s. He became a U.S. citizen about six years ago. About three years ago, he traveled to Iraq on an Iraqi passport to marry an Iraqi woman. She is now a permanent U.S. resident. They have a child who was born in the United States. He has relinquished his Iraqi passport and expressed a willingness to renounce his Iraqi citizenship. Applicant’s parents and one sibling are naturalized U.S. citizens. His father is a retired Iraqi Government official. His parents left Iraq to avoid risks coming from a prior regime. He has two other siblings who reside in the U.S. but have not yet become U.S. permanent residents. The SOR alleged that Applicant has family and associates who are citizens and residents of Iraq. They include his wife, mother-in-law, father-in-law who is a former senior official in the Iraqi Government, two siblings-in-law, and extended family members and associates, some of whom either are serving or have served in the Iraqi Government or military. In responding to the SOR, he admitted all of the allegations with explanations. One of his associates is a retired pilot in the Iraqi air force. Applicant indicated that he has ended all contact with extended family members and associates in 2018 due to security concerns arising from his employment in support of the U.S. military. Instability persists in parts of Iraq. Terrorist groups, insurgents, and militias fuel these conditions. U.S. citizens are at high risk of kidnaping and terrorist violence in Iraq. Widespread corruption and significant human rights violations also occur there. Applicant has numerous relatives in Iraq, some of whom have connections to the Iraqi Government. His relationships in Iraq are not casual. His wife has regular contact with her parents and siblings. Despite his claim that he does not have contact with his wife’s family, Applicant has not rebutted the presumption that he has a close relationship to them. He has experienced threats of physical violence from factions in Iraq. “Although his sense of loyalty to the United States is significant, that information is not sufficient to outweigh the heightened risk of coercion presented by the presence of his extended family, his wife’s family, and other associates in Iraq.” Decision at 7-8. The Judge found in favor of Applicant on the allegation concerning his wife and against him on the other allegations.

DISCUSSION

In his appeal brief, Applicant contends the Judge did not consider all of the evidence, mis- weighed the evidence, and did not properly apply the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. In his arguments, he highlights, for example, that he has not spoken to his extended family in Iraq since 2018, that he has relinquished his Iraqi passport, that he renounced his Iraqi citizenship,1 and that he has earned a master’s degree from a university in the United States. The Judge, however, addressed most of those matters in his decision. Applicant’s arguments are neither enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the record evidence nor 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. 15-01717 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2017). We give due consideration to the Hearing Office cases that Applicant has cited in support of his arguments, but they are neither binding precedent on the Appeal Board nor sufficient to undermine the Judge’s decision. Id. We further conclude the Judge considered the totality of the evidence in compliance with the whole-person analysis requirements. See Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(d). Applicant has failed to establish that the Judge committed any harmful error. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” 1 When asked at the hearing if he had a valid Iraqi passport, Applicant stated, “I renounced it, sir.” Tr. at 26. When questioned about how he renounced his Iraqi citizenship during cross-examination, he stated that he turned over his Iraqi passport to his facility security officer. Tr. at 45-46. No proof was offered that Applicant renounced his Iraqi citizenship before Iraqi Government officials.

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