CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02117.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 14-02117.h1

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date7/17/2018
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Related decisionSee the appeal decision (Case 14-02117.a1) →
Participants
Judge: Francisco Mendez
Applicant's Counsel: Joseph E. Schmitz
Case Summary
The judge found against the applicant on the foreign influence concerns due to her connections with family in Iran, which raised significant security risks. Although the applicant had some favorable factors, they were insufficient to mitigate the heightened security concerns associated with her foreign ties, leading to a denial of her security clearance.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Unknown Outcome
- Guideline CForeign Preference · Unknown Outcome
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02117.h1

deniedJul 17, 2018· Hon. Francisco Mendez· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old U.S. citizen, born in Iran, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The Statement of Reasons cited that the applicant has family members, specifically her parents, who are citizens and residents of Iran, and that she maintains contact with them. Additionally, it was noted that she voted in Iranian elections in 2009. These facts raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 7(a) and 7(b).

Despite the applicant's strong professional and personal ties to the U.S. and her stated willingness to renounce her Iranian citizenship, the judge determined that insufficient evidence was presented to mitigate the security risks. While mitigating conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 8(b) and 8(e) were considered, they were not found to be sufficient.

The denial was based on the finding that the applicant's close relationship with her parents, who reside in Iran, created a heightened security concern regarding potential foreign influence. Consequently, the applicant's security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns related to her family ties in Iran.
The judge found that the applicant's close relationship with her parents, who reside in Iran, raised a heightened security concern due to the potential for foreign influence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)appliedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)appliedConnections to Foreign Persons That Create Potential Conflict of Interest

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(b)appliedMinimal Conflict of Interest Due to Strong Ties to the U.S.
AG ¶ 8(e)appliedPrompt Compliance with Reporting Requirements

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who has a close relationship with relatives in Iran, a hostile foreign power, bears a 'very heavy burden' of proof and persuasion in mitigating security concerns raised by such foreign ties.”
— ISCR Case No. 11-14079 at 3 (App. Bd. May 6, 2013)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 28, 2017
Answer filedApr 17, 2017
Hearing heldFeb 22, 2018via MS Teams
Decision dateJul 17, 2018

Cite For

Security Concerns Related to Foreign Influence Due to Familial Ties in Hostile Countries
The Burden of Proof on Applicants with Foreign Relatives
The Impact of Foreign Citizenship on Security Clearance Eligibility

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

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the foreign influence concerns due to her connections with family in Iran, which raised significant security risks. Although the applicant had some favorable factors, they were insufficient to mitigate the heightened security concerns associated with her foreign ties, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

Country conditions:the decision took administrative notice of official facts about the foreign country (the Government’s country submission).

U.S. ties the decision noted: Naturalized U.S. Citizen · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business · Community or Civic Involvement · Intent to Remain in U.S.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has family members who are citizens and residents of Iran.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iran HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.b	Applicant has contact with her parents who are citizens and residents of Iran.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iran HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	—	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline C (Foreign Preference) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's foreign preference concerns were mitigated by her transparency regarding her foreign ties and her willingness to renounce her Iranian citizenship. However, the applicant's voting in an Iranian election raised concerns about her preference for Iran over the United States, which the judge ultimately ruled in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
2.a(1)–2.a(2)	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (rulings shown).	Mixed			—	—	—
2.a(3)	Applicant voted in Iranian elections in 2009	For Applicant	Foreign Voting	Admitted	—	—	—

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

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.