CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 24-00750 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 24-00750

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date5/12/2025
Statusunknown
LevelAPPEAL
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the hearing decision (Case 24-00750) →
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Moira D. Modzelewski, Allison Marie, Jennifer I. Goldstein
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis, Andrea M. Corrales
Case Summary
The applicant in this case was a 30-year-old individual who immigrated from Hong Kong to the United States in 2012 and became a U.S. citizen several years later. The Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to the applicant's ties to Hong Kong, where his parents reside as British Nationals (Overseas) and where he held an ownership interest in real estate valued at approximately $350,000. The applicant admitted these allegations but provided explanations regarding his family's lack of connections to the Hong Kong or Chinese governments.
The administrative judge found that the applicant's ties to Hong Kong raised disqualifying conditions but ultimately determined that the concerns were mitigated. The judge noted the applicant's respected status in the U.S. military and defense industry, as well as the absence of any direct connections between his parents and the Chinese government. The judge concluded that the applicant's relationships did not pose a significant risk of foreign exploitation or coercion, thus granting him national security eligibility. The government appealed, arguing that the judge failed to adequately consider the implications of the applicant's ties to Hong Kong, particularly in light of its status as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 24-00750

May 12, 2025· Hon. Moira D. Modzelewski· appeal

Summary

This case involves a 30-year-old U.S. citizen, originally from Hong Kong, whose national security eligibility was initially granted but later reversed by an appeal board. The primary concern fell under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), specifically due to his parents' citizenship and his ownership of real estate in Hong Kong.

The appeal board determined that the judge did not sufficiently evaluate the security implications of these ties. Disqualifying conditions under Guideline B, paragraphs 7(a), 7(b), and 7(f), were raised, while mitigating conditions under paragraphs 8(a), 8(b), 8(c), and 8(f) were applied in the initial decision.

However, the board concluded that the applicant failed to meet the burden of persuasion to mitigate the security concerns related to his connections to Hong Kong. Consequently, the appeal board found that the judge's initial decision to grant eligibility was flawed, leading to the reversal of that decision.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family MembersThe applicant's relationship with his parents creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation or coercion.
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedPotential Conflict of InterestConnections to foreign persons create a potential conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 7(f)raisedForeign Financial InterestsThe applicant's ownership of real estate in Hong Kong poses a risk of foreign influence.

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of RelationshipsThe judge's conclusion that the applicant's relationships with his parents did not pose a security risk was unsupported.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedNo Conflict of InterestThe judge failed to adequately consider the applicant's burden to demonstrate no conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 8(c)rejectedCasual and Infrequent ContactThe judge's finding of infrequent contact was arbitrary given the applicant's regular communication with his parents.
AG ¶ 8(f)rejectedValue of Foreign InterestsThe judge's assessment of the applicant's financial interests was based on erroneous findings.

Key Rule Quoted

“"Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security."”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 24, 2024
Answer filed—
Hearing held—
Decision dateMay 12, 2025Appeal decision reversing prior grant of eligibility.

Cite For

Reversal of Security Clearance Due to Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Insufficient Consideration of Geopolitical Context in Security Clearance Decisions
Burden of Persuasion for Mitigation in Cases Involving Family Ties in Hostile 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

Reversed

The appeal involved a decision by an Administrative Judge granting the Applicant national security eligibility despite concerns under Guideline B regarding foreign influence due to the Applicant's ties to Hong Kong. The Government appealed, arguing that the Judge ignored critical evidence and misapplied the law. The Board reversed the decision, finding that the Judge's conclusions were arbitrary and not supported by the evidence.

Appealed bythe Government (Department Counsel)

Applicant representationPro se (self-represented)

Judge belowRichard A. Cefola — granted the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Judge mis-weighed or ignored evidence — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge failed to consider the Government's post-hearing evidence.
Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge's application of the Guideline B mitigating conditions was arbitrary and capricious.
Erroneous finding of fact — raised by the Government (Department Counsel)Error sustained
The Judge made a factual error regarding the nature of Applicant's real estate interest in Hong Kong.

Why the Board ruled this way

The Board found that the Judge failed to consider relevant post-hearing evidence and made arbitrary and capricious conclusions regarding the mitigating conditions. The Judge's factual errors regarding the nature of the Applicant's real estate interest also contributed to the harmful error.

Ignored material evidenceNo rational connection between facts and conclusionMissing findings

Standard of review applied

Harmful-error gatekeeperSubstantial-evidence reviewArbitrary-and-capricious reviewProcedural complianceNo de-novo re-decision

Appeal Board panel

Aubrey M. De Angelis, Esq.
Andrea M. Corrales, Esq.

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.