Loading case…

ISCR 21-02358: Guideline B security clearance hearing, granted (2022) · CASE

ISCR Case 21-02358granted

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-02358

grantedMay 12, 2022· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A U.S. citizen, originally from Afghanistan, was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons specifically cited the presence of the applicant's in-laws in Afghanistan as a potential disqualifying condition, raising concerns under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 7(a) and 7(b).

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating strong and longstanding ties to the United States. Evidence presented showed the applicant's deep relationships within the U.S., and it was noted that the family members in Afghanistan are actively seeking to immigrate to the U.S.

Ultimately, the Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraph 8(b) mitigating condition was applied, as the applicant's established connections to the United States were deemed to outweigh the foreign influence concerns. Consequently, the security clearance was granted.

Why the applicant prevailed

The applicant established deep and longstanding relationships in the United States.
The applicant's family members in Afghanistan are seeking to immigrate to the U.S.
The applicant's ties to the U.S. outweighed the foreign influence concerns.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with a Foreign Family Member
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedPotential Conflict of Interest

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(b)appliedDeep and Longstanding Relationships in the United States

Key rule quoted

“The presence of foreign family members is a disqualifying condition, but strong ties to the U.S. can mitigate these concerns.”

Procedural posture

SOR issuedNov 12, 2021
Answer filedNov 22, 2021
Hearing heldApr 28, 2022
Decision dateMay 12, 2022

Cite for

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Importance of U.S. Citizenship and Residency in Security Clearance Cases
Consideration of Family Immigration Status in Security Clearance Determinations

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 exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Tenure: ~2 years: “He has been employed by a federal contractor since November 2020.”

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline B (Foreign Influence) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: HearingDecided: granted

The judge found security concerns under Guideline B due to the presence of the applicant's in-laws in Afghanistan. However, the applicant demonstrated deep and longstanding relationships in the United States, which mitigated the security concerns, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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

HEARING

EA c; ... o _.~ .t::~!~ o ______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS \\ In the matter of: ) ) [Redacted] ) ISCR Case No. 21-02358 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Brian Farrell, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Eric A. Eisen, Esq. 05/12/2022 Decision FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: Applicant submitted a security clearance application on November 9, 2020. On November 12, 2021, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) sent him a statement of reasons (SOR), alleging security concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The CAF acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016). Applicant answered the SOR on November 22, 2021, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on March 8, 2022, and the hearing was scheduled for April 28, 2022. I convened the hearing as scheduled. On May 2, 2022, I notified Department Counsel that I intended to issue a summary disposition in Applicant’s favor, and he did not object. Applicant was born in Afghanistan. He was employed in the U.S. Embassy in Kabul from September 2009 to July 2014 and was highly regarded by senior members of the

embassy staff. He has been employed by a federal contractor since November 2020. He has been offered a position by a contractor supporting a U.S. government agency, contingent on obtaining a security clearance. Applicant and his wife came to the United States in September 2014 on special immigrant visas. They purchased a home in 2018. They both became U.S. citizens in June 2020. Applicant’s parents and daughter live with him in the United States. Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law are citizens and residents of Afghanistan. They are farmers. They have obtained Afghan passports, disposed of virtually all of their property, and are seeking to leave Afghanistan and join Applicant and his wife in the United States. Applicant’s brother worked for the Afghan government until August 2021, when the government collapsed. He and his family are now in the United States as humanitarian parolees. Two of Applicant’s sisters reside in the United States. His other two sisters are in refugee camps in Pakistan. The presence of Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law in Afghanistan is sufficient to raise the disqualifying conditions in AG 7(a) (contacts with a foreign family member) and AG ¶ 7(b) (potential conflict of interest). However, I conclude that Applicant presented sufficient evidence to establish AG ¶ 8(b) (deep and longstanding relationships in the United States) and mitigate any security concerns under Guideline B. I conclude that Applicant has met his burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is granted. LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge