CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-01920.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-01920.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-01920.a1

Dec 8, 2011· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A U.S. citizen, originally from Pakistan, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to unmitigated concerns regarding his family ties and the geopolitical situation in Pakistan. The applicant's connections to relatives in Pakistan were identified as a disqualifying condition under Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 7.

The decision highlighted the significant security risks posed by the geopolitical climate in Pakistan, specifically citing terrorist activity and poor human rights conditions. The judge determined that the applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate these concerns, failing to satisfy the mitigating conditions outlined in AG ¶ 8.

Ultimately, the adverse decision was affirmed, and the security clearance was denied. The applicant's inability to adequately address the security implications of his family's presence in Pakistan, combined with the country's unstable environment, led to the denial.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8rejectedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant did not demonstrate sufficient mitigation of the security concerns related to his family ties in Pakistan.

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 issuedApr 22, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing heldSep 27, 2011
Decision dateDec 8, 2011

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Importance of Geopolitical Factors in Security Clearance Decisions
Insufficient Mitigation of Security Concerns Due to Family Ties in Foreign Countries

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 Guideline B concerns related to the Applicant's family ties in Pakistan. The Applicant argued that the Judge failed to consider all evidence and that the decision was arbitrary. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRobert E. Coacher — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argues that the Judge's adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Judge's conclusions regarding the Applicant's Pakistani relatives and the geopolitical situation were supported by the record evidence, and the Judge articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. The adverse decision is sustainable on this record, consistent with national security interests.

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
Jean E. Smallin
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: The Judge concluded that Applicant’s Pakistani relatives, his contacts with them, and the geopolitical situation of that country raised Guideline B security concerns that were not mitigated. The Judge’s conclusions are supported by the record evidence. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 11-01920.a1 DATE: 12/08/2011 DATE: December 8, 2011 In Re: -------------------------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-01920

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 April 22, 2011, 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 decision on the written record. On September 27, 2011, after considering the record, Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher 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 failed to consider all of the record evidence; whether the Judge mis-weighed the record evidence; and whether the Judge’s adverse security clearance decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact: Applicant is a consultant for a Defense contractor. Born in Pakistan, he came to the U.S. in the early 1980sto pursue his education, receiving a Master’s and a Ph.D. Applicant became a U.S. citizen in the early 2000s. He has voted in U.S. elections since becoming a citizen and has performed jury duty. His daughter and her family reside in the U.S. Applicant has several relatives who are citizens and residents of Pakistan–two siblings and two step-siblings. Applicant has an in-law who is retired from the Pakistani military, having held a high rank. Applicant has visited Pakistan twice in the mid to late 2000s. Applicant communicates with his relatives with varying degrees of frequency–from monthly to once every year or two. Pakistan has supported the U.S. in its war on terror. However, terrorist groups operate from within its border, and several areas are terrorist safe havens. American citizens visiting that country have been kidnaped and held for ransom, and the human rights situation of Pakistan is poor. In the Analysis portion of the Decision, the Judge concluded that Applicant’s Pakistani relatives, his contacts with them, and the geopolitical situation of that country raised Guideline B security concerns. He further concluded that Applicant had not fully mitigated the security concerns raised. Applicant contends that the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence. He cites to several pieces of evidence, including evidence that his relatives are not affiliated with any political group, that his in-law who is a retired military officer is not affiliated with the government, as well as evidence of Applicant’s academic attainments and his character references. However, a Judge is presumed to have considered all of the record evidence. Applicant cites to nothing that would tend to rebut that presumption, nor to anything that would establish that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10- 07080 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2011). Applicant’s admissions, and the Judge’s unchallenged findings, regarding Applicant’s family contacts in Pakistan, that country’s human rights record, the presence of terrorist activity there, and

FOOTNOTES

1 See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03250 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2007) (In a Foreign Influence case, the presence of terrorist activity in a foreign country is an important consideration that “must be brought to bear on the Judge’s ultimate conclusions in the case.”) See also ISCR Case No. 03-26176 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 14, 2005), for discussion of security significance of in-laws in a foreign country. other geopolitical factors support the Judge’s decision.1 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, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Order The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan Michael Y. Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, Appeal Board Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board