CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01733.a1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01733.a1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01733.a1

Jun 20, 2017· Hon. Michael Y. Ra'anan· appeal

Summary

The applicant, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Iraq, was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The denial stemmed from concerns about his family ties in Iraq, specifically relatives employed by the Iraqi government and military.

The appeal board upheld the denial, concluding that these connections presented an unmitigated risk of coercion. Despite the applicant raising mitigating conditions, the board found that the disqualifying conditions related to foreign influence remained.

The decision emphasized the heightened security threat posed by family connections in a country experiencing terrorism and instability. Ultimately, the applicant failed to adequately mitigate the risks associated with his family's presence and roles in Iraq, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7raisedForeign Influence

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8rejectedMitigating ConditionsThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised by his family connections.

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 issuedMay 27, 2016
Answer filed—
Hearing heldMar 22, 2017
Decision dateJun 20, 2017

Cite For

Security Concerns Under Guideline B Due to Foreign Influence
The Impact of Family Ties in a High-risk Country on Security Clearance Decisions
The Standard for Granting Security Clearances in Relation to National Security Interests

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 after being denied due to 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 no harmful error in the analysis of the evidence.

Appealed bythe applicant

Applicant representationAttorney

Judge belowDavid M. White — denied the clearance

Decided ona hearing

Guidelines belowGuideline B

What the Board reviewed

Decision arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law — raised by the applicantRejected
Applicant argued 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 considered all evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision, affirming that the applicant's family connections in Iraq raised concerns about potential coercion.

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
James E. Moody
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’s brief is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. Adverse decision affirmed. CASENO: 16-01733.a1 DATE: 06/20/2017 DATE: June 20, 2017 In Re: ----------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01733

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 May 27, 2016, 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 hearing. On March 22, 2017, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge David M. White 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 Born and educated in Iraq, Applicant fled the country due to threats against him and his family because of his cooperation with the U.S. During the course of a U.S. military operation he received a shrapnel wound. He received a medal from the U.S. military. He came to the U.S. in the late 2000sand became a naturalized citizen about six years later. His wife and children were born in Iraq and have become naturalized U.S. citizens as well. Applicant’s parents, a sibling, and an in- law are citizens and residents of Iraq who worked for the Iraqi government and are now receiving pensions. He has two other in-laws and a blood relative who serve or have recently served in the Iraqi military. Iraq faces many challenges, including ethnic and sectarian tension, terrorism, and the presence of the Islamic State, which controls some of the country’s territory. The Department of State warns U.S. citizens to avoid travel to Iraq unless it is essential. The Judge’s Analysis The Judge cited to Applicant’s close family members in Iraq and the threats of harm that Applicant has received concerning them. The Judge noted brave and honorable service that Applicant has given the U.S. but concluded that his circumstances entail a heightened risk that he could be subjected to coercion or pressure. The Judge concluded that Applicant had not mitigated the concerns arising from his family connections in Iraq.

DISCUSSION

Applicant’s brief is not enough to rebut the presumption that the Judge considered all of the evidence in the record. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 13-00502 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 7, 2017). Applicant has cited to a Hearing Office case in support of his appeal. However, each case must be decided on its own merits. Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b). Given the totality of the evidence, this case does not provide a reason to disturb the Judge’s overall decision. The Judge examined the relevant evidence and articulated a satisfactory explanation for the decision. Close family members in a country where terrorists operate raise a concern that the applicant could be pressured to reveal classified information. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-06675 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 4, 2016). 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: James E. Moody James E. Moody Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board Signed: James F. Duffy James F. Duffy Administrative Judge Member, Appeal Board