CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-07639.h1 — CASE

Case record

ISCR Case 12-07639.h1

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

Case Profile
Decision Date2/22/2013
Statusgranted
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Judge: Darlene D. Lokey-Anderson
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Case Summary
The judge found that the applicant's foreign contacts did not pose a security risk, as he has established deep ties in the United States and minimal contact with his in-laws in Afghanistan. The applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was granted based on the evidence presented.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · 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. 12-07639.h1

grantedFeb 22, 2013· Hon. Darlene D. Lokey-Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Afghanistan, was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant's foreign contacts, specifically his in-laws residing in Afghanistan, created a potential for foreign influence that could compromise classified information. Disqualifying Condition 7.(a) was raised in this context.

However, the judge applied Mitigating Conditions 8.(a), 8.(b), and 8.(c). The decision to grant the clearance was based on several factors. The applicant has resided in the U.S. since 1989, establishing strong ties to the country. He has no immediate relatives in Afghanistan and maintains only minimal contact with his in-laws.

Furthermore, the applicant's wife has expressed no desire to return to Afghanistan, which further reduced the potential for foreign influence. These factors collectively demonstrated the applicant's commitment to U.S. interests, leading to the favorable outcome.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant has lived in the U.S. since 1989 and has established strong ties to the country.
He has no immediate relatives in Afghanistan and minimal contact with his in-laws.
The applicant's wife has no desire to return to Afghanistan, further reducing potential foreign influence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

7.(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family MembersThe applicant has contact with in-laws in Afghanistan, which could create a risk of foreign influence.

Mitigating

8.(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe applicant's relationships with foreign persons are unlikely to place him in conflict with U.S. interests.
8.(b)appliedNo Conflict of InterestThe applicant has deep and longstanding relationships in the U.S. that outweigh any foreign obligations.
8.(c)appliedCasual and Infrequent ContactThe applicant's contact with foreign citizens is infrequent and casual, minimizing risk.

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.”
— Executive Order 10865

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 26, 2012
Answer filedSep 5, 2012
Hearing heldNov 27, 2012
Decision dateFeb 22, 2013

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Under Guideline B
Importance of Established Ties to the U.S. in Security Clearance Cases
Evaluation of Foreign Contacts and Their Impact on National Security Interests

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant's foreign contacts did not pose a security risk, as he has established deep ties in the United States and minimal contact with his in-laws in Afghanistan. The applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was granted based on the evidence presented.

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. Spouse or Partner · U.S. Children · U.S. Home or Property · U.S. Career or Business

¶	Allegation	Finding	Relationship	Country	Response	Disqualifying (¶7)	Mitigating applied (¶8)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has foreign contacts that could create the potential for foreign influence, which could result in the compromise of classified information.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Credited Deep U.S. Ties Claimed Other
1.b	The Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has foreign contacts that could create the potential for foreign influence, which could result in the compromise of classified information.	For Applicant	In Law in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	(a) relationships such that a conflict between foreign and U.S. interests is unlikely (b) deep/longstanding U.S. loyalties; conflict resolves in favor of the U.S. (c) contact so casual and infrequent there is little likelihood of risk	Credited Deep U.S. Ties Claimed Other

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

Full decision

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