ISCR Case 05-01428.h1

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 05-01428.h1

deniedJan 30, 2006· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 47-year-old defense contractor, holding dual U.S. and Lebanese citizenship, was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline C (Foreign Preference). The applicant's family ties to Lebanon and his use of a Lebanese passport were central to the decision.

Specifically, the applicant's parents are Lebanese citizens residing in Lebanon, though they previously held U.S. resident alien cards. His brother is a naturalized French citizen living in France. The applicant's wife is a dual U.S. and Ecuadoran citizen, and his children are dual U.S. and Lebanese citizens. The applicant maintained and used his Lebanese passport for travel to Lebanon on multiple occasions between 1997 and 2003, citing convenience.

The denial was based on the finding that the applicant's retention and use of a foreign passport demonstrated a preference for a foreign country. Furthermore, his parents' residency in Lebanon raised unmitigated foreign influence concerns, as the applicant did not demonstrate that these familial ties would prevent coercion or exploitation by foreign powers.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant retained and used a Lebanese passport for travel, indicating a preference for a foreign country over the U.S.
Applicant's parents are Lebanese citizens living in Lebanon, creating potential foreign influence concerns.
Applicant did not demonstrate that his familial ties would not lead to coercion or exploitation by foreign powers.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A3.1.2.1raisedThe Exercise of Dual Citizenship
E2.A3.1.2.2raisedPossession And/or Use of a Foreign Passport
E2.A2.1.2.1raisedAn Immediate Family Member Is a Citizen of a Foreign Country
E2.A2.1.2.2raisedSharing Living Quarters with a Person Who May Exert Foreign Influence

Mitigating

E2.A3.1.3.1appliedDual Citizenship Is Based Solely on Parent's Citizenship or Birth in a Foreign Country
E2.A2.1.3.1rejectedImmediate Family Members Are Not Agents of a Foreign PowerApplicant did not show that his parents are not agents of a foreign power.
E2.A2.1.3.2rejectedContact with Foreign Family Members Is Casual and InfrequentFrequent contact with parents does not meet the test for infrequency.

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 25, 2005
Answer filedApr 20, 2005Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateJan 30, 2006

Cite For

Foreign Preference Concerns Due to Dual Citizenship
Foreign Influence Risks From Familial Ties Abroad
Impact of Using a Foreign Passport on Security Clearance Eligibility

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
2.a	Applicant's parents are citizens of Lebanon and live there. They hold U.S. resident alien cards resulting from living in the U.S. with Applicant from 1986 to the late 1990s, when they returned to Lebanon. They are both in their 80s and in poor health.	Against Applicant	Parent in Foreign Country Immediate Family	Lebanon HEIGHTENED RISK	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
2.b	Applicant's brother lives in France and is a naturalized French citizen. Applicant calls his parents on the telephone once or twice monthly.	Against Applicant	Sibling in Foreign Country Immediate Family	France	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—
2.c	Applicant's wife has dual U.S. and Ecuadoran citizenship. His children are dual U.S. and Lebanese citizens.	Against Applicant	Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen Immediate Family	Ecuador	Admitted	(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Relationship

Country

Response

Disqualifying (¶7)

Mitigating applied (¶8)

Mitigation

2.a

Applicant's parents are citizens of Lebanon and live there. They hold U.S. resident alien cards resulting from living in the U.S. with Applicant from 1986 to the late 1990s, when they returned to Lebanon. They are both in their 80s and in poor health.

Against Applicant

Parent in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

Lebanon

HEIGHTENED RISK

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

—

2.b

Applicant's brother lives in France and is a naturalized French citizen. Applicant calls his parents on the telephone once or twice monthly.

Against Applicant

Sibling in Foreign Country

Immediate Family

France

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

—

2.c

Applicant's wife has dual U.S. and Ecuadoran citizenship. His children are dual U.S. and Lebanese citizens.

Against Applicant

Spouse Dual or Foreign Citizen

Immediate Family

Ecuador

Admitted

(a) contact with a foreign family member/associate/friend creating a heightened risk of exploitation

—

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶10)	Mitigating applied (¶11)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is a dual U.S. and Lebanese citizen.	Against Applicant	Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country (b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.	—	—
1.b	Applicant retained and used his Lebanese passport for trips to Lebanon in 1997 to 1999, and again in 2003 for his own travel convenience.	Against Applicant	Foreign Passport Possession or Use	Admitted	(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country (b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.	—	—
1.c	Applicant did not mitigate the foreign preference and foreign influence security concerns.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant has not shown that his parents are not agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could make Applicant choose between his loyalty to them or to the U.S.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Foreign Preference	Unknown	—	—	—

Allegation

Finding

Type

Response

Disqualifying (¶10)

Mitigating applied (¶11)

Mitigation

1.a

Applicant is a dual U.S. and Lebanese citizen.

Against Applicant

Failure to Renounce or Surrender Foreign Status

Admitted

(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country

(b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.

—

1.b

Applicant retained and used his Lebanese passport for trips to Lebanon in 1997 to 1999, and again in 2003 for his own travel convenience.

Against Applicant

Foreign Passport Possession or Use

Admitted

(a) applying for and/or acquiring citizenship in any other country

(b) failure to report, or fully disclose when required, possession of a passport or identity card issued by any country other than the U.S.

—

1.c

Applicant did not mitigate the foreign preference and foreign influence security concerns.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

Unknown

—

1.d

Applicant has not shown that his parents are not agents of a foreign power or in a position to be exploited by a foreign power in a way that could make Applicant choose between his loyalty to them or to the U.S.

Against Applicant

Unspecified Foreign Preference

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

SYNOPSIS

STATEMENT OF CASE

FINDINGS OF FACT

POLICIES

CONCLUSION

FORMAL FINDINGS

DECISION

FOOTNOTES

APPEARANCES