CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04852.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04852.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04852.a1

deniedMay 25, 2017· Hon. James E. Moody· appeal

Summary

A U.S. citizen, originally from Iran, was denied a trustworthiness designation due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The denial was based on the applicant's family ties to Iran, a country identified for its intelligence operations and human rights violations.

Specifically, the applicant's family connections in Iran were deemed to pose a significant risk of foreign influence. The applicant's arguments that a lack of recent contact with family members sufficiently mitigated these concerns were found to be insufficient.

The decision also heavily considered Iran's history of monitoring communications and supporting terrorism. These factors, combined with the unmitigated foreign influence and preference concerns, led to the denial of the applicant's trustworthiness designation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant's family connections in Iran posed a significant risk of foreign influence.
The applicant's arguments regarding his lack of recent contact with family were insufficient to mitigate concerns.
Iran's history of monitoring communications and supporting terrorism weighed heavily against the applicant.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

B2raisedForeign Contacts and Interests
C1raisedForeign Preference

Key Rule Quoted

“such a determination 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 issuedJan 30, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Judge granted a Government motion to amend the SOR.
Decision dateMay 25, 2017

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Foreign Preference Issues Under Guideline C
Importance of National Security in Trustworthiness Determinations

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

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; Guideline C DIGEST: Applicant cites to evidence of his ties within the U.S., his permanent residence in this country for several decades, and his lack of recent contact with his siblings. He argues that he would not yield to pressure by foreign governments. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 15-04852.a1 DATE: 05/25/2017 DATE: May 25, 2017 In Re: ----------------

Applicant for Public Trust Position ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-04852

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 trustworthiness designation. On January 30, 2016, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that decision–trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive). Applicant requested a hearing. During the hearing, the Judge granted a Government motion to amend the SOR by adding an allegation under Guideline C (Foreign Preference). Tr. at 55-59. On March 1, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge Roger C. Wesley denied Applicant’s request for a trustworthiness designation. Applicant appealed pursuant to Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30. Applicant raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Judge’s favorable findings under Guideline C are not at issue in this appeal. Consistent with the following, we affirm. The Judge’s Findings of Fact The Judge made the following findings pertinent to the issues raised on appeal: Applicant came to the U.S. in the late 1970s, becoming a citizen of this country in the early 1990s. His wife is a U.S. citizen by birth. The couple has no children. Applicant’s parents were citizens and residents of Iran.1 They have passed away, but before that Applicant provided them with financial support on occasion. He has had infrequent contact with his Iranian relatives for the past several years. None of Applicant’s siblings have any known connections with the Iranian military or government. He last told his family about the nature of his work in the mid-2000s. Since 2011, he has kept the nature of his work from them. Iran supports terrorist organizations. Its proxies play disruptive roles in the Middle East. Iran has conducted intelligence operations against the U.S., which have increased in depth and complexity. The country commits human rights violations, and it sometimes places foreign visitors under surveillance, monitoring hotel rooms, telephones, and fax machines. Applicant enjoys an excellent reputation for the quality of his work performance. He received a certificate of appreciation for his exemplary service. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated concerns arising from his family connections in Iran. He stated that, given Iran’s history of monitoring communications systems, these connections could come to the attention of those in Iran interested in acquiring U.S. protected data. Indeed, it cannot be ruled out that this may already have occurred. He also cited to evidence of terrorist activity in Iran, the country’s human rights abuses, and the illegal exporting of U.S. technology as matters that weigh against the granting of a trustworthiness designation.

DISCUSSION

Applicant cites to evidence of his ties within the U.S., his permanent residence in this country for several decades, and his lack of recent contact with his siblings. He argues that he would not yield to pressure by foreign governments. Applicant’s arguments are not enough to demonstrate that the Judge weighed the evidence in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 12-09387 at 2 (App. Bd. Apr. 26, 2016).

FOOTNOTES

1 The finding about the Iranian citizenship of Applicant’s relatives is found in the Analysis. Decision at 10. The Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. In Foreign Influence cases, the nature of the foreign government involved, the intelligence gathering history of that government, and the presence of terrorist activity are important considerations that provide context for the other record evidence and must be brought to bear on the Judge’s ultimate conclusions in the case. The country’s human rights record is also an important consideration. See, e.g., ADP Case No. 08-10099 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jan. 28, 2011). The decision is sustainable on this record. The standard applicable to trustworthiness cases is that set forth in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) regarding security clearances: such a determination “may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests of the national security.’” See, e.g., ADP Case No. 12-04343 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2013). See also Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied. Order The Decision is AFFIRMED. Signed: William S. Fields William S. Fields Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board