Foreign Influence Concerns for Security Clearance Applicants Remains High

Two recent Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) cases highlight the role foreign influence concerns can play in security clearance eligibility determinations. Against a backdrop of ongoing geopolitical tensions, including conflicts involving Iran, Lebanon, and Ukraine, as well as increased attention to immigration enforcement and foreign national relationships, foreign influence remains an important consideration in the security clearance process.

These cases offer insight into how adjudicators evaluate foreign ties alongside other potential security concerns, and why certain circumstances can ultimately lead to a denial of security clearance eligibility.

• The applicant is from Pakistan and became a naturalized citizen. He has a wife and three children who are also naturalized U.S. citizens who all reside in the U.S. He previously served in the Pakistani army and received a monthly pension. His brother lives in Pakistan and retired as an officer from their military. He and his wife own two apartments in Pakistan and have bank accounts used to make the mortgage payments on them. He also has inherited ownership of undeveloped land and maintains Pakistani citizenship for ease of travel and to manage his properties. The judge at his appeal noted that although the applicant has established himself and his family in the U.S., in aggregate, his ties to Pakistan are still a foreign influence concern – eligibility denied.
• This applicant is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Iran and has a PhD in Engineering. He was previously granted a security clearance in 2021 but was denied continued eligibility based on security concerns regarding his foreign contacts and interests. He holds dual citizenship with Iran and has immediate family members who all still live in Iran. At his appeal, he admitted that he told his family he works for a different company for fear that if the Iranian government found out who he was really working for, it could create problems for his family. The applicant’s ties to Iran and the fact that his family could be used to coerce him into actions against the U.S. could not be mitigated – eligibility denied.

The nature of a nation’s government, its relationship with the United States, and its human rights record are relevant in assessing the likelihood that an applicant’s family members are vulnerable to government coercion. The risk of coercion, persuasion, or duress is significantly greater if the foreign country has an authoritarian government, a family member is associated with or dependent upon the government, or if the country is known to conduct intelligence operations against the United States. The clearances were denied based on these factors.