ISCR Case 15-08246.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08246.h1

deniedAug 29, 2017· Hon. Erin C. Hogan· hearing

Summary

A 25-year-old U.S. citizen and linguist, originally from Pakistan, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The denial stemmed from his familial connections in Pakistan and a history of providing false information on security clearance applications.

The applicant was born in Pakistan and became a U.S. citizen in 2000. While most of his immediate family are U.S. citizens, his mother and wife are Pakistani citizens and U.S. permanent residents, with his wife currently applying for citizenship. His wife has several relatives, including her mother, four sisters, and a brother, who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. His in-laws also reside abroad, with his mother-in-law in Pakistan and his father-in-law in Sweden. The applicant also has two brothers-in-law and two friends who are Pakistani citizens and residents. Although he initially reported quarterly contact with these individuals in 2015, he later claimed less frequent contact. Neither he nor his wife own property or have financial accounts in Pakistan.

The denial also cited the applicant's personal conduct, specifically his admission to intentionally providing false information regarding a 2008 arrest for weapon possession in a school zone during two separate screening interviews in 2011 and 2013. The judge concluded that his foreign family ties presented a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, and his past dishonesty demonstrated a lack of reliability.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has close family ties to Pakistan, a country known for terrorism and human rights issues, creating a risk of foreign influence.
The applicant admitted to falsifying information on multiple security clearance applications, undermining his trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign Persons Creating Potential Conflict of Interest

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons Unlikely to Create ConflictThe applicant's familial ties to Pakistan were deemed significant enough to pose a risk.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedNo Conflict of Interest Due to Minimal Loyalty to Foreign PersonsThe applicant's connections to foreign relatives were considered a potential conflict of interest.
AG ¶ 8(c)rejectedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign CitizensThe applicant's contact with foreign relatives was not deemed casual or infrequent.

Key Rule Quoted

“The mere possession of close family ties with a person in a foreign country is not, as a matter of law, disqualifying under Guideline B.”
— ISCR Case No. 03-02382 at 5 (App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2006)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 16, 2016
Answer filedDec 19, 2016
Hearing heldJun 20, 2017
Decision dateAug 29, 2017

Cite For

Foreign Influence Due to Familial Ties Under Guideline B
Impact of Falsifying Information on Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Consideration of Country Conditions in Security Clearance Decisions

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

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant was born in Pakistan. In 1995, at the age of three, Applicant moved to the United States with his siblings to live with his father who was already in the United States. He became a United States citizen in April 2000 by virtue of his father’s naturalization. He has a U.S. passport. He does not have a Pakistani passport. All of his immediate family members are United States citizens with the exception of his mother and wife. His mother and wife are citizens of Pakistan and are permanent residents in the United States. His wife is in the process of applying for citizenship. She has lived in the U.S. since 2012. His two daughters are citizens of and reside in the United States.	For Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(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’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Pakistan. His father-in-law is a citizen of Pakistan, who works and resides in Sweden. He speaks to his in-laws about once a year. They do not know what he does for a living. His wife talks to her mother about once or twice a month by telephone. The last time she saw her mother was in 2013 when she traveled to Pakistan to visit her. His wife talks to her father about once a year. Neither Applicant or his wife own any property in Pakistan. They also do not have any open bank or financial accounts in Pakistan.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—
1.c	In addition to her mother, Applicant’s wife has four sisters and a brother who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. Applicant also has two brothers-in-law and two friends who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. He has two friends who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. Applicant indicated that he had quarterly contact with his wife’s relatives and friends in Pakistan when he completed his most recent security clearance application in September 2015. During the hearing and in response to the SOR, Applicant claimed that he no longer has frequent contact with any of his wife’s relatives or his friends who are citizens and residents of Pakistan.	For Applicant	Extended Family in Foreign Country Extended Family	Pakistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant was born in Pakistan. In 1995, at the age of three, Applicant moved to the United States with his siblings to live with his father who was already in the United States. He became a United States citizen in April 2000 by virtue of his father’s naturalization. He has a U.S. passport. He does not have a Pakistani passport. All of his immediate family members are United States citizens with the exception of his mother and wife. His mother and wife are citizens of Pakistan and are permanent residents in the United States. His wife is in the process of applying for citizenship. She has lived in the U.S. since 2012. His two daughters are citizens of and reside in the United States.

For Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(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’s mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Pakistan. His father-in-law is a citizen of Pakistan, who works and resides in Sweden. He speaks to his in-laws about once a year. They do not know what he does for a living. His wife talks to her mother about once or twice a month by telephone. The last time she saw her mother was in 2013 when she traveled to Pakistan to visit her. His wife talks to her father about once a year. Neither Applicant or his wife own any property in Pakistan. They also do not have any open bank or financial accounts in Pakistan.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

1.c

In addition to her mother, Applicant’s wife has four sisters and a brother who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. Applicant also has two brothers-in-law and two friends who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. He has two friends who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. Applicant indicated that he had quarterly contact with his wife’s relatives and friends in Pakistan when he completed his most recent security clearance application in September 2015. During the hearing and in response to the SOR, Applicant claimed that he no longer has frequent contact with any of his wife’s relatives or his friends who are citizens and residents of Pakistan.

For Applicant

Extended Family in Foreign Country

Extended Family

Pakistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	The SOR also alleged that Applicant intentionally lied about the details related to his 2008 arrest for possession of a weapon (knife) in a school zone during two separate screening interviews, which occurred in July 2011 and October 2013.	For Applicant	Lack of Candor in Interview	—	Denied	—	—	—
2.c–2.i	7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Mixed	FOUND DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct		—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

Denied

—

2.b

The SOR also alleged that Applicant intentionally lied about the details related to his 2008 arrest for possession of a weapon (knife) in a school zone during two separate screening interviews, which occurred in July 2011 and October 2013.

For Applicant

Lack of Candor in Interview

—

Denied

—

2.c–2.i

7 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).

Mixed

FOUND DELIBERATE

Criminal Conduct

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION