CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-01295.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-01295.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-01295.a1

Jan 20, 2015· Hon. Jeffrey D. Billett· appeal

Summary

A U.S. citizen, born in Egypt, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to unmitigated concerns regarding family ties in Egypt. The applicant had siblings employed by the Egyptian government, which raised disqualifying conditions related to foreign influence.

The judge determined there was substantial evidence of heightened risk because of the applicant's connections to a country known for terrorist activity and poor human rights records. These ties created a significant risk of coercion. Furthermore, the applicant's reluctance to renounce Egyptian citizenship indicated a strong emotional bond that could lead to potential conflicts of interest.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, resulting in the denial of the security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign Persons
AG ¶ 7(d)notedSharing Living Quarters with Foreign Persons
AG ¶ 7(e)notedSubstantial Business Interests in a Foreign Country

Key Rule Quoted

“In Foreign Influence cases, the nature of the foreign government involved and the presence of terrorist activity are important considerations.”
— ISCR Case No. 05-03250 at 4-5 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2007)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 7, 2013
Answer filed—
Hearing heldOct 16, 2014
Decision dateJan 20, 2015

Cite For

Heightened Risk of Foreign Influence Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Presumption of Risk Associated with Connections to Foreign Individuals
Importance of Evaluating the Nature of the Foreign Government and Its Human Rights Record 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 under Guideline B related to foreign influence. The applicant argued that the Judge's findings were erroneous and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding substantial evidence supporting the concerns raised.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowShari Dam — 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 argued that the Judge's findings of fact were erroneous.
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's findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the concerns raised under Guideline B were valid given the applicant's connections to Egypt and the associated risks.

Standard of review applied

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

Appeal Board panel

Michael 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: The Judge’s findings are supported by substantial evidence. The Directive presumes a nexus between admitted or proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a clearance. In-laws can pose a security risk. The nature of the foreign government and the presence of terrorist activity are important considerations. Adverse decision affirmed. CASE NO: 12-01295.a1 DATE: 01/20/2015 DATE: January 20, 2015 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 12-01295

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 November 7, 2013, 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 decision on the written record. On October 16, 2014, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Shari Dam 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’s findings of fact were erroneous; whether the Judge erred in concluding that the evidence raised security concerns; and 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 Born and educated in Egypt, Applicant served in the Egyptian military from the early to mid- 1980s. He became a U.S. citizen in the early 2000s. Since the late 2000s, he has worked for a Defense contractor. This employer destroyed Applicant’s Egyptian passport in 2014. Applicant’s parents are deceased. His wife is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Egypt. He has numerous siblings and siblings-in-law. One of his siblings has passed away and another is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Others, however, are citizens and residents of Egypt, and three of them work for the Egyptian government. Applicant speaks to his in-laws once or twice a year; his wife speaks to them more frequently. Applicant and his siblings own six apartment buildings in Egypt. In 2011, he estimated that his share was worth about $20,000, although it is currently worth about half that due to a decrease in real estate values in Egypt. In his clearance interview, Applicant stated that he would be willing to renounce his Egyptian citizenship if necessary, but he would prefer not to do that. He stated that any loyalty he feels to Egypt is based on his family there and his memories of them. Applicant’s record discloses no derogatory information of a financial or criminal sort. Egypt is in a state of crisis politically and economically. Terrorism and violence have increased since 2013, and there is little indication that the situation is improving. Terrorist organizations operate within the country, and “conflicts and attacks are rampant.” Decision at 4. Egypt has a poor human rights record. The State Department has issued travel warnings due to ongoing threats to U.S. citizens, including kidnaping and mob protests. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant’s family connections with and real estate holdings in Egypt raised concerns under Guideline B. She stated that these connections to a country in which terrorists operate and that practices human rights abuses create a heightened risk. She further stated that Applicant’s circumstances could place him in a conflict of interest.1 In concluding that or persons, regardless of citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;” and ¶7(e): “a substantial business, financial, or property interest in a foreign country . . . which could subject the individual to heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation[.]” Applicant had failed to mitigate these concerns, the Judge cited to evidence of his “strong emotional bond” with his siblings in Egypt and his ongoing contact with them. She stated that these family members could become a means through which he could be subjected to coercion. In the whole- person analysis she cited to his contact with his Egyptian family members. She also noted his hesitancy to renounce his Egyptian citizenship because of his family.

DISCUSSION

Applicant asserts that the findings do not show any evidence of criminal problems, financial delinquencies, or drug abuse. To the extent that he is challenging the sufficiency of the Judge’s findings, we conclude that her material findings of security concern are based on substantial evidence or constitute reasonable inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-03420 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 25, 2014). Applicant asserts that the record does not raise concerns under Guideline B. We note that the Directive presumes a nexus, or rational connection, between admitted or proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s eligibility for a clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 11- 10255 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul. 28, 2014). In the case before us, Applicant admitted all but one of the SOR allegations, and the Government produced substantial evidence of the allegations as well. Given the totality of Applicant’s circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the Judge’s conclusion that Applicant’s circumstances present a heightened risk of coercion. Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of nexus. Applicant challenges the significance that the Judge attached to his ties within Egypt. In- laws represent a class of persons who are contemplated by the Directive as presenting a potential security risk. As a matter of common sense and human experience, there is a rebuttable presumption that a person has ties of affection for, or obligation to, the immediate family members of the person’s spouse.” ISCR Case No. 12-00084 at 3 (App. Bd. May 22, 2014). In Foreign Influence cases, the nature of the foreign government involved and the presence of terrorist activity are important considerations. The country’s human rights record is important. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03250 at 4-5 (App. Bd. Apr. 6, 2007); ISCR Case No. 04-11463 at 4 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006). Given evidence of Applicant’s siblings and in-laws in a country in which terrorist activity occurs and which has a poor human rights record, we find no error in the Judge’s mitigation analysis. The Judge examined the relevant data 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.”

ORDER

The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: Michael Ra’anan Michael Ra’anan Administrative Judge Chairperson, 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

FOOTNOTES

1 See Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 7(a): “contact with a foreign family member . . . who is a citizen or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;” ¶7(b): “connections to a foreign person, group, government or country that create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligations to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to help a foreign persons, group, or country by providing that information;” ¶7(d): “sharing living quarters with a person