KEYWORD: Guideline B; Guideline C
DIGEST: Born in Iran, Applicant became a U.S. citizen in 2000.  Applicant’s parents, five
siblings, parents-in-law and brother-in-law are all citizens and residents of Iran.  The Judge’s
decision that it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant a
security clearance is sustainable on this record.  Adverse decision affirmed.  
CASENO: 07-07928.a1
DATE: 10/01/2008
DATE: October 1, 2008
In Re:
---------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-07928
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Edward A. Kraus, Esq.
The Judge’s favorable decision under SOR ¶ 1(c) and under Guideline C is not at issue in this appeal.  1
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant Applicant a security
clearance.  On November 28, 2007, DOHA issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant
of the basis for that decision–security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and
Guideline C (Foreign Preference) of Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as
amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June 27, 2008, after the hearing,
Administrative Judge Edward W. Loughran denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.
Applicant filed a timely appeal pursuant to Directive ¶¶  E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.
Applicant raised the following issues on appeal: whether the Judge erred in his application
of the Guideline B mitigating conditions; and whether the Judge’s whole person analysis was error.1
Finding no error, we affirm.  
The Judge made the following pertinent findings of fact:  Applicant is an engineer for a
defense contractor.  Born in Iran, he came to the U.S. in the late 1970's to attend college, ultimately
receiving a Ph.D.  He became U.S. citizen in 2000.  He married his wife in 2002 in Iran, having met
her there in 2001.  She became a U.S. citizen in 2006, although Iranian authorities consider persons
similarly situated–U.S. citizens born in Iran–to be Iranian citizens.
Applicant’s parents, five siblings, parents-in-law, and brother-in-law are all citizens and
residents of Iran.  His sixth sibling lives in the U.S. as a permanent resident.  He speaks to his parents
on the telephone about once or twice a month.  His parents-in-law have permanent resident status
in the U.S. and divide their time between the U.S. and Iran.  Applicant owns no foreign assets and
is described as being of good character.
Iran is a constitutional Islamic republic.  The U.S. has not had diplomatic ties with Iran since
1980.  Iran is engaging in efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.  It supports international
terrorism, has committed numerous serious human rights violations, and has intervened in the
internal affairs of Iraq.   
In his brief, Applicant argues, inter alia, that the Judge did not consider certain mitigating
evidence, for example that Applicant has never in the past been approached by Iranian authorities
and that his work is highly beneficial to the U.S.  Furthermore, Applicant argues that the Judge gave
too much weight to Applicant’s foreign relatives and Iran’s status as country hostile to the U.S.  The
Board has considered all the arguments contained in Applicant’s brief, evaluating them in light of
the record as a whole.  A Judge is presumed to have considered all the evidence in the record unless
he specifically states otherwise.  See, e. g., ISCR Case No. 07-00553 at 2 (App. Bd. May 23, 2008).
Although Applicant disagrees with the weight which the Judge assigned to certain pieces of
evidence, he has not demonstrated that the Judge’s analysis is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to
law.  See, e. g., ISCR Case No. 07-10454 at 2 (App. Bd. August 12, 2008).   “[A]n applicant with
family members living in a country hostile to the U.S. bears a ‘heavy burden’ in demonstrating that
those family members do not pose a security risk.”  ISCR Case No. 06-18918 at 2 (App. Bd. May
23, 2008), citing ISCR Case No. 07-00029 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2007).      
In light of the record as a whole, the Judge has drawn a rational connection between the facts
found and his ultimate adverse security clearance decision.  See ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3
(App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006).  See also 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)).  Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, there is nothing in the Judge’s decision
to suggest that the Judge adhered to a “blanket” rule that would automatically result in clearance
denial for an Applicant with close family members in Iran.  The Judge’s decision that “it is not
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance” is sustainable on this record.  Decision at 9.  Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 528 (1988).
Order
The Judge’s adverse security clearance decision is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett              
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Michael D. Hipple           
Michael D. Hipple
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: James E. Moody              
James E. Moody
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board