CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-03981.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-03981.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-03981.a1

Sep 27, 2018· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

A U.S. citizen, born overseas, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to concerns regarding his relationship with his father, a foreign intelligence official. The applicant asserted a casual relationship with his father; however, the judge found substantial evidence to the contrary, indicating a heightened risk of foreign influence. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the appeal board, prioritizing national security considerations.

The denial was based on several disqualifying conditions. The applicant maintained weekly contact with his father and provided approximately $30,000 in financial support to him between 2012 and 2017. These actions contradicted the applicant's claim of a casual relationship, leading to the determination that the relationship was not merely casual family ties.

Ultimately, the security clearance was denied, with the evidence of ongoing contact and financial support to a foreign intelligence official being central to the decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG B1raisedForeign Influence

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 issuedDec 20, 2017
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJul 17, 2018
Decision dateSep 27, 2018

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Presumption Against Casual Family Ties in Security Clearance Cases
National Security Considerations in Clearance Decisions

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 Department of Defense denied his request for a security clearance based on concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The applicant argued that the Judge's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The Board affirmed the Judge's decision, finding that the applicant's relationship with his father, who has ties to a foreign intelligence service, created a heightened risk of foreign influence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowCarol G. Ricciardello — denied the clearance

Decided onthe written record

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant contends 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 decision was supported by substantial evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming that the applicant's relationship with his father posed a significant risk of foreign influence.

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
Charles C. Hale
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 contends that his relationship with his father is casual. This argument is not persuasive. He has weekly contact with his father, provided him about $30,000 in support between 2012 and 2017, and is sponsoring him for immigration to the United States. He failed to rebut the presumption that contacts with immediate family members are not casual. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 17-03981.a1 DATE: 09/27/2018 DATE: September 27, 2018 In Re: ----------------------

Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-03981

APPEAL BOARD DECISION

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance. On December 20, 2017, 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 July 17, 2018, after considering the record, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Carol G. Ricciardello 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 was born overseas and became a U.S. citizen in 2016. He attended college in the U.S. but did not graduate. He has worked for Federal contractors. Applicant’s father is a citizen of one Middle Eastern country and resides in another. Both of those countries have serious terrorism and human rights issues. His father served as a high-level official for a foreign intelligence service. In the mid-2000s, his family was threatened by terrorists, and they, without the father, fled to another country as refugees. Applicant provided differing accounts about his father’s whereabouts and the length of his father’s service in the intelligence field. He maintains weekly contact with his father and estimated that he has sent about $30,000 to him between 2012 and 2017. Applicant has submitted U.S. immigration paperwork for his father and that process is pending. Applicant’s relationship with his father creates a heightened risk of foreign influence. This risk is significant because of his father’s career and the threats the family has previously received. “There is insufficient information about Applicant’s father, his job, and potential continued connections in the intelligence field.” Decision at 8. These security concerns are not mitigated.

DISCUSSION

Applicant contends that his relationship with his father is casual. This argument is not persuasive. He has weekly contact with his father, provided him about $30,000 in support between 2012 and 2017, and is sponsoring him for immigration to the United States. He failed to rebut the presumption that contacts with immediate family members are not casual. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-28838 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 12, 2006). Applicant also argues that the Judge failed to consider all of the record evidence, mis- weighed the evidence, and misapplied the mitigating conditions and whole-person concept. His arguments, however, 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. 17-02488 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 30, 2018). We give due consideration to the Hearing Office case that Applicant’s Counsel has cited, but it is neither binding precedent on the Appeal Board nor sufficient to undermine the Judge’s decision. Id. at 4. “Each case must be judged on its own merits.” Directive, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b).

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, Encl. 2, App. A ¶ 2(b): “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility 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: Charles C. Hale Charles C. Hale Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board