KEYWORD: Guideline B
DIGEST: After a review of the Judge’s decision and the record, the Board concludes that the
Judge did not exclude relevant evidence when determining the applicability of mitigating
conditions to SOR allegation 1.b.  Adverse decision affirmed.
CASENO: 12-04780.a2
DATE: 11/13/2013
DATE: November 13, 2013
In Re:
---------------------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 12-04780
APPEAL BOARD DECISION
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Chief Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro se
The Department of Defense (DoD) declined to grant Applicant a security clearance.  On
January 23, 2013, DoD issued a statement of reasons (SOR) advising Applicant of the basis for that
decision—security concerns raised under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) of Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Jan. 2, 1992, as amended) (Directive).  Applicant requested a hearing.  On June
17, 2013, after the hearing, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Administrative Judge
Marc E. Curry denied Applicant’s request for a security clearance.  Applicant appealed.  On August
21, 2013, the Appeal Board issued a decision remanding the case to the Judge for correction of
identified errors.  On September 10, 2013, the Judge issued a remand decision.  Applicant appealed
pursuant to the Directive ¶¶ E3.1.28 and E3.1.30.   
Applicant raises the following issue on appeal: Whether the Judge’s decision is arbitrary,
capricious, or contrary to law.  For the following reasons, the Board affirms the Judge’s unfavorable
security clearance decision. 
The Judge found: Applicant is 47 years old.  He was born and raised in the People’s Republic
of China (PRC). He received a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree before immigrating to the
United States to pursue a doctorate.  He received his doctorate.  He became a naturalized U.S. citizen
in 2009. 
Applicant’s wife immigrated to the United States in 1999, and his daughter immigrated here
one year later.  Both are lawful U.S. permanent residents and have applied for citizenship.
Applicant’s parents are citizens and residents of the PRC.  They are retired farmers.  Applicant talks
to them approximately once per week.  Applicant purchased a house in the PRC for his parents,
which is currently worth approximately $30,000.  He transferred ownership of the house to his father
in 2013.  Applicant provided between $1,000 and $2,500 of annual financial support to his parents.
Now that he is aware of the potential security implications of providing financial support to his
parents, Applicant has no intention to support them financially in the future.   
Applicant has three brothers who are citizens and residents of the PRC.  Applicant talks to
his brothers approximately once every three months, and e-mails them approximately once or twice
per year.  
Applicant has four paternal aunts who are citizens and residents of the PRC.  He talks to
them approximately twice per year on holidays.  He never knew them that well when he lived in the
PRC, and does not know their first names.  Applicant’s parents-in-law and brother-in-law are
citizens and residents of the PRC.  Applicant talks to his parents-in-law approximately once per
month and communicates with his brother-in-law through e-mails once or twice per year.  
Applicant stays in touch with four of his colleagues from the company where he worked
from 1996 to 1998.  All of them have either retired or left the company.  Two are living in the
United States and are permanent residents.  Applicant has not seen three of them since 1998 and has
not seen the remaining co-worker in six years.  He communicates with them approximately once or
twice a year via phone or e-mail.
Applicant has visited the PRC three times since immigrating to the United States.  Most
recently, he traveled in June 2008.  He has not seen any of his relatives or acquaintances since then.
The PRC is a totalitarian state that routinely violates human rights.  It is the most aggressive
conductor of espionage against the United States in the world, and its intelligence collection efforts
are growing in scale, intensity, and sophistication.   
1“[T]he nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or the
positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a
position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the
interests of the U.S[.]”
2“[T]here is no conflict of interest, either because the individual’s sense of loyalty or obligation to the foreign
person, group, government, or country is so minimal, or the individual 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[.]”
The Judge concluded: Applicant’s relatives who are PRC citizens and residents, and his wife
and daughter, who are PRC citizens living with him, raise security concerns under Guideline B.
However, Applicant no longer owns property in the PRC and no longer provides financial support
to his parents.  Applicant’s past employment while living in the PRC does not generate a security
concern.  Applicant’s contacts with his former friends and coworkers and his contacts with his aunts
in the PRC are sufficiently infrequent so as to be mitigated, and his wife’s and daughter’s
circumstances also mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant’s parents, brothers, and parents-in-law remain in the PRC.  Therefore, its capacity
to coerce, intimidate, or threaten these relatives is not limited by geography.  In light of the
aggressive and multifaceted nature of the PRC’s espionage activities against the United States,
including its exploitation of family relationships for classified or sensitive information, Applicant’s
stellar career and ties to the community are not enough to trigger the application of AG ¶ 8(a)1 or
AG ¶ 8(b)2.  
 
The analysis of a foreign influence case is based on more than one’s cultural integration into
the U.S. culture. One must consider the nature of the foreign country and its relationship with the
United States.  The PRC’s history of conducting espionage against the United States puts a heavy
burden of proof on Applicant that he was unable to meet because of his ties to his relatives who are
PRC citizens and residents.
Applicant argues that, although, upon remand, the Judge corrected the factual errors
contained in his original decision, the Judge failed to follow the remand order to evaluate the record
evidence as a whole when he decided the case.  He focuses on the following phrase from the Judge’s
analysis: “I cannot conclude that Applicant’s stellar career and ties to the community are enough to
trigger the application of AG ¶ 8 (a) or AG ¶ 8 (b).”  Applicant asserts that by picking up just two
facts to draw a conclusion, the Judge did not consider the record as a whole.  Applicant then goes
on to list a number of factors he claims the Judge did not consider.  Applicant’s argument relies in
part on evidence which was not before the Judge.  The Board cannot consider new evidence on
appeal.  See Directive ¶ E3.1.29.  Applicant also states that the Judge ignored record evidence when
conducting his whole-person analysis.  The Board concludes that Applicant has failed to establish
error on the part of the Judge.  
There is a rebuttable presumption that the Judge considered all the record evidence unless
he specifically states otherwise.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-01961 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 12, 2007).
Applicant does not overcome this presumption.  The Judge’s findings of fact are extensive and
detailed.  Many of these same facts are discussed in the analysis portion of the Judge’s decision, and
3Applicant makes an additional argument that the Judge failed to follow the instructions in the Board’s remand
order by mailing the remand decision to his former attorney instead of mailing it to Applicant directly.  Applicant argues
that this stripped him of his right of privacy and had the potential of stripping him of his right to appeal.  Applicant was
able to exercise his right to appeal.  The Board’s jurisdiction and authority are limited to reviewing security clearance
form the basis for the Judge’s favorable application of Guideline B mitigating conditions to all but
one of the SOR allegations.  
The Judge’s ultimate unfavorable conclusion in the case was based on his finding against
Applicant on one SOR allegation (1.b.) which referenced Applicant’s parents, brothers and in-laws
and their status as residents and citizens of the PRC.  The gravamen of Applicant’s argument appears
to be that the Judge erred by failing to discuss in detail, the numerous facts of the case cited by
Applicant when analyzing this single allegation and determining the applicability of the two
mitigating conditions.  He concludes that the failure to discuss these many details meant that the
Judge did not consider the whole of the record evidence when resolving this allegation.  The Board
has noted the practical impossibility of discussing every piece of record evidence.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 11-05949 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2013).  
The Board does not review particular sentences or passages of a Judge’s decision in
isolation.  Rather, when considering and evaluating appeal issues, the Board considers a Judge’s
decision in its entirety to ascertain what findings the Judge made and what conclusions the Judge
reached.  See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-05645 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 15, 2004).  After a review of the
Judge’s decision and the record, the Board concludes that the Judge did not exclude relevant
evidence when determining the applicability of mitigating conditions to SOR allegation 1.b. Indeed
the phrases “stellar career” and “ties to the community” as used by the Judge are rubrics which
include the more detailed facts cited by Applicant on appeal.  Moreover, the Judge cited to
Applicant’s giving to local charity and his volunteer work at his daughter’s school when mentioning
the broader topic of community ties.  Applicant has not demonstrated that the Judge failed to
consider the entirety of the record when reaching his ultimate unfavorable conclusion.
Applicant recites to large parts of the record below in arguing that the Judge’s decision
should have been a favorable one.  Applicant offers a rational alternative interpretation of the record
evidence.  However, that alternative interpretation of the record evidence is insufficient, as a matter
of law, to render the Judge’s interpretation arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g., ISCR
Case No. 03-19101 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 13, 2006).        
Applicant argues that the Judge did not properly consider his case under the whole-person
concept and asserts again that the Judge did not consider the whole record.  On this point, Applicant
repeats essentially the same argument he advanced when discussing the Judge’s analysis under
Guideline B and the applicable mitigating conditions.  He lists the same detailed facts concerning
his life in the U.S. that he listed in his earlier argument.  Applicant states that the Judge considered
only his cultural integration into the U.S. culture when conducting this analysis, and ignored many
important facts which together established his deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in
the U.S.  Again, the Judge’s consideration of “cultural integration” would necessarily include the
many facets of Applicant’s relationships and loyalties.  The fact that the Judge did not identify these
facets specifically in his whole-person analysis does not constitute error.3   
decisions by Hearing Office Administrative Judges.  See Directive, Additional Procedural Guidance, ¶¶ E3.1.28-E3.1.35.
The Board does not have supervisory authority over the Hearing Office.  However, Applicant’s concerns regarding his
privacy are not frivolous.  The Board will forward this decision to the appropriate officials.
The Board does not review a case de novo.  The favorable evidence cited by Applicant is not
sufficient to demonstrate the Judge’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.  See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 06-11172 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 4, 2007).  After reviewing the record, the Board
concludes that the Judge examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for
the decision, “including a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice 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).  Therefore,
the Judge’s ultimate unfavorable security clearance decision is sustainable.
Order
The remand decision of the Judge is AFFIRMED.
Signed: Michael Y. Ra’anan   
Michael Y. Ra’anan
Administrative Judge
Chairperson, Appeal Board
Signed: Jeffrey D. Billett        
Jeffrey D. Billett
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board
Signed: Jean E. Smallin         
Jean E. Smallin
Administrative Judge
Member, Appeal Board