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
- 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
- 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