Skip to content
CASE
← The Issue Encyclopedia

Issue Encyclopedia · Guideline C · Foreign Preference

Unspecified Foreign Preference

What the decided record shows for this issue, computed from public DOHA hearing-level decisions. Descriptive history, not a prediction.

Does unspecified foreign preference affect a security clearance?

Unspecified Foreign Preference is an issue decided under Guideline C, Foreign Preference. In the decided DOHA record it appears in 516 hearing-level cases, and 56% of the 510 decided ended with access granted (285 granted, 225 denied). The mitigating conditions judges credited most often, and example decisions either way, are below.

Basis: 510 decided hearing-level cases raising this issue. Descriptive history of decided cases, not a prediction.

More questions people ask the record

Decided cases

516

hearing-level decisions raising this issue

Granted

56%

285 granted · 225 denied or revoked

Official mitigating conditions cited

The formal mitigating conditions the case profiles identified on this issue, in cases that were granted and in cases that were denied. Each is shown with its paragraph number and a plain name. Read what each condition says.

  • ¶ 11(a) · The foreign citizenship does not conflict with United States interests

    In granted cases
    12
    In denied cases
    0

  • ¶ 11(b) · Dual citizenship from parentage or place of birth alone

    In granted cases
    9
    In denied cases
    0

  • ¶ 11(d) · The foreign citizenship was exercised before becoming a United States citizen

    In granted cases
    7
    In denied cases
    1

  • ¶ 11(e) · The benefits of foreign citizenship raise no security concern

    In granted cases
    6
    In denied cases
    1

  • ¶ 11(f) · The country or entity involved poses a low security risk

    In granted cases
    3
    In denied cases
    2

Recent decided examples

  • ISCR Case No. 23-01964Granted2024

    The case involves an applicant seeking a security clearance who has lived in Australia for over twenty years. The applicant admitted to allegations under Guidelines B and C but successfully mitigated …

  • ISCR Case No. 19-00486Granted2020

    Applicant, a 41-year-old naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Turkey, sought a security clearance after receiving a Statement of Reasons (SOR) citing concerns under Guidelines B (Foreign Influence…

  • ISCR Case No. 25-01240Denied2026

    Applicant, a 43-year-old translator, sought clearance for work in Iraq. He admitted strong family ties to Iraq, an Iraqi passport renewal after U.S. citizenship, and 19 delinquent debts totaling $109,…

  • ISCR Case No. 25-01308Denied2026

    Applicant, a defense contractor employee and dual citizen of the United States, Portugal, and France, was denied a security clearance under Guidelines B and C. He owned substantial real estate in Port…

See all 516 decisions on this issue

Related issues under Guideline C

How these numbers are measured

Scope: decided hearing-level cases whose per-allegation profile records this issue, matched to the same issue value the search filters use, so a count here and a filtered search always agree. A case raising several issues counts under each one. The mitigating conditions and the credited circumstances below were extracted for a subset of the record, so both are counts of cases rather than rates. Pages exist only for issues with at least 25 decided cases, and † marks any split built on fewer than 20.

Reading the statistics

  • Granted = access granted or continued; Denied = denied or revoked.
  • Grant rate = granted ÷ (granted + denied).
  • † marks figures based on fewer than 20 cases, too few to be reliable.
  • Hovering any rate shows its statistical range (a 95% confidence interval).
  • Figures are descriptive counts over decided, public DOHA ISCR decisions, never predictions or assessments of any pending case.

Where to go from here

Get help with my case

Send us your question, or the Statement of Reasons you received. No charge, and a CASE analyst reads it. Usually five to ten business days.

Ask a question →

I do this for clients

Rank every decision by how closely it matches a matter, see how the assigned judge has ruled, and keep it together with cited exports.

For attorneys and firms →

Decided public cases: descriptive, never a prediction.