Loading case…

Summary

The applicant, a 54-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Afghanistan, sought a security clearance under Guideline B due to foreign influence concerns related to family ties in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The judge found that the applicant's limited contact with family, lack of foreign financial interests, and demonstrated loyalty to the U.S. through his work as a linguist for the U.S. armed forces mitigated the concerns. The application for security clearance was granted.

Under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Applicant’s mother is a citizen of Afghanistan and she lives in Pakistan. She is a retired homemaker, and she does not have ties to any foreign government or military. Applicant last saw her in 2005, and he has telephonic contact with her one to two times per month. His mother supports herself on rental income generated from a real-estate holding (1.a). Applicant has one brother and four sisters who are citizens of Afghanistan and live in Pakistan. The brother is currently unemployed and the four sisters do not work outside the home. They do not have ties to any foreign government or military (1.b). Applicant has one brother and one sister who are citizens and residents of Afghanistan. The brother is unemployed and the sister does not work outside the home. They do not have ties to any foreign government or military (1.c). Applicant has one brother who is a U.S. citizen and is currently living in Pakistan. He is a property manager. He does not have ties to any foreign government or military (1.d). Applicant has traveled to both Afghanistan and Pakistan to see family. His last trip was in 2005 to see his mother (1.e).

The judge granted the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 7(a), AG ¶ 7(b). The judge applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 8(b), AG ¶ 8(c). The decision turned on the following: The applicant has no foreign financial interests; The applicant's family ties to Afghanistan and Pakistan are weak due to geographic separation and lack of interaction; The applicant has demonstrated loyalty to the U.S. through his service as a linguist in combat zones.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

• The applicant has no foreign financial interests.
• The applicant's family ties to Afghanistan and Pakistan are weak due to geographic separation and lack of interaction.
• The applicant has demonstrated loyalty to the U.S. through his service as a linguist in combat zones.

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

“The decision to deny a person a security clearance is not a determination of an applicant’s loyalty. Instead, it is a determination that an applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has established for granting eligibility for access.”

Procedural Posture

• SOR issuedJun 29, 2010
• Answer filed—
• Hearing heldNov 17, 2010
• Decision dateApr 11, 2011

Cite For

• Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
• Importance of U.S. Loyalty in Security Clearance Decisions
• Evaluation of Family Ties and Their Impact on Security Clearance Eligibility