ISCR Case 12-07647.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-07647.h1

grantedJun 28, 2013· Hon. Wilford H. Ross· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen from Afghanistan was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant admitted to having a wife who is an Afghan citizen residing in the U.S., and a mother-in-law who is an Afghan citizen and resident. The applicant and his family visited his mother-in-law in 2007, and his wife contacts her three to four times annually. The applicant denied having a brother residing in Afghanistan, stating one brother is a U.S. citizen and the other is a Canadian citizen. He also denied owning property in Afghanistan worth $1,000,000, clarifying that he did not own property there. He further denied having a brother-in-law who is an Afghan citizen residing in Pakistan, stating his family has contact with him once or twice every three months.

Allegations of falsification regarding foreign property value and the omission of a brother-in-law on a questionnaire were also addressed. The applicant had initially stated a property value of "$10000.000" on his e-QIP, which the government argued was falsified. However, the judge attributed this to confusion and the applicant's limited English proficiency, noting that the government was aware of some property ownership. Similarly, the omission of his brother-in-law from a "Relative and Associates" document was not deemed intentional falsification due to the complex nature of the question and the applicant's English skills.

Ultimately, the judge found that the applicant's foreign ties were minimal and infrequent, with no immediate family residing in Afghanistan. The property interest was considered confusing and of little security significance, and there was no intent to falsify information. Consequently, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated minimal ties to Afghanistan, with no immediate family residing there.
The applicant's property interest in Afghanistan was deemed confusing and of little current security significance.
The judge found no intent to falsify information in the applicant's security clearance process.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with a Foreign Family Member
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to a Foreign Person
AG ¶ 7(e)raisedSubstantial Property Interest in a Foreign Country

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)appliedNature of Relationships with Foreign Persons
AG ¶ 8(b)appliedNo Conflict of Interest Due to Loyalty to U.S.
AG ¶ 8(c)appliedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign Citizens
AG ¶ 8(f)appliedValue or Routine Nature of Foreign Property Interests

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 9, 2012
Answer filedSep 23, 2012
Hearing held—Decision made without a hearing.
Decision dateJun 28, 2013

Cite For

Mitigation of Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Evaluation of Personal Conduct Allegations Under Guideline E
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept 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 admits his wife is a citizen of Afghanistan, currently residing in the United States.	For Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Afghanistan 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 (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	(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 (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.b	Applicant denies that he has a brother who is a resident of Afghanistan. One of his two brothers is an American citizen residing in the United States. Applicant’s other brother is a Canadian citizen, who lives in Canada.	For Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan 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	(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 (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.c	Applicant admits his mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Afghanistan. Applicant and his family visited his mother-in-law in 2007. His wife contacts her mother three to four times a year by telephone.	For Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Afghanistan 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	(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 (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.d	Applicant denies that he owns property in Afghanistan worth $1,000,000. He also stated in his Answer under this allegation, 'I do not owned a property in Afghanistan.'	For Applicant	Foreign Real Estate Financial or Property Interest	Afghanistan HEIGHTENED RISK	Denied	(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	(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 (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—
1.e	Applicant denies that he has a brother-in-law who is a citizen of Afghanistan and resides in Pakistan. He states in his Answer, 'I deny he lives in afghanistan. and my family have contact with him once or twice in every three months.'	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 (b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest	(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 (f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant admits his wife is a citizen of Afghanistan, currently residing in the United States.

For Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

(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

(f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence

—

1.b

Applicant denies that he has a brother who is a resident of Afghanistan. One of his two brothers is an American citizen residing in the United States. Applicant’s other brother is a Canadian citizen, who lives in Canada.

For Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

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

(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

(f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence

—

1.c

Applicant admits his mother-in-law is a citizen and resident of Afghanistan. Applicant and his family visited his mother-in-law in 2007. His wife contacts her mother three to four times a year by telephone.

For Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Afghanistan

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

(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

(f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence

—

1.d

Applicant denies that he owns property in Afghanistan worth $1,000,000. He also stated in his Answer under this allegation, 'I do not owned a property in Afghanistan.'

For Applicant

Foreign Real Estate

Financial or Property Interest

Afghanistan

HEIGHTENED RISK

Denied

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

(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

(f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence

—

1.e

Applicant denies that he has a brother-in-law who is a citizen of Afghanistan and resides in Pakistan. He states in his Answer, 'I deny he lives in afghanistan. and my family have contact with him once or twice in every three months.'

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

(b) connections creating a potential conflict of interest

(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

(f) foreign interests are minimal and could not be used to influence

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant denies that he falsified his e-QIP (Item 3), question 20, regarding the value of his foreign property. Applicant stated in the questionnaire that he did own property and it was worth “$10000.000.” As set forth in detail under 1.d, above, the true value of this property cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy, but is more likely closer to $10,000 than $1,000,000. What the Government argues is falsification can just as easily, and more likely, be put down to confusion and Applicant’s obvious lack of facility with written English, which is shown by the quotations found earlier in this decision. Finally, the Government was repeatedly put on notice that Applicant owned property in Afghanistan worth some amount of money. I do not find an intent to falsify with regards to this question, which is found for Applicant.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant denies that he falsified part of the Counterintelligence Screening Questionnaire by leaving out his brother-in-law, who is discussed under allegation 1.e, above. Attached to Item 4 at pages 32 through 33 is a two page document entitled “Relative and Associates.” It has Applicant’s name on it and the date of July 27, 2011. It states: Regardless if they are alive or deceased list at a minimum: father, mother (birth, step and in-law) brothers and sisters (step, half and in-law), spouse, ex-spouse, cohabitant, children, any extended relatives with whom you have regular contact, anyone with whom you have a business/financial relationship, anyone with whom you have contact who is in any government/military/religious leadership position, and your sponsor to the U.S. Applicant entered 19 names, ranging from immediate family to several friends. He did not mention one person, his brother-in-law. The Government contends that I should view this lack, standing alone, as evidence of falsification. Based on the state of this record, I cannot do this. As stated before, Applicant’s facility with written English is obviously limited. The pertinent question is involved, and can easily be misunderstood. Based on the current facts, I cannot find that Applicant intentionally left his brother-in-law’s name off of this form.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant denies that he falsified his e-QIP (Item 3), question 20, regarding the value of his foreign property. Applicant stated in the questionnaire that he did own property and it was worth “$10000.000.” As set forth in detail under 1.d, above, the true value of this property cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy, but is more likely closer to $10,000 than $1,000,000. What the Government argues is falsification can just as easily, and more likely, be put down to confusion and Applicant’s obvious lack of facility with written English, which is shown by the quotations found earlier in this decision. Finally, the Government was repeatedly put on notice that Applicant owned property in Afghanistan worth some amount of money. I do not find an intent to falsify with regards to this question, which is found for Applicant.

For Applicant

Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE

Other

Denied

—

2.b

Applicant denies that he falsified part of the Counterintelligence Screening Questionnaire by leaving out his brother-in-law, who is discussed under allegation 1.e, above. Attached to Item 4 at pages 32 through 33 is a two page document entitled “Relative and Associates.” It has Applicant’s name on it and the date of July 27, 2011. It states: Regardless if they are alive or deceased list at a minimum: father, mother (birth, step and in-law) brothers and sisters (step, half and in-law), spouse, ex-spouse, cohabitant, children, any extended relatives with whom you have regular contact, anyone with whom you have a business/financial relationship, anyone with whom you have contact who is in any government/military/religious leadership position, and your sponsor to the U.S. Applicant entered 19 names, ranging from immediate family to several friends. He did not mention one person, his brother-in-law. The Government contends that I should view this lack, standing alone, as evidence of falsification. Based on the state of this record, I cannot do this. As stated before, Applicant’s facility with written English is obviously limited. The pertinent question is involved, and can easily be misunderstood. Based on the current facts, I cannot find that Applicant intentionally left his brother-in-law’s name off of this form.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

—

Denied

—

Loading case…

Case Profile

Summary

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Conditions Referenced

Key Rule Quoted

Procedural Posture

Cite For

Full decision

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

STATEMENT OF CASE

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

ANALYSIS

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

FORMAL FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

FOOTNOTES