ISCR Case 13-00435.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 13-00435.h1

deniedJan 3, 2014· Hon. Juan J. Rivera· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Pakistan, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The applicant maintained close ties of affection and obligation with parents, siblings, extended family, and friends who are citizens and residents of Pakistan. He frequently contacted and visited these individuals, provided financial support to his parents, and purchased land in Pakistan in 2004. The judge found that the applicant failed to demonstrate these foreign contacts did not pose a security risk or create a potential conflict of loyalty.

Additionally, the applicant falsified his 2011 security clearance application (SCA). He incorrectly stated full-time employment at a U.S. grocery store from May 2009 to June 2010, when he was actually living in Pakistan from January to May 2010. He also failed to disclose being fired from jobs in 2010 and 2011 on the same SCA.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to mitigate the security risks associated with his close foreign contacts and his deliberate falsification of information on his security clearance application.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to demonstrate that his contacts in Pakistan do not pose a security risk.
He has close ties of affection and obligation toward family members in Pakistan, which creates a potential conflict of interest.
The applicant falsified his 2011 security clearance application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 6raisedForeign Influence
AG ¶ 7(a)raisedContact with Foreign Family Members
AG ¶ 7(b)raisedConnections to Foreign Persons
AG ¶ 7(e)raisedSubstantial Business or Financial Interest in a Foreign Country
AG ¶ 6raisedPersonal Conduct
AG ¶ 2raisedFalsification of Security Clearance Application

Mitigating

AG ¶ 8(a)rejectedNature of Relationships with Foreign PersonsThe applicant's relationships with family members in Pakistan create a risk of foreign pressure.
AG ¶ 8(b)rejectedNo Conflict of InterestThe applicant's strong ties to family in Pakistan do not mitigate the risk of divided loyalties.
AG ¶ 8(c)rejectedCasual and Infrequent Contact with Foreign CitizensThe applicant maintains frequent contact with family in Pakistan.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information may be granted 'only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.'”
— Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 3, 2013
Answer filedJul 9, 2013Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case decided on the written record.
Decision dateJan 3, 2014

Cite For

Foreign Influence Concerns Due to Family Ties Under Guideline B
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
The Burden of Proof on the Applicant to Demonstrate Mitigating Conditions.

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 has close ties of affection and obligation toward his parents, siblings, extended family members, and friends who are citizens and residents of Pakistan.	Against Applicant	Parent 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 (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	—
1.b	He failed to demonstrate that his contacts in Pakistan do not pose a security risk, and that he is not in a position to be forced to choose between loyalty to the United States (U.S.) and his connections to family members.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Relationship Other	Pakistan 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	—	—
1.c	He has frequent contacts and a close relationship of affection and/or obligation with his parents, siblings, cousins, and childhood friends who are residents and citizens of Pakistan.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Pakistan 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	—	—
1.d	He has provided financial support for his parents, and his travel and prolonged visits with his family and friends in Pakistan.	Against Applicant	Financial Support to Foreign Relative 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.e	Applicant purchased a tract of land in Pakistan in 2004.	Against Applicant	Foreign Real Estate Financial or Property Interest	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 (e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant has close ties of affection and obligation toward his parents, siblings, extended family members, and friends who are citizens and residents of Pakistan.

Against Applicant

Parent 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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

1.b

He failed to demonstrate that his contacts in Pakistan do not pose a security risk, and that he is not in a position to be forced to choose between loyalty to the United States (U.S.) and his connections to family members.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Relationship

Other

Pakistan

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

—

1.c

He has frequent contacts and a close relationship of affection and/or obligation with his parents, siblings, cousins, and childhood friends who are residents and citizens of Pakistan.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Pakistan

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

—

1.d

He has provided financial support for his parents, and his travel and prolonged visits with his family and friends in Pakistan.

Against Applicant

Financial Support to Foreign Relative

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.e

Applicant purchased a tract of land in Pakistan in 2004.

Against Applicant

Foreign Real Estate

Financial or Property Interest

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

(e) shared living quarters creating a heightened risk

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant falsified his 2011 SCA because he stated in his answers to Section 13A (Employment Activities) that he worked full-time at a grocery store in the U.S. from May 2009 to June 2010, when in fact he was living with his parents in Pakistan from January 2010 to May 2010.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant falsified his 2011 SCA because he failed to disclose that he had been fired from jobs in 2010 and 2011.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Employment History	Denied	—	—	—
2.c	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Conduct

Concealed Issue

Response

Disqualifying (¶16)

Mitigating applied (¶17)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant falsified his 2011 SCA because he stated in his answers to Section 13A (Employment Activities) that he worked full-time at a grocery store in the U.S. from May 2009 to June 2010, when in fact he was living with his parents in Pakistan from January 2010 to May 2010.

Against Applicant

Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

—

2.b

Applicant falsified his 2011 SCA because he failed to disclose that he had been fired from jobs in 2010 and 2011.

For Applicant

Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE

Employment History

Denied

—

2.c

specific text not stated in this decision

Against Applicant

Unspecified Personal Conduct

—

Unknown

—

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