KEYWORD: Foreign Influence
DIGEST: The Applicant’s mother and four of his siblings are citizens of and reside in Iran.  He
also has three siblings who reside in France.  However, the Applicant has lived in the U.S. since
emigrating from Iran in1984.  He has never returned to Iran, and he became a U.S. citizen in
1992.  His wife and two children are all Americans.  The Applicant obtained both a Bachelors
and Masters Degree from an American university.  He has also held a security clearance for
about ten years.  His supervisors and co-workers think most highly of the Appellant, and do
recommend that he continue to hold said clearance.  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-24149.h1
DATE: 08/07/2007
DATE: August 7, 2007
In Re:
----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-24149
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
RICHARD A. CEFOLA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Alan V. Edmunds, Esquire, Applicant’s Counsel
2
SYNOPSIS
The Applicant’s mother and four of his siblings are citizens of and reside in Iran.  He also
has three siblings who reside in France.  However, the Applicant has lived in the U.S. since
emigrating from Iran in1984.  He has never returned to Iran, and he became a U.S. citizen in 1992.
His wife and two children are all Americans.  The Applicant obtained both a Bachelors and Masters
Degree from an American university.  He has also held a security clearance for about ten years.  His
supervisors and co-workers think most highly of the Appellant, and do recommend that he continue
to hold said clearance.  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 30, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the reasons why DOHA
could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant and
recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied
or revoked.
Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on February 23, 2007.
The case was received by the undersigned on March 15, 2007.  A notice of hearing was
issued on May 1, 2007, and the case was heard on May 23, 2007.  The Government submitted
documentary evidence.  Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who submitted documentary
evidence on his behalf.  The Applicant also called three witnesses to testify.  The transcript (TR) was
received on June 5, 2007.  The issues raised here are whether the Applicant's perceived Foreign
Influence militates against the granting of a security clearance.  [The Applicant admits all of the
allegations of the SOR; except for the last allegation, in that he sent his mother money to repay a
loan about four or five years ago.]
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the documents
and the live testimony.  The Applicant is 45 years of age, and is employed by a defense contractor
who seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant.  After a complete and thorough review
of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following
additional findings of fact.
Guideline B - Foreign Influence
The Applicant emigrated from Iran to the U.S. in 1984 (TR at page 37 lines 6~11).  He has
never returned to Iran (Id).  He received both a Bachelors and Masters Degree from an American
university (TR at page 43 lines 5~13).  He became a U.S. citizen in 1992 (Government Exhibit (GX
1 at page 1).  His wife and two children are also Americans (TR at page 38 lines 11~17).
3
1.a. and 1.g.  The Applicant’s 65 year old mother is a citizen of and resides in Iran (TR at
page 40 lines 8~12, and GX 1 at page 4).  She has always been a housewife, and has never worked
for the Iranian government (TR at page 50 lines 11~19).  He speaks with her “two to three times a
year” (TR at page 42 lines 17~22).  The Applicant borrowed money from his mother so he could
emigrate to the U.S. (TR at page 39 line 20 to page 40 line 7).  He has since paid her back, “four or
five years ago (TR at page 58 line 11 to page 59 line 1).
1.b.~1.d.  The Applicant has three siblings who reside in France (GX 1 at pages 4 and 6).
One brother is a “cab driver” (TR at page 50 line 20 to page 52 line 1).  Another brother works with
computers (TR at page 52 line 20 to page 53 line 19).  His sister works with children (TR at page
52 lines 2~19).  None of these three siblings work for any foreign government (TR at page 50 line
20 to page 52 line 1, at page 52 line 20 to page 53 line 19, and at page 52 lines 2~19).
1.e. and 1.f.  The Applicant has four siblings who are citizens of and reside in Iran (GX 1 at
pages 5~6).  The Applicant has had little contact with one brother, and does not know what his
occupation is, if any (TR at page 54 lines 1~19).  Another brother has a business, “like an ice cream
parlor” (TR at page 54 line 20 to page 55 line 17).  The Applicant also has two sisters.  One sister
is a retired teacher, and the other works in the health care sector (TR at page 55 line 18 to page 58
line 5).  To his knowledge, none of the Applicant’s Iranian siblings works for the Iranian government
(TR at page 54 line 20 to page 55 line 17, and at page 55 line 18 to page 58 line 5).
The Applicant would report any attempt at coercion vis-a-vis any of his foreign relatives to
appropriate authorities (TR at page 38 line 8 to page 39 line 12).
Iran is a state that sponsors terrorism.  The U.S. has not had diplomatic relations with Iran
since 1980.  It is a theocratic Islamic republic in which Shi’a Muslim clergy dominate the key power
structures, and ultimate political authority is vested is a learned religious scholar.  Iran’s dismal and
worsening human rights record presents a further threat to the U.S., as a large number of Iranians
emigrated to the U.S. in 1979, after their Islamic revolution.  These immigrants often left behind
family members in Iran.  Iran’s security forces often target family members of political prisoners for
harassment purposes.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and
conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern.  Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive,
each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon
consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication
policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate:
a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding
circumstances.
b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.
c. Age and maturity of the applicant.
4
d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct
was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of
the consequence involved.
e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.
5
f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in
the future.”
The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have
a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or
conclusions based on evidence that is speculative or conjectural in nature.
The Government must make out a case under Guideline B (Foreign Influence), which
establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.  While a rational
connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and his ability to
effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational
connection, objective or direct evidence is not required.
Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation,
explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely
to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance.
An individual who is subject to Foreign Influence, may be prone to provide information or
make decisions that are harmful to the interests of the United States.  The Government must be able
to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance holder to abide by all security rules and
regulations at all times and in all places.
CONCLUSIONS
The Applicant's mother, and four of his siblings, are citizens of and reside in Iran.  He also
has three other siblings who reside in France.  The first and second disqualifying conditions are
arguably applicable as this contact “creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement,
manipulation, pressure, or coercion," and creates “a potential conflict of interests between the
individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to
help a foreign person . . . by providing that information.”  Under the facts of this particular case,
however, these are clearly countered by the first and second mitigating conditions.  The nature of the
Applicant’s relationship with his Iranian and French relatives is “such that it is unlikely the
individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of . . . [his family]
and the interests of the U.S.”  Also, the Applicant “has such deep and longstanding relationships and
loyalties in the U.S., that the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor
of the U.S. interest.”
Furthermore, I am not limited to the mitigating conditions, delineated in the Directive, in
deciding if an Applicant has demonstrated extenuation or mitigation.  Those who know and work
with the Applicant think most highly of him, and recommend that he retain his security clearance.
The totality of the Applicant’s conduct and circumstances, as set forth at length above, clearly
warrants a favorable recommendation under the “whole person concept.”  Mitigation is shown.
Guideline B is found for the Applicant.
6
Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding his
alleged Foreign Influence.  The Applicant has thus met the mitigating conditions of Guideline B, and
of Section E.2.2. of the Directive.  Accordingly, he has met his ultimate burden of persuasion under
Guideline B.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Foreign Preference FOR THE APPLICANT
a.   For the Applicant.
b.   For the Applicant.
c.   For the Applicant.
d.   For the Applicant.
e.   For the Applicant.
f.   For the Applicant.
g.   For the Applicant.
Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and
CONCLUSIONS, supra.
DECISION
In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge