Abdul Karim and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

[2023] AATA 1634

Abdul Karim and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 1634 (15 June 2023)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2022/2764

Re:Elias Abdul Karim

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President B W Rayment OAM KC

Date:15 June 2023

Place:Sydney

The reviewable decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant is of good character and meets the requirement in subsection 21(4)(f) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

.................................[SGD].......................................

Deputy President B W Rayment OAM KC

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – whether the applicant is of good character pursuant to s 21(4)(f) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – decision under review set aside and remitted

LEGISLATION

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President B W Rayment OAM KC

15 June 2023

1. The applicant applied for citizenship by conferral and satisfied the delegate of all conditions necessary to be established under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, with the exception of the character requirement. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

2. The applicant works part-time as a painter.

3. He has only one criminal offence, about which I received evidence from him and others. He is in his sixties, and has been in this country since 22 November 2014, for more than eight years. He is married, and has two married daughters, aged in their thirties. One of those children still lives in Lebanon and the other lives here.

4. His wife requires care from her husband for a disk injury to her back, and her husband provides that care. Before and after an incident for which he was dealt with in the Local Court in February 2019, an incident which occurred in 2017, he has no criminal record.

5. The Tribunal documents include no remark concerning the incident, because the remarks were given by the Magistrate ex tempore and were not transcribed. The evidence requires me to draw inferences from such information as is available.

6. At 9.30am one morning, the applicant was working at a site in Sydney on a small apartment block. He worked for two days each week for a gentleman who gave evidence. It appears that the applicant walked along a balcony to another worker, a painter, who purported to have completed painting several areas in one hour, and the applicant, I gather, did not believe that it was possible to have done that work in one hour. The painter was standing on a ladder which rested on the balcony rail about 4 to 4.5 metres from the ground. During the conversation, the painter grabbed the applicant’s hands and the applicant withdrew his hands from the painter’s grip. The painter fell to the ground and according to the employer of the applicant and the painter, injured his hip. The version of the applicant is that there was blood in the region of the painter’s head.

7. The injuries suffered by the painter may not have been extremely serious because the applicant was ordered to compensate him in the sum of $5,000, later reduced to $3,000.

8. As soon as the incident happened, the applicant went to the painter on the ground to care for the painter in some way. The painter was later taken to hospital and others came to the scene, including the employer.

9. The charge laid against the applicant was for reckless grievous bodily harm. It was found proven and the applicant received an intensive corrections order and 300 hours of community service. An apprehended violence order put in place by the police was extended by the magistrate.

10. The incident was not pre-meditated in any way, and was unintentional.

11. The applicant was very remorseful and for years his sleep has been disturbed. I accept his evidence of remorse.

12. The evidence and that of friends and family satisfies me that he poses no danger to the community and he has no propensity to violence. On the contrary he is described as a good father and husband, and as being kind and generous.

13. On the general question of character, I treat the incident of 2017 as one-off, and since his history is otherwise good, I am satisfied that he is of good character. The reviewable decision is therefore to be set aside and the matter will be remitted to the respondent with the direction that the applicant is of good character and meets the requirement in subsection 21(4)(f) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding 13 (thirteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President B W Rayment OAM KC

......................................[SGD]..................................

Associate

Dated: 15 June 2023

Date(s) of hearing:	17 November 2022 & 29 May 2023
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Ms L Succar, LS Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms S Edmondstone, MinterEllison