CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-17164.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-17164.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-17164.a1

Jun 21, 2007· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A senior engineer for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The denial stemmed primarily from concerns regarding the applicant's immediate family, who are citizens of Iran.

The judge determined that the Iranian government's brutal nature and history of human rights abuses created a significant possibility of coercion or duress against the applicant, raising a disqualifying condition under B2. This risk was heightened by the applicant's non-casual and frequent contact with his Iranian relatives.

While mitigating conditions under B3 were considered, they were ultimately insufficient to overcome the significant foreign influence concerns. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

B2raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

B3rejectedMitigating ConditionsThe judge found that the applicant's ties to Iran and the nature of the Iranian regime outweighed any mitigating factors.

Key Rule Quoted

“A security risk may exist when an individual’s immediate family... are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress.”
— Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 16, 2006
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 16, 2007
Decision dateJun 21, 2007

Cite For

Significant Possibility of Coercion Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Impact of Foreign Influence on Security Clearance Decisions
The Brutal Nature of a Foreign Government as a Disqualifying Factor

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 was filed by the applicant after the Administrative Judge denied his request for a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline B and C. The Board affirmed the decision, finding no harmful error in the Judge's conclusion regarding the applicant's inability to mitigate security concerns related to his family in Iran.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowMark W. Harvey — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline BGuideline C

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that the Judge erred by concluding that he had not mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge articulated a rational connection between his findings and the decision to deny the security clearance, considering the significant possibility of coercion from the Iranian government due to the applicant's family ties.

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 Y. Ra’anan — Chair
William S. Fields
James E. Moody

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 C; Guideline B DIGEST: The Judge found that there is a significant possibility that the Iranian government could subject Applicant to pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress in light of that regime’s brutal nature and the presence of Applicant’s immediate family in that country. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 06-17164.a1 DATE: 06/21/2007 DATE: June 21, 2007 In Re: ------------- SSN: ------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-17164

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On August16, 2006, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as The Judge’s favorable decision under Guideline C is not at issue in this appeal. See Directive ¶ E2.A2.2.1. “A security risk may exist when an individual’s immediate family, including cohabitants, and other persons to whom he or she may be bound by affection, influence, or obligation are not citizens of the United States or may be subject to duress.” See ISCR Case No. 03-26176 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 14, 2005) (“Applicant’s in-laws represent a class of persons who are contemplated by the Directive as presenting a potential security risk”). See Directive ¶ E2.A2.1.3.3. amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. On January 16, 2007, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Mark W. Harvey denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge erred by concluding that Applicant had not mitigated the security concerns under Guideline B. Applicant provides citations to other DOHA cases, to include cases by Hearing Office Judges, which he believes support his appeal. Finding no error, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a senior engineer for a defense contractor. His father, mother, two sisters, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law are citizens of Iran and either live in or visit Iran. His parents are elderly, living in Iran about half the year and in the U.S. the other half. Applicant provides some financial support for his parents. When they are residing in the U.S., the parents receive phone calls about once a month from Applicant’s sister who lives in Iran. The older of Applicant’s sisters was staying in the U.S. with Applicant at the time of his hearing. She has applied for green cards for her sons and hopes to become a U.S. citizen herself. The younger sister lives in Iran. She is married to a university professor who received his Ph.D. from a U.S. university. Two of their three children were born in the U.S. and they hope to move to this country. Applicant’s three daughters were born in the U.S. and, therefore, are U.S. citizens. None of his Iranian relatives know what he does for a living. Applicant has held a security clearance from 1990 to 1992 and an interim clearance from 2004 to 2006. Iran has an authoritarian government which abuses human rights, to include summary execution, torture, arbitrary arrest, and prolonged solitary confinement. The Iranian government actively supports terrorism against the U.S. We have examined Applicant’s assignment of error in light of the Judge’s unchallenged findings and the record as a whole. In his analysis, the Judge noted record evidence favorable to Applicant, such as the high quality of his job performance, his financial and personal ties to the U.S., and the fact that his Iranian relatives do not live in such a fashion as to draw the attention of their government. He also noted, however, the number of Applicant’s close family members who are citizens of Iran, the fact that his contact with them is neither casual nor infrequent, and the brutal nature of the Iranian regime. He concluded that “there is a significant possibility” that the Iranian government could subject him to “pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress” by means of those relatives. Therefore, he denied Applicant a clearance. Decision at 14. We conclude that the Judge has articulated a rational connection between his findings and his ultimate decision. See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. June 2, 2006). We have considered Applicant’s brief on appeal. We note that decisions of the Hearing Office Judges are not binding on this Board or on other Hearing Office Judges. See ISCR Case No. 03-26115 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 5, 2007). We hold that the Judge’s decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

ORDER

The Judge’s decision denying Applicant a security clearance is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board