A decided public DOHA case, shown for research, not advice or a prediction.
ISCR Case No. 06-18918.a2
DeniedDecided May 23, 2008 · Administrative Judge Jean E. Smallin · Hearing
Case headnote
Summary
The applicant, representing himself, sought reconsideration of a prior denial of his security clearance based on alleged discrimination related to his birthplace. The Board found that he failed to provide persuasive reasons or evidence to support his claims and emphasized the heavy burden on applicants with family ties in hostile countries to demonstrate no security risk. The request for reconsideration was denied.
Why the applicant was denied
- The applicant did not substantiate claims of discrimination with evidence.
- The applicant failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution.
- The applicant has family members in a hostile country, increasing the burden of proof regarding security risks.
Key rule quoted
“An applicant with family members living in a country hostile to the U.S. bears a "heavy burden" in demonstrating that those family members do not pose a security risk.”
Procedural posture
- Decision Date
- 2008-05-23
- Request for Reconsideration Filed
- 2008-04-21
- Prior Decision Date
- 2008-03-28
- Chief Department Counsel Reply Brief
- 2008-05-05 No reply brief was filed.
Cite for
- Heavy Burden of Proof for Applicants with Family Ties in Hostile Countries
- Insufficient Evidence to Support Claims of Discrimination
- Discretion of the Board in Reconsideration Requests
Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.
From the decision
Facts this decision states, each with the sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.
Allegations under Guideline B
Reading the 2 per allegation rows needs a free account.
2 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline C
Reading the 6 per allegation rows needs a free account.
6 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline E
Reading the 7 per allegation rows needs a free account.
7 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Allegations under Guideline F
Reading the 4 per allegation rows needs a free account.
4 rows in this decision.
It opens the per allegation record on every guideline: the amounts, the findings, and the sentence behind each row.
Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is below.
Full decision
Open original PDFThe complete official text, footnotes and signatures included, is in the original PDF.
Decision text, by section
Synopsis
KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B; Guideline F; Guideline E DIGEST: The Board has sole discretion on whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions. Applicant has not drawn attention to anything in the Board’s decision or the record to support his contention (he believes he is the victim of discrimination. Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution of the case. Applicant;’s request denied. CASENO: 06-18918.a2 DATE: 05/23/2008 DATE: May 23, 2008 In Re: --------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-18918
Appeal Board Decision
ON APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appearances
FOR GOVERNMENT James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se The Board issued an Appeal Board Decision in this case on March 28, 2008. On April 21, 2008, Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration of this decision. On May 5, 2008, the Chief Department Counsel advised that he would not file a Reply Brief. The Board has inherent authority to entertain requests to reconsider its decisions. However, there is no right to reconsideration; the Board has the sole discretion to decide whether to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider one of its decisions. See ISCR Case No. 98-0621 at 1-2 (App. Bd. Nov. 23, 1999). In his request for reconsideration, Applicant asserts that the Board’s adverse decision amounts to his being “judged by [his] birthplace.” The Board also construes Applicant’s request as contending that the Board’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The Board has considered Applicant’s brief in light of our prior decision. Applicant has not drawn attention to anything in the decision or the record to support his contentions. He merely states that he “believe[s] that [he is] a victim of discrimination . . .” As the Board noted in its decision, an applicant with family members living in a country hostile to the U.S. bears a “heavy burden” in demonstrating that those family members do not pose a security risk. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07- 00029 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2007). That burden is even heavier where the applicant has close ties to those family members, and there is evidence that the family has previously been targeted by the regime for political reasons. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-02511 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 20, 2007). Applicant has failed to articulate a persuasive reason to change the Board’s resolution of his case. See ISCR Case No. 03-21012 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 20, 2005). Accordingly, Applicant’s request is denied. Signed: Jean E. Smallin Jean E. Smallin Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board