CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-06997.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-06997.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-06997.a1

Nov 17, 2008· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A naturalized U.S. citizen, working as a service systems engineer, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The denial stemmed from concerns regarding his close family members who reside in Iran, a country identified as a state sponsor of terrorism and known for human rights violations.

The appeal board upheld the adverse decision, citing substantial evidence of security risks associated with these familial ties. Specifically, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the security concerns related to his family members in Iran were mitigated.

The board concluded that the applicant's close family ties to Iran raised significant security concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6(a)raisedForeign Contacts
AG ¶ 6(b)raisedForeign Influence

Key Rule Quoted

“It is not clearly consistent with national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 24, 2008
Answer filed—
Hearing heldAug 26, 2008
Decision dateNov 17, 2008

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Family Members in Iran Under Guideline B
The Impact of Foreign Influence on Security Clearance Decisions
The Standard for Evaluating National Interest in Security Clearance Cases

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 security concerns related to family members residing in Iran. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were not supported by substantial evidence and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding no harmful error.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRoger C. Wesley — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued that certain findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence.
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.

Error found, but harmless. The Board agreed the judge made a mistake but affirmed anyway, because it did not change the outcome.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found no harmful error in the Judge's findings and concluded that the adverse decision was supported by substantial evidence and rationally connected to the facts.

Standard of review applied

Substantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Michael Y. Ra’anan — Chair
Jeffrey D. Billett
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 B DIGEST: Applicant failed to overcome security concerns arising from his close family members residing in Iran. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 07-06997.a1 DATE: 11/17/2008 DATE: November 17, 2008 In Re: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-06997

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 March 24, 2008, DOHA 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 August 26, 2008, after the hearing, Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. The Judge’s favorable decision under SOR ¶ 1(g) is not at issue in this appeal. Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether certain of the Judge’s findings of fact were supported by substantial record evidence and whether the Judge’s adverse decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law Finding no harmful error, we affirm. The Judge made the following sustainable findings of fact: Applicant is a service systems engineer for a Defense contractor. He was born and raised in Iran, immigrating to the U.S. in the 1970s. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in the mid 1990s. He obtained a U.S. passport but retained his Iranian passport, using it upon one occasion. He has since surrendered his Iranian passport to his employer. He has never worked for the Iranian government in any capacity. Applicant’s wife was born and raised in Iran. She too immigrated to the U.S. and became a naturalized citizen in the mid 1990s. Applicant’s mother is a citizen and resident of Iran. Applicant talks with his mother by telephone every couple of months. Applicant’s siblings are also citizens and residents of Iran. He maintains telephone contact with one of the siblings every six months and with the other three monthly. Most of Applicant’s wife’s family members are citizens and residents of Iran, including her parents. Iran is a country that sponsors terrorism and practices human rights violations. It is engaged in an effort to obtain and/or develop weapons of mass destruction and it supports violent opposition to the Middle East process. Arbitrary arrest and detention are standard practices. The Iranian government treats U.S.-Iranian dual nationals as Iranian citizens. U.S. nationals who enter Iran only on a U.S. passport risk detention absent persuasive proof of their formal renunciation of Iranian citizenship. Applicant “could conceivably obtain an Iranian passport in the future [although] he has no intention of doing so. He has never made any attempt to renounce his Iranian citizenship.” Decision at 3. Applicant has no plans to return to Iran. Id. at 4. He has selected a third country in which to meet with family members. The Board has considered the Judge’s findings in light of the record as a whole. The Judge’s material findings of security concern are supported by substantial record evidence. See Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1. (Substantial evidence is “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.”) Applicant takes issue with certain of the Judge’s statements. For example, the Judge found that “Iran’s post- revolution has been marked by an eight-year war with Iran . . .” Decision at 5 (emphasis added). This statement appears to refer to Iran’s war with Iraq, the challenged use of “Iran” merely constituting a typographical error. See, e. g., Administrative Notice Document I, U.S. Department of State Background Note: Iran, at 7. Applicant also draws the Board’s attention to two references in the Analysis section of the decision to Sudan. One describes “Applicant’s assurances of reporting his travel plans to Sudan and his long absence from the country . . .” Id. at 11. The other concerns Applicant’s “familial relationships in the Sudan.” Id. at 12. These references are clearly erroneous, insofar as the security concerns in this case arise from Applicants’ contacts with Iran. There is nothing in the record to connect him with Sudan. However, reading them in the context of the entire decision and the Judge’s detailed findings of fact about Iran, these references, although erroneous, are without consequence. The decision as a whole does not support a conclusion that the Judge See Directive ¶ E2.6: “Adjudication under [Guideline B] can and should consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or financial interest is located . . .” actually evaluated Applicant’s case in light of the wrong country. The Board concludes that these errors are harmless in that, had they not occurred, the Judge would still have decided the case in the same way. See, e. g., ISCR Case No. 06-19544 at 4 (App. Bd. May 28, 2008); ISCR Case No. 0706332 at 3 (App. Bd. May 9, 2008). Concerning the remaining issue, the Board has examined the Judge’s decision in light of the record as a whole. The Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts found and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision. See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). See also 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 decision that “it is not clearly consistent with national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance” is sustainable on this record. Decision at 12. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).

ORDER

The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairman, Appeal Board Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett Jeffrey D. Billett Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board