KEYWORD: Guideline C; Guideline B
DIGEST: An applicant with immediate family members living in a country hostile to the United
States has a heavy burden to show that those family ties do not pose a security risk.  There is a
rebuttable assumption that an applicant has ties of affection and obligation to his or her
immediate family members.  The evidence in this case is consistent with that assumption. 
Favorable decision reversed
CASENO: 06-25202.a1
DATE: 02/22/2008
DATE: February 22, 2008
In Re:
--------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-25202
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Candace L. Le’i, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Joseph V. Kaplan, Esq.
2
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On February 22, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons advising Applicant of the
basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline C (Foreign Preference) and
Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On September 14, 2007, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Leroy F. Foreman granted Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Department Counsel filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Department Counsel raised the following issue on appeal: whether the Judge’s favorable
security clearance decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  Finding error, we reverse.
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Factual Findings
A.  Facts
The Judge made the following findings of fact: Applicant is a 44-year-old scientist employed
by a defense contractor.  He worked for his current employer since September 2005.  He has never
held a security clearance.
Applicant is highly regarded by his supervisor, who described him as goal-oriented, a team
player, and a person who thrives on challenges.  Military officers and civilians who worked with him
as program managers repeatedly praised him for the quality of his reports and briefings.
Applicant was born in Iran.  He has multiple siblings.  His father was not well educated, but
he wanted his children to have the opportunity for a college education.  Some of Applicant’s siblings
were educated in the U.S.  One sibling came to the U.S. in the 1960s and has been a U.S. citizen
since the 1980s.  Other siblings also are naturalized U.S. citizens.
One of Applicant’s brothers returned to Iran after completing his education and now is the
co-owner of a business in Iran.  According to one of his siblings in the U.S., this brother regrets his
decision to return to Iran, and he has applied for immigration to the U.S., where he hopes to retire.
Two of Applicant’s sisters declined the opportunity for education in the U.S., and they are
now housewives in Iran.  None of his siblings or their spouses are connected with the Iranian
government or military.  All his siblings in Iran own their homes and are financially secure.
Applicant’s family was targeted by the Iranian government because his father had supported
the Shah.  His parents died in the 1980s.  After their death, the family continued to suffer harassment
by the government.  
Applicant became interested in studying physics, teaching himself by borrowing his sister’s
books.  He wanted to earn a college degree in physics, but he could not leave the country legally until
he completed his military obligation.  He fled Iran in the 1980s because his family was being
3
persecuted and he was about to be drafted by the Iranian Army to serve in the war with Iraq.  He
escaped by walking to another country, where he stayed for about nine months.
  
One of Applicant’s brothers fled Iran at about the same time.  This brother obtained a college
degree in the U.S. and became a U.S. citizen.
Applicant was given refugee status by Canada.  He chose Canada instead of the U.S. because
it was easier to enter Canada.  He obtained a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree, a doctorate degree
and became a Canadian citizen.  
At the time Applicant entered Canada, one of his sisters was a citizen and resident of the U.S.
and another sister was a permanent resident of the U.S.  Applicant applied for residency status in the
U.S., but his application was not granted until the late 1990s.  He moved to the U.S. and became a
U.S. citizen in 2005.
Applicant applied for an Iranian passport and returned to Iran in the late 1990s, looking for
a wife.  He stayed with his siblings.  He testified that he “didn’t have much luck in Canada,” was
lonely, and wanted to be married.  Two unspecified “distant relatives” had daughters who were
potential candidates for an arranged marriage.  Applicant spent four to five weeks meeting with
them, and he returned in the early 2000s to be married.  He was subsequently divorced.  His ex-wife
has remarried and lives somewhere in the U.S.  He has not returned to Iran since 2001.
Before his visit to Iran, Applicant paid the Iranian government to purchase an exemption
from military service.  He used one of his brothers to act as an intermediary.  When he attempted to
leave Iran, he was detained and held in jail for about 24 hours, until his sister in Iran posted bail,
using her house as collateral.  His Iranian passport was not returned to him until the Iranian
authorities determined he was not involved in any anti-government activities.  He does not know if
he forfeited the bail posted by his sister.
Applicant testified he was unaware his possession of an Iranian passport raised a security
concern until he received the SOR.  He subsequently mailed his Iranian passport, which had expired,
to the Iranian Interests Section of the Embassy of Pakistan.  His passport was returned to him with
a renewal application.  He surrendered the passport again explaining that he did not desire to renew
it.  He testified at the hearing that he intended to renounce his Iranian citizenship.  He renounced his
Iranian citizenship after the hearing.
Applicant is now engaged to be married to a native of Iran who became a citizen and resident
of the U.S.  His fiancee’s parents are deceased, and she has no family in Iran.  She has a daughter
who was born in the U.S.  She has a brother who lives and works in the U.S. and a sister in Malaysia.
The record does not reflect the citizenship of her siblings.
Applicant and his fiancee purchased a home in December 2006.  Applicant also owns a
partnership share of an office building.  He has a 401(k) retirement account with his employer and
an IRA.
4
Applicant testified he has no contact with his brother in Iran.  They last spoke three or four
years ago.  He and his brother had disagreements about the division of property inherited from their
father.  He trusted his brother to sell the property and divide the proceeds, but his brother kept
everything.
Applicant calls his sisters in Iran once a year, on the Iranian New Year.  He is not close to
his sisters in Iran, who are considerably older than he.  He has several nieces in Iran, but he has no
contact with them.  When asked if he would travel to Iran if any of his siblings were ill or dying, he
emphatically responded that he would not.
One of Applicant’s sisters, a citizen of the U.S., testified Applicant is not a social person and
has little contact with siblings in the U.S.  Applicant testified he sees her and his older brother once
every couple of months, but she testified she had not seen Applicant in five months.  He is closer to
his twin brother, whom he sees once every couple of weeks.  He has not seen his other sister for two
years.  
Iran is a theocratic Islamic republic dominated by Shia Muslim clergy, with ultimate political
authority vested in a learned religious scholar. Current U.S. concerns about Iran are based on its
efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction; support for and involvement
in international terrorism; support for violent opposition to the Middle East peace process; and its
human rights abuses, including summary executions, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, and
restrictions on civil liberties.  Iran has provided guidance, training, and weapons to Shia political and
militant groups in Iraq.  It also provides encouragement, training, funding, and weapons to anti-
Israeli terrorist groups in its efforts to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process.
The U.S. has designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism.  The U.S. broke diplomatic
relations with Iran in April 1980, prohibits most trade with Iran, and uses multilateral sanctions and
diplomatic pressure to contain the threats posed by Iran. 
Iran does not recognize dual citizenship.  As a result, Iranian-born, naturalized U.S. citizens
are considered solely Iranian citizens by the Iranian authorities, and they are subject to surveillance,
search, harassment, arrest, and imprisonment while traveling or residing in Iran.
B. Discussion
The Appeal Board’s review of the Judge’s findings of facts is limited to determining if they
are supported by substantial evidence–“such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept
as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.”  Directive
¶ E3.1.32.1.  “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing
two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency’s finding
from being supported by substantial evidence.”  Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S.
607, 620-21 (1966).  In evaluating the Judge’s findings, we are required to give deference to the
Judge’s credibility determinations.  Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.  
5
To the extent that the Judge’s findings are relevant to the assigned error, they will be
discussed below.
Whether the Record Supports the Judge’s Ultimate Conclusions
 A Judge is required to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation
for” the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choices made.’”
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the United States v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43
(1983)(quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)).  “The
general standard is that a clearance may be granted only when ‘clearly consistent with the interests
of the national security.’” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).  The Appeal
Board may reverse the Judge’s decision to grant, deny, or revoke a security clearance if it is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  Directive ¶¶ E3.1.32.3 and E3.1.33.3.  
Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong
presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.  See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913
F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9  Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991).  After the government presentsth
evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those
concerns.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  “The application of disqualifying and mitigating conditions and
whole person factors does not turn simply on a finding that one or more of them apply to the
particular facts of a case.  Rather, their application requires the exercise of sound discretion in light
of the record evidence as a whole.”  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-03635 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 20,
2006).
In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are arbitrary or capricious, the Board
will review the Judge's decision to determine whether:  it does not examine relevant evidence; it fails
to articulate a satisfactory explanation for its conclusions, including a rational connection between
the facts found and the choice made; it does not consider relevant factors; it reflects a clear error of
judgment; it fails to consider an important aspect of the case; it offers an explanation for the decision
that runs contrary to the record evidence; or it is so implausible that it cannot be ascribed to a mere
difference of opinion.  In deciding whether the Judge's rulings or conclusions are contrary to law,
the Board will consider whether they are contrary to provisions of Executive Order 10865, the
Directive, or other applicable federal law.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2,
2006).
Department Counsel argues that the Judge’s favorable clearance decision is arbitrary,
capricious and contrary to law because it does not examine relevant evidence, it fails to articulate
a satisfactory explanation for material conclusions, and it fails to consider important aspects of the
case.  The Board finds Department Counsel’s arguments persuasive.
The Board has previously noted that an applicant with immediate family members living in
a country hostile to the U.S. has a heavy burden to show that those family ties do not pose a security
risk.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-09053 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 29, 2006).  In this case, the Judge’s
Decision at 8.1
Id.2
6
analysis and conclusions are insufficient to support a favorable decision given that heavy burden of
persuasion.
The Judge’s favorable clearance decision is predicated in part on his conclusion that
Applicant’s loyalty and obligation to his two sisters in Iran is “minimal.”   That conclusion is not1
sustainable in light of the rebuttable presumption that Applicant has ties of affection and/or
obligation to his immediate family members and in light of all the contrary record evidence.  The
record indicates that, despite Applicant’s claims that he is not close to his sisters in Iran, he has more
than minimal contact and loyalty to them.  He visited them for approximately one month each, after
he had fled Iran to avoid family persecution and military service.  In order to return, he had to pay
the Iranian government to purchase an exemption from military service.  One sister placed her house
as collateral to bail Applicant out of jail during one of his trips.  Contrary to the Judge’s finding that
Applicant “expressed no concern about the economic consequences of forfeiting bail when he left
Iran  . . . even though his sister had used her house as collateral,” Applicant in fact testified that he
did not know whether the Iranian authorities had returned his sister’s house to her.  Moreover,
Applicant continues to regularly converse with his sisters by telephone once a year during the Iranian
New Year.
The Judge’s favorable clearance decision is also predicated in part on his conclusion that
some of Applicant’s family members reside in the U.S. and “his professional life, financial holdings,
and his future are all in the U.S.”   Facts such as those either do not readily suggest refutation,2
extenuation, or mitigation of the government’s security concerns in cases such as this, or they have
low probative value.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-00109 at 5 (App. Bd. Jul. 13, 2006); ISCR Case
No. 02-22461 at 12-13 (App. Bd. Oct. 27, 2005).  At the hearing, Applicant offered testimony as to
his commitment to the U.S. and stated that “he would never do anything to hurt this country.”
However, an applicant’s stated intention as to what he might do in the future in a hypothetical
situation is merely a statement of intention that is entitled to limited weight, unless there is record
evidence that the applicant has acted in a similar manner in the past in comparable circumstances,
or that the applicant has a previous track record of complying with security regulations and
procedures in the context of dangerous, high-risk circumstances in which he made a significant
contribution to the national security.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 07-00029 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 7,
2007); ISCR Case No. 04-12363 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 14, 2006).  Neither of those circumstances are
present in this case.  On the contrary, the record indicates that Applicant came to the U.S. from
Canada in 2000, principally for personal and professional reasons, that he became a U.S. citizen in
2005, and that he has never before held a security clearance.   
An applicant’s testimony is evidence which the Judge must consider, and assessments of
credibility and demeanor are entitled to deference on appeal.  However, in his analysis of Applicant’s
feelings toward his sisters in this case, the Judge drew certain inferences from Applicant’s demeanor
7
that went beyond what was reasonably supported by the record, with respect to the extent to which
Applicant’s personality would insulate him from pressure, coercion, or duress.  In that regard, the
Judge gave unwarranted weight to facts such as: “Applicant’s demeanor when talking about his
siblings in Iran was detached and without emotion” and “He appears to live in an intellectual,
unemotional world.”  Such inferences were largely speculative, and not a substitute for record
evidence when concluding that Applicant’s sense of loyalty and obligation to his sisters in Iran was
“minimal.”
Finally, the record in this case indicates that Applicant and his family members in Iran have
previously been targeted by the regime for coercion, exploitation and pressure, and that Applicant
was once detained by Iranian authorities.  The Board has noted on several occasions that such factors
are “. . .  important evidence that provides context for all the other evidence of record and must be
brought to bear on the Judge’s ultimate conclusions in the case.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-07766
at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 26, 2006); ISCR Case No. 04-02511 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 20, 2007); ISCR Case
No. 05-03279 at 4 (App. Bd. Sep. 20, 2007).  The Judge’s analysis of the security significance of
Applicant’s situation contains no discussion of this important aspect of the case, a circumstance
which renders his overall favorable decision unsustainable.  
Order
 The Judge’s favorable security clearance decision is REVERSED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett    
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin         
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: William S. Fields         
William S. Fields
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board