ISCR Case 10-02660.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-02660.h1

deniedMar 21, 2011· Hon. Arthur E. Marshall, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old language instructor and U.S. immigrant from Iran was denied a security clearance under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) due to significant familial ties in Iran and Azerbaijan. The applicant's wife regularly contacted her parents and brother, who are citizens and residents of Azerbaijan. The applicant himself maintained regular contact with his parents and, to a lesser extent, his siblings, all citizens and residents of Iran.

Further concerns arose because the applicant's father, a soon-to-be retiree, was set to receive a pension from an Iranian government contractor. Despite the applicant's assertions that his family understood he would not be vulnerable to external pressures and that his contact with them was minimal (about every two months), these claims were insufficient.

The denial was based on the applicant's regular contact with family in Iran, a country identified as a state sponsor of terrorism and hostile to the U.S. The judge found that previous family pressure for the applicant to return to Iran indicated a potential for future coercion. The emotional significance of these relationships, coupled with the Iranian government's actions against his family, undermined the applicant's claims of severed ties, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant maintained regular contact with family members in Iran, a country known for its sponsorship of terrorism and hostile relations with the U.S.
The applicant's family in Iran had previously pressured him to return, indicating a potential for coercion or manipulation.
The applicant's claims of severed ties were undermined by the emotional significance of his familial relationships and the nature of the Iranian government's actions against his family.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to a Foreign Country That Create a Potential Conflict of Interest

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons Unlikely to Create a Conflict of InterestWhile the applicant's in-laws in Azerbaijan posed no current security concerns, the ties to his Iranian family remained significant.
AG ¶ 8(c)rejectedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign CitizensThe applicant's regular contact with his Iranian family was not casual or infrequent.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 22, 2010
Answer filedOct 12, 2010
Hearing heldFeb 1, 2011
Decision dateMar 21, 2011

Cite For

Foreign Influence Due to Familial Ties Under Guideline B
Impact of Foreign Government Actions on Security Clearance Decisions
The Significance of Emotional Ties to Family in Security Clearance Evaluations

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’s wife maintains regular contact with her parents and brother, who are citizens and residents of Azerbaijan.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Azerbaijan	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant maintains regular contact with his parents and, to a lesser extent, with his siblings. These individuals are citizens and residents of Iran.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Iran 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	Applicant’s father is about to retire. He will soon receive a pension from his employer, a private railroad company that is an Iranian government contractor.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family GOVT-AFFILIATED	Iran 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.d	Applicant’s family knows that Applicant would not be vulnerable to pressures exerted on his family.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant has minimal contact with his family abroad, exchanging telephone calls about every two months.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	None of his family members have visited Applicant in the United States, although they have been free to travel since 2005.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	—	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant does not maintain contact with his in-laws, but his wife speaks with them by telephone every few weeks.	Against Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Azerbaijan	Admitted	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant’s wife maintains regular contact with her parents and brother, who are citizens and residents of Azerbaijan.

For Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Azerbaijan

Admitted

—

1.b

Applicant maintains regular contact with his parents and, to a lesser extent, with his siblings. These individuals are citizens and residents of Iran.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Iran

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

Applicant’s father is about to retire. He will soon receive a pension from his employer, a private railroad company that is an Iranian government contractor.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

GOVT-AFFILIATED

Iran

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.d

Applicant’s family knows that Applicant would not be vulnerable to pressures exerted on his family.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Admitted

—

1.e

Applicant has minimal contact with his family abroad, exchanging telephone calls about every two months.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Admitted

—

1.f

None of his family members have visited Applicant in the United States, although they have been free to travel since 2005.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

—

Admitted

—

1.g

Applicant does not maintain contact with his in-laws, but his wife speaks with them by telephone every few weeks.

Against Applicant

In Law in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Azerbaijan

Admitted

—

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

FOOTNOTES