Ahmad and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) - [2021] AATA 3244

Ahmad and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 3244 (8 September 2021)
Division:General Division
File Number(s): 2020/5677
Re:Ahmad
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis
Date:8 September 2021
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Respondent for re-consideration, with the direction that the prohibition in s 24(3) of the Act is not engaged by the Applicant.
Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – refusal of citizenship application – whether prohibition under subsection 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) applies – satisfaction as to the identity of the Applicant – meaning of identity – pillars of identity – where Applicant possesses Qatari birth certificate – where Applicant citizen of Somalia – where Applicant a refugee – inconsistent evidence about aspects of life story – inconsistencies not critical to question of identity – decision under review set aside and remitted
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
Ater and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4677
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
CDNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 757
Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Re (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Sinnathamby and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 2579
Secondary Materials
Australian Citizenship Policy
National Identity Proofing Guidelines
Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Citizenship Bill 2007 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The legislation
Citizenship Policy and Procedural Instructions
SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS
EVIDENTIARY AND OTHER THRESHOLDS
CONSIDERATION
The Applicant’s Somali Passport
The Applicant’s father
The arranged marriage in Somalia
The Applicant’s departure dates from Somalia and her travel history
The Applicant’s education
The Applicant’s employment
The Applicant’s associations
Some further aspects of the Applicant’s evidence
The absence of corroborative statements from members of her family in Somalia
The Applicant’s efforts to replace her lost Somali passport
Some concessions made by the Applicant
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
DECISION
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis
8 September 2021

Ms Ahlem Ahmad (“Applicant”) fled Somalia, her country of nationality, in the early 2000s, travelled to a Refugee camp, and was ultimately granted refugee status and re-settled in Australia. In 2017, she applied for citizenship by conferral. Before the Tribunal is a request by the Applicant for the review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (“Respondent” or “Minister”) involving a refusal to grant the Applicant’s application for citizenship. The basis of the refusal was due to the delegate not being satisfied of the Applicant’s identity pursuant to s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (“Act”).
The hearing was conducted before me on 14 July 2021. The sole witness at the hearing comprised the Applicant. Written material was also tendered which I have summarised into an Exhibit Register that was accepted by the parties at the hearing. Attached to these reasons and marked Annexure A is a copy of this Exhibit Register.
A precis of the key facts appears at paragraph [2] of the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (“SFIC”). This precis should not be construed as the complete history of the Applicant’s life story relevant to the instant case. However, it nevertheless provides the reader with key dates culminating in (1) the delegate’s refusal to grant approval for citizenship (17 August 2020), and (2) the Applicant’s consequent application to this Tribunal on 11 September 2020.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The legislation
Section 25(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and s 52(1)(b) of the Act are the sources of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions made under s 24 of the Act.
The Preamble to the Act states:
“The Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.
The Parliament recognises that persons conferred Australian citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations:
(a)       by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people; and
(b)       by sharing their democratic beliefs; and
(c)       by respecting their rights and liberties; and
(d)       by upholding and obeying the laws of Australia.”
Section 24 of the Act confers a general power on the Minister to either approve or refuse to approve an application made under s 21 of the Act. Specified circumstances are set out at ss 24(3) to (7) of the Act, that preclude the Minister from granting citizenship. This includes if the Minister is not satisfied of the person’s identity.[1] The Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to the Act further explains:
There may be cases where identity is unclear or cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. In these circumstances the Minister cannot approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.[2]
[1]Act, s 24(3).
[2]Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Citizenship Bill 2007 (Cth).
Citizenship Policy and Procedural Instructions
In determining an applicant’s claim for citizenship, decision-makers are assisted by executive policy. Noting that each case before the Tribunal is considered de novo, Government policy is ordinarily considered and applied unless there is a cogent reason not to do so.[3]
[3]Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Re (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
This includes Australian Citizenship Policy (“ACP”). The ACP refers to the description of identity in the National Identity Proofing Guidelines, which is published by the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (“Proofing Guidelines”). Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 (“CPI16”), titled CPI16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act, also provides guidance about assessing identity and refers to the Proofing Guidelines as relevant when considering s 24(3) of the Act. These provide:
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Establishing confidence in a person’s identity is a critical starting point for delivering a range of government services and benefits, as it is for many transactions conducted by the private sector and other non-government organisations.
…
1.1.5 Identity proofing is an important part of efforts to prevent identity crime. It is also critical to promote the trust and confidence in identities, particularly online, which will be a key enabler of Australia’s digital economy into the future.
Paragraph 5.1 of the Proofing Guidelines establishes that, where a person cannot meet the minimum identity requirements, alternative identity proofing processes may be undertaken. Such processes may include:
“1. Acceptance of alternative types of evidence of identity (such as multiple types of SECONDARY evidence types where normally a PRIMARY evidence type would be required).
2. Verification of the person’s claimed identity with a trusted referee whose identity has been (or is being) verified to an equal or greater level of assurance.
3. Verification of a person’s claimed identity with reputable organisations or bodies known to them (for example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations may hold, or be able to verify, the identity of clients where no prior government record exists).
4. A detailed interview with the person about their life story to assess the consistency and legitimacy of their claims.
5. Alternative methods of providing information or documents (such as provision of certified copies by trusted third parties instead of attending an in-person interaction where a person can demonstrate they live in a very remote area).
6. Providing support for individuals to obtain evidence (such as assisting a person to register their birth with an RBDM).”
CPI16 describes three pillars comprising biometrics, documents and life story, as the foundation on which assessments of identity are made:

Pillar of Identity

Individual Characteristics

Biometrics

Personal identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person's signature. Biometrics can be used for comparison, with, for example, facial images held by the Department or other domestic or international agencies.

Documents

Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features. Documents contain biodata, or personal information, such as name, date of birth, nationality, and/or citizenship, and may also contain biometric information.

Life Story

A person's life story is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. Officers should consider the events that happened to the person, and the information and detail correlating to the events. A person's life story may include descriptions of family composition, education, employment, countries of residence, countries visited, social footprint, and online presence.

CPI16 provides guidance for decision-makers about how to use these pillars. I have summarised the most relevant parts below:
·4.4. Each pillar should not be considered in isolation but should nevertheless be considered. A longitudinal approach is to be taken to the evidence and factors arising from each Applicant’s assessment process. Consistency seems to be a key consideration:
“The citizenship Applicant is likely to be well documented, information provided to the Department will have remained consistent over a long period of time, and no inconsistencies or concerns will have been identified.”
·4.12. This longitudinal approach finds its manifestation in a requirement upon decision-makers to establish an applicant’s identity from birth. Satisfaction of identity at a single point in time is not sufficient. There must be consistency, logic and sustainability in the relevant chronological sequence:
“It is not sufficient to be satisfied of a person’s identity at one point in time, as a person’s identity is not a point in time concept; it must be verified incrementally throughout a person’s life and considered historically.
[…]
[…] [decision-makers should create] a complete picture of the person’s identity from birth to present. The objective is to link the Applicant’s identity at birth to the identity provided in their application for Australian citizenship by considering key chronological events in the person’s life.”
·4.14 a similar theme of longitudinal consistency applies to the assessment of documentary evidence. CPI16 directs decision-makers to have regard to not only the plain words of the document but to ascertain whether a given document(s) contributes to a consistently sustainable “story” sought to be propounded by a claiming applicant:
“Documents are an important element of the process in establishing a person’s identity. While they do not establish or verify a person’s identity in and of themselves, they contribute to a person’s identity timeline by providing an anchor to corroborate information pursuant to pillar one (biometrics) and pillar threeife story).
When assessing pillar two, decision-makers should consider and assess whether the documents and information they contain are consistent, or otherwise, and whether they element support or refute a person’s claimed identity.
The crucial element of a document, whether genuine or not, is the story the document tells. Documents need not be identity documents to tell a story. For instance, a hotel invoice may demonstrate a person’s presence in a particular place at a point in time.”
[Errors in original; my emphasis and underlining]
·4.15 CPI16 mandates that assessment of an applicant’s “life story” requires a decision-maker to be satisfied of a claiming applicant’s “complete identity ‘picture’” of that person from birth. Certain milestones or episodic claims by an applicant may be given more weight than others:
“There may be cases where one pillar may be given more weight than the others. For example, cases where the applicant claims they are stateless and therefore undocumented. In such cases, the available pillar (for example, life story) may become more significant when assessing the person’s identity. There is also likely to be a heightened need to explore further material. This may include, but is not limited to researching credible open source country information”
SUMMARY OF CONTENTIONS
The Applicant’s representative agreed that establishment of the Applicant’s identity for instant purposes requires an assessment of the evidence on the basis of the abovementioned three pillars of biometrics, documentation and her life story. The Applicant concedes that there are “some discrepancies throughout [her] dealings with the Department”.[4]
[4]Transcript, 27, lines 46–47; 28, line 1.
It was contended on behalf of the Applicant that during the course of her immigration journey culminating in the grant of her current visa, those discrepancies relate to (1) her passport, (2) her father, (3) the intended marriage which she says she caused her to flee Somalia, (4) the dates around her departure from Somalia and travel history, (5) her education, and (6) her employment. Evidentiary difficulties arising from these factors are explained thus:
“We say that those discrepancies are better described as incomplete rather than inconsistent or intended to be misleading, and certainly, in our respectful submission, not so material that it deteriorates the credibility of Ms Ahmad's life story.”[5]
[5]Transcript, 28, lines 12–15.
The Respondent urges the Tribunal to not be satisfied of the Applicant’s identity having particular regard to the state of the evidence around the Applicant’s documents and life story. The Respondent particularly notes the following:
“(a) the Applicant has not provided any identification documents that pre-date her arrival in Australia, aside from a birth certificate issued in Qatar;
(b) the Applicant has not demonstrated that she has made a reasonable attempt to obtain primary identity documents;
(c) the Applicant has provided inconsistent information regarding her life story, including her family composition, reason for leaving Somalia, travel history, associations, education, and employment history; and
(d) the Applicant has not provided a plausible explanation to address the inconsistencies in her life story.”[6]
[6]R1, [20].
The Respondent concedes that the Applicant has provided a valid Qatari birth certificate. But they contend that her birth certificate is not supported or complemented by any other official identity documentation from Somalia in support of her identity. The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s explanation for the loss of her Somalian passport after her arrival in Australia is unsatisfactory.
The Respondent urges the Tribunal to accept that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she has exhausted all reasonable efforts she can make to assemble and present documentation in support of her identity. There is said to be little or no corroborative evidence about the Applicant’s claimed identity from any person in Somalia. None of her family members, including her mother and siblings, whom the Applicant spoke about in her oral evidence, had anything to say – in writing or orally – about the Applicant’s version of her identity.
The Respondent contended that the Applicant has not made sufficient efforts with relevant Somalian authorities with particular reference to the obtaining of documentation confirming her status as a Somali national. The Respondent characterised the oral evidence at the hearing as demonstrating that:
“[…] there do remain inconsistencies in the information she has chosen to provide at various points to relevant authorities in relation to her documents, her family composition, including names of her parents, her travel, and work and education history, which casts additional doubt upon the applicant's identity.”[7]
[7]Transcript, 30, lines 45–47; 31, lines 1–2.
It is common ground between the parties that the first pillar – biometrics – is not especially helpful for the instant case due to the limited biometric information predating the Applicant’s arrival in Australia in August 2013.[8]
[8]Note: save and except the UNHCR Resettlement Registration Form, which includes a photograph (See T1, 254); the Document for travel to Australia which includes photographs (See T1, 426–427); and certain healthcare documents which include photographs and other health information (See T1, 329–389).
EVIDENTIARY AND OTHER THRESHOLDS
Section 24(3) of the Act prohibits approval of citizenship unless the Minister (or, standing in the Minister’s shoes, the Tribunal) is satisfied of the applicant’s identity.[9] The relevant threshold at which the Tribunal must be satisfied as to a person’s identity requires persuasion to a degree of reasonable satisfaction:
“[T]he Tribunal, standing in the shoes of the Minister, must be persuaded to a degree of reasonable satisfaction that something is so, and the degree of satisfaction may vary according to the consequences that flow. In this case, the Parliament has decided that being reasonably satisfied of a potential citizen’s identity is essential, because flowing from that is a range of significant rights, responsibilities and privileges.”[10]
[9]Sinnathamby and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 2579 (‘Sinnathamby’).
[10]Sinnathamby, [56]; See also Sinnathamby [55] citing Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
The authorities establish that deficiencies in the location, provision or presentation of material said to support identity are to be addressed thus:
·where an Applicant does not provide any identity documentation confirming their birth, documents post-dating the issue of an Australian visa are said to carry less weight than those pre-dating that time.[11] This is presumably because the former documents would have relied on the identity stated in the Australian visa;
·the absence of primary source documentation about identity must be explained in cogent and acceptable terms.[12] It is not sufficient for an applicant to say the documents are not available or cannot otherwise be produced;[13]
·inconsistencies in the information on key aspects (such as a person’s place or country of birth) of identity require adequate explanation;[14]
·it is well-settled that “[…] Neither the Act nor the common law requires that identity can only be established by the production of documents appropriate to an established or undisturbed society” as was made clear in Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, “[…] where an applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist and which he has been advised to secure, the application ought to be rejected.”[15]
[11]Ater and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4677 [61].
[12]CDNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 757 (‘CDNB’) [9].
[13]Ater [72].
[14]CDNB, [99].
[15]Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310 [117].
CONSIDERATION

I have considered the contentions of each party. There are, broadly speaking, eight areas in the evidence which the Respondent argues should lead me to doubt the Applicant’s identity. They relate to (1) her Somali Passport; (2) her father; (3) the arranged marriage she says she fled from; (4) the dates she departed Somalia; (5) her education history; (6) her employment history; (7) which people she associated with on her journey after leaving Somalia; and (8) the Applicant’s failure to produce any information from her family or the Somalian passport authorities which might corroborate her story.
The Applicant’s Somali Passport
It is necessary to examine the evidence in order to verify the circumstances propounded by the Applicant relating to her not being in possession of her Somali passport. The Applicant participated in a visa interview on 20 October 2011. During that interview, she claimed that her passport “[…] was taken when I crossed the border.”[16] The “border” is said to be the border between Libya and Tunisia.[17] Subsequently, on 17 May 2020, in the statutory declaration made by the Applicant and provided to the Respondent’s department, the Applicant stated that she “lost [her] passport after [she] came to Australia.”[18]
[16]T1, 269.
[17]See Transcript, 11, lines 31–35.
[18]T1, 230.
In her evidence-in-chief, the Applicant was asked to explain this discrepancy. She responded as follows:
“Ms Samuta: In your statutory declaration which you provided in your citizenship application you explained that you had a Somali passport before leaving Somalia but you lost your passport after you came to Australia. However, earlier in your interview for your subclass 200 visa you explained that you have your passport - you were asked if you had your passport with you and you answered that it was taken when you crossed the border. Can you explain those answers?
Applicant: Yes, when we crossed the border they took our ID documents, so they took my Somali passport, and then I had the interview and at the time I did not have my passport on me, and I told them it was taken when I crossed the border. But later on they actually returned my passport to me, and I kept it until I came to Australia, and then unfortunately it was misplaced and I lost it. And at the time of the interview I didn't have it and it wasn't returned yet.”[19]
[19]Transcript, 5, lines 13–25.
In cross-examination, the Applicant said she was “100 per cent sure that [her] passport was taken when she entered the refugee camp”.[20] She then said the passport was returned to her but could not remember how that return took place. She was taken to the abovementioned conflict in her evidence between what she said in the visa interview in 2011 compared to what she said in her statutory declaration made in 2020. She confirmed that she lost her passport after she came to Australia:
“Ms Tobin: Could you tell me, do you remember when that happened, when you lost it in Australia?
Applicant: I believe it was after I moved to Brisbane, it was misplaced or lost. When I came to Australia I was placed in Townsville and I lived there for a year and after that I moved to Brisbane, and I don't know where I put it. It was misplaced or something but I lost it at that time, around that time.
Ms Tobin: Okay. So you lost it around that time, and you're not sure how but you misplaced it; is that correct?
Applicant: Yes, I believe I misplaced it or, yes, somehow lost it.”[21]
[20]Transcript, 12, lines 1–2.
[21]Transcript, 12, lines 24–32.
The Respondent’s representative pressed the issue further in cross-examination and sought an explanation about why a document as important as a current and valid passport was not prioritised and protected as such by the Applicant. Her explanation in this regard was both lukewarm and unconvincing:
“Ms Tobin: Do you think that it's an important, you know, document to keep a hold or was it, you know, within your possessions or - I'm trying to understand how you might've lost an important document like that?
Applicant: I actually did not think it was an important document, and that's why maybe I didn't - I wasn't more careful with it. I thought that I have the visa document which shows that I have, like, the visa to be here, and also I had a learner licence as a, like, document if they asked me anything, like, in Australia, and that's all I had.”[22]
[22]Transcript, 12, lines 36–40.
The Respondent’s representative then questioned the Applicant about another aspect of the matter, specifically, the conflict between the content of her statutory declaration and her UNHCR interview about her passport being taken from her in Tunisia. As best as I understood her oral evidence, she says she did not include any reference to the passport being taken from her in Tunisia because it was eventually returned to her. On this basis, she did not think it necessary to include the “taken passport” episode in Tunisia in her statutory declaration made in 2020:
“Ms Tobin: Okay. Now, in that statutory declaration, Ms Ahmad, you don't talk about the passport being taken in Tunisia. Why is that?
Applicant: I believe I haven't recalled putting this information, and I put as much information I guess as I can in my statutory declaration, but I didn't put all the information, I believe, that I could and, yes, it's pretty short. I can see that it's a page and-a-half but I thought that was the most important information that I needed to answer was there.
[…]
Ms Tobin: So you've, I guess, considered losing the passport in Australia important enough to put in the statutory declaration, why was the previous losing of the passport not important enough?
Applicant: When I was in the refugee camp?
Ms Tobin: Yes?
Applicant: It wasn't lost, it was returned, and the people who took it were authority figures so I trusted them and they returned it to me, so it wasn't lost and at the time I needed it, because even though I was still a refugee and asylum seeker in Tunisia I was scared that I might be sent back to Libya or something so I had to hold onto it. But after I came here I had my visa document which was the most important one as far as I know and what I was told, as well as my driving licence as a form of ID.”[23]
[23]Transcript, 12, lines 42–47; 13, lines 1–25.
The Applicant was then taken to another aspect of her evidence about the passport. It involved her explanation about why it came to be that she apparently obtained a Somali passport but that the rest of her family never did so. She spoke of it being “very common” for Somali people to be born, to live, and to die without any form of identification. She sought to explain her having a passport while no other members of her family had a passport on the basis that she needed the passport “to prove my nationality, and also in case I end up being captured by immigration.”[24]
[24]See generally Transcript, 13–14.
I found her evidence in this regard less than convincing. Similarly, the nature of her evidence about how she actually came into possession of a Somali passport was equally coy and lacking in substance:
“Ms Tobin: Now, do you know whether your family has Somalian passports, your family that are in Somalia?
Applicant: I don't think so.
Ms Tobin: You don't think so. Would they have any other kinds of identity documents living there?
Applicant: My mother, no I don't think so. My mother and brothers don't.
Ms Tobin: And is that common? I suppose if you had a passport but you family didn't - don't have passports, is that common, or - - -?
Applicant: It is very common in Somalia. People are born and die without birth certificate, without death certificate, without any forms of ID. There is no government and there is no requirement to carry any form of ID legally, and it's a place where, yes, really - no, it's not - it's not something that you will see somebody born being given a birth certificate, or somebody dying being given a death certificate, or getting a passport.
Ms Tobin: So why would you - Ms Ahmad, why would you have a passport but your family not have passports, do you know?
Applicant: I personally had a passport because I needed something to prove my nationality, and also in case I end up, for example, being captured by immigration. In one of the countries that I was crossing through at least, I will ask them to help me to talk to a Somali person or go to Somali consulate, or anything. Was just a safety - anything to prove who I am and where I'm from, basically.
Ms Tobin: So how did you get the passport?
Applicant: I actually got it when I was in Tarabulus, in Tripoli. Before that, I didn't have it, and there was a Somali consulate or Somali embassy in Tripoli.”[25]
[25]Transcript, 13, lines 27–47; 14, lines 1–6.
Perhaps the best way to approach the making of findings about the Applicant’s passport is to divide those findings into specific component parts. First, I have difficulty in accepting the Applicant adopted a relaxed approach towards, or otherwise didn’t feel compelled, to take greater care not to lose her passport after arriving in Australia. She specifically recalls having a passport in Tunisia, having it taken from her, and it being returned to her. She apparently recalls being in possession of the passport upon arrival in Australia in 2013 but then has a hazy explanation and recollection of the circumstances of the apparent loss of the passport either during her transit from Townsville to Brisbane or after she had settled in Brisbane.
Second, her evidence fails to adequately reconcile her failure to record the circumstances of the passport being taken from her in Tunisia when she was putting together her statutory declaration for the Respondent in 2020. The highest her evidence goes by way of explanation is that it “[j]ust honestly did not come to my mind” – in terms of explaining this specific aspect of the history of her passport. A possible explanation may be found in the Applicant’s evidence that she did not think it necessary or pertinent to provide any detail of the history of her passport while in Tunisia because, to use her words, “[…] it wasn’t lost […] at the time […]” A further explanation may be, again to use her words, “[…] after I came here I had my visa document which was the most important one as far as I know […]”
Third, the Applicant had great difficulty in adequately explaining the disparity between her having a Somali passport while the rest of her family did not. On the one hand she says that people are born, live and die in Somalia without having any form of identification for the term of their lives. Yet on the other hand, she says that (only) she had a passport because she “[…] needed something to prove my nationality, and also in case I end up, for example, being captured by immigration.” While difficult to understand, what the Applicant is saying here may be attributable to her story about obtaining a passport while in Tripoli. This would have been over a year after her departure from Somalia.
A more plausible explanation is that either:
(a)no Somali passport was ever obtained by the Applicant; or
(b)whatever document she may have obtained and relied on as a “passport” may well have been a document not issued with the sanction of the Somali authorities. The Applicant probably relied on this “passport” to secure her safe passage away from northern Africa to Australia and to also secure her entry into Australia. Upon securing a visa to come to Australia, the Applicant promptly disposed of the “passport” because she knew it was a document that was not genuine.
To my mind, the abovementioned inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence about the reasons and manner of the loss of that passport, and her explanations as to why only she managed to obtain a passport while her other family members never did does raise significant issues of credibility as to why she no longer holds or can produce the Somali passport she says she once held.
The Applicant’s father
The Applicant’s UNHCR Refugee Claim is dated 23 September 2011. It relevantly provides that “[u]pon arrival in Shousha camp [(on 11 March 2011)[26]] [the Applicant] called her mother and was informed that her father was killed (shot in the head) by Hawiye clan men in May 2011. She does not have many details about the circumstances of the killing but understood from her mother that […] the father ended up being shot dead.”[27]
[26]T1, 254.
[27]T1, 259.
When completing her Form 842 (Application for an Offshore Humanitarian visa) dated 2 October 2011, in response to the “your parents” question the Applicant listed the name of her mother and that she (the mother) was residing in Somalia. The Applicant recorded the name of the father as “Ibrahim Mohamed Ahmed” and that he was “deceased.”[28]
[28]T1, 285.
When being interviewed by the Australian authorities on 20 October 2011 for the issue of the visa she currently holds, the following question/answer sequence transpired:
“Are your parents still alive? Mother lives in Eelasha Biyaha, Somalia. Father was killed in May 2011”[29]
[29]T1, 270.
As part of her application for citizenship, the Applicant completed a statutory declaration on 17 May 2020. In that document, there is no mention of the father’s death in May 2011 or at any other time. Instead, she records the following in this Statutory Declaration:
“1 – Mother’s name is […] and father’s name is Ibrahim Ahmad Essa born in 1969.
[…]
Mother and father are cousins and they got together by arranged marriage. Both my parents were born in Somalia in Banaardir Region.”[30]
[30]T1, 230.
In the process of vetting her application for citizenship, the Respondent’s department sought, inter alia, an explanation[31] from the Applicant about the discrepancy arising from the recording of the father’s name as “Ibrahim Ahmad Essa” in the Statutory Declaration made on 17 May 2020 compared to “Ibrahim Mohamed Ahmed” in her abovementioned Form 842 dating from 2 October 2011.
[31]T1, 239–246.
At first blush, one could think an explanation for the discrepancy could be found in the Applicant’s Statutory Declaration of 17 May 2020 wherein she said:
“8 – In Somalia people use 3 names so my family name is my grandfather’s which is Ahmad & my father’s family name is his grandfather’s which is Essa.”[32]
[32]T1, 230.
But this is not the explanation the Applicant provided to the Respondent’s department. Instead, in her statement to the Respondent’s department dated 7 August 2020, she claimed to be “[…] not sure how the name was mistaken.” Her explanation goes no higher than pointing to a possible “[…] misunderstanding in the names.” She does not make clear who or what is responsible for this misunderstanding. It is especially difficult to allocate any measure of credibility to this asserted “misunderstanding” given her detailed explanation (in her Statutory Declaration made on 17 May 2020) of how her father’s name of “Ibrahim Ahmad Essa” was derived. This is what she said in her abovementioned explanation to the Respondent’s department on 7 August 2020:
“As you can see on my visa, drivers licence and birth certificate my father's name is Ibrahim Ahmad Essa and I'm not sure how the name was mistaken because my brother's is named Mohammed Ibrahim Ahmad so there may have been a misunderstanding in the names.”[33]
[33]T1, 249.
This lack of clarity and obfuscation was redolent in the Applicant’s oral evidence in cross-examination. Her evidence going towards and explanation of the conflicting names attributable to her father goes no higher than “[p]otentially it could be mixed up”:
“Ms Tobin: Thank you. Now, what are the names of your parents, Ms Ahmad?
Applicant: Zanab Ahmad Nohr and Ibrahim Ahmad (indistinct).
Ms Tobin: Thank you. Have they ever been known by any other names?
Applicant: No.
Ms Tobin: Would there be any reason that your parents' names would be recorded differently on documentation that relates to you?
Applicant: I don't think so unless I - I remember there was - I think maybe in the statutory declaration or in the inconsistencies they mentioned that my father at some point was documented as Mohammad but it is Ahmad, the names quickly sound similar, but also my oldest brother is called Mohammad. But my father's name Ibrahim and my older brother is called Mohammad. And my grandfather is Ahmad. I'm not sure if that Ahmad and Mohammad (indistinct).
Ms Tobin: Okay. I'm going to take you to a document, Ms Ahmad, which is an application for your humanitarian visa, and specifically to page 285 of the T documents?
Applicant: Yes.
Ms Tobin: Thank you. So this lists - at the top of that list your parents' names, and I can see here that as you've mentioned I believe your father as [sic] listed as Ibrahim Mohammad Ahmad?
Applicant: M'mm.
Ms Tobin: Do you know why this might've been the case?
Applicant: Mohammad Ibrahim. Sorry, I'm just checking Ibrahim Mohammad Ahmad. No, I honestly don't. My brother's name is Mohammad and maybe - I'm not sure if there was a mix up between asking me for my father's name and my brother's name. My brother is Mohammad Ibrahim and my father is Ibrahim Ahmad, but I also have a brother named Ahmad and I'm not sure really, because it's Ibrahim Ahmad.
Ms Tobin: Do you know if it was you that provided the information that was in this form? I know it was a long time ago, but do you remember these forms from 2011?
Applicant: Yes, I think so. I mean, I don't know who else would know all this information. I must have been asked and only I can say that maybe they misheard me and mixed Ahmad with Mohammad, I'm not sure. But it says also on my birth certificate that my father's name is Ibrahim Ahmad Esa.
Ms Tobin: Okay. So, just to clarify his full name is Ibrahim Ahmad Esa. There's no Mohammad in the name?
Applicant: No.
Ms Tobin: Okay. And you're saying that you think there might've been a mistake with your brother's name as to why that name was provided?
Applicant: Potentially it could have been mixed up. I'm not sure because I do have brothers called Mohammad and Ahmad, so that's the only thing I could think of.”[34]
[34]Transcript, 9, lines 37–47; 10, lines 1–33.
Similar problematic discrepancies can be found in another aspect of the evidence surrounding the Applicant’s father: his apparent death and claimed reappearance. When being interviewed and assessed by the Australian authorities on 20 October 2011, she said the following:
“Are your parents still alive? Mother lives in Eelasha Biyaha, Somalia. Father was killed in May 2011.
[…]
Why can’t you go back to Somali [sic]: My father was killed by the Hiwaya tribe and they are one of the majority tribes, my siblings are orphans.”[35]
[35]T1, 270–271.
In its abovementioned letter dated 8 July 2020, the Respondent’s department sought an explanation[36] from the Applicant as to why in her written and oral disclosures made in September and October 2011, she stated her father had been killed yet in her Form 80 completed on 20 May 2020, she indicated her father was alive and living in Somalia.
[36]T1, 243–244.
In her statement to the Respondent’s department dated 7 August 2020, the Applicant opaquely sought to explain this discrepancy in the evidence about her father by introducing (for the first time) her apparent incredulity and misgivings about (1) never having seen her father’s corpse and (2) also for the for the first time, introducing a narrative around the father’s apparent disappearance that he told to the family:
“My father went missing from May 2011 and we were told he was killed by Hawiye however we never seen his body which was strange and I stated that in my interview as it was an important part for them to know that this was what we heard but we never seen his body to confirm his death and later on in late 2012 he returned and told us he was wrongfully charged of theft and imprisoned then he was released when the offender was captured.”[37]
[My emphasis and underlining]
[37]T1, 249.

The Applicant’s oral evidence in cross-examination did not improve the state of the evidence surrounding the father’s apparent initial disappearance/death and eventual re-appearance. There is significant tension and inconsistency in the Applicant’s evidence about how she came to know of the father’s circumstances. In her statement to the Respondent’s department made on 7 August 2020, she said “[…] in late 2012 he returned and told us he was wrongfully charged of theft and imprisoned […]”.[38] In her oral evidence given in cross-examination, the source of the information about the father seems to vary between (1) third parties informing the family about the father’s death (in 2012),[39] and (2) the Applicant (in or about August 2013) contacting her mother in Somalia and being told certain things about the father.[40]
[38]T1, 249.
[39]See Transcript, 22, lines 10–19.
[40]See Transcript, 22, lines 31–40.
The further concerning discrepancy about the evidence surrounding the father is this: the Applicant is “pretty sure” her mother told her about her father’s apparent re-appearance during a telephone call with her in August 2013. Yet in her statement to the Respondent’s department made on 7 August 2020, she says the father himself returned to the family “in late 2012” and that he explained his disappearance and re-appearance to the family. The following passage of the Transcript, to my mind, fulsomely bears out these concerning discrepancies about the Applicant’s evidence concerning her father:
“Ms Tobin: And how did she find out that your father was still alive, do you know?
Applicant: I believe she said that he returned home, and when they asked him, "What happened? Where have you been all this time," he was saying that he was wrongfully imprisoned for a crime that he didn't do, and the person that was responsible was captured and that he was imprisoned, and he was unable to get in touch with us.
Ms Tobin: Thank you. Did you tell the Department at all when you found out that your father was still alive?
Applicant: When I came to Australia, I didn't know who to talk to.
Ms Tobin: Okay. Are you still in contact with your mother in Somalia, Ms Ahmad?
Applicant: Yes, I do talk to her.
Ms Tobin: Now, she hasn't provided a statement in support of your current application, has she?
Applicant: No.
Ms Tobin: Do you have any other, I suppose, evidence that you could have provided about your father today?
Applicant: Honestly, no, and if I can just remove him completely from my application and my entire life, I would. I have no relationship with him. He wasn't the best father, and I - it was just a - it was just - yes, it wasn't the best - I just don't have a good relationship with him and I just wish I can just remove him completely and just denounce him and say I - I don't want to be his daughter. I don't want to be associates with him, and just live my life without the trouble and this heartache that he has given me.
Ms Tobin: Are you still in contact with any of your other family members in Somalia? You have said you're in contact with your mother?
Applicant: Yes, I talk to my siblings every now and then.
Ms Tobin: And they haven't provided statements in support of your current application either?
Applicant: They haven't because I wasn't sure if their statement is credible, if it is important, if it is something that has any value or weight to it, and my mum cannot read or write actually, so I don't - I don't know if I - I didn't think that this will help or make any difference.
Ms Tobin: Okay. Do you think your siblings would be able to back up what you're saying about your time before coming to Australia?
Applicant: Can you repeat that question again?
Ms Tobin: Do you think that your siblings would be able to support what you're saying about your time prior to coming to Australia?
Applicant: Yes, they can. If they are asked, if they need to write a statement, yes.
Ms Tobin: Okay. Now, just a few more questions, Ms Ahmad, if you're happy to bear with me?
Applicant: Sure.
Ms Tobin: You have talked about the fact you used to hold a Somalian passport and you lost it in Australia. You have also said today that you did try to contact the Somalian consulate about it. Do you have any evidence of trying to contact them to get - to get a passport?
Applicant: Yes, I have phone calls. Like, I tried to call them multiple times, so I have that.”[41]
[41]Transcript, 21, lines 42–45; 22, lines 1–47.
There is nothing in the oral or written material dating from the time of her Refugee and Humanitarian Subclass 200 visa application in September/October 2011 indicating anything about the family not having seen the father’s corpse. There is no corroborative evidence about the father’s claimed circumstances. The Tribunal has no way of verifying he was (as claimed) (1) falsely imprisoned; (2) later released; or (3) that someone else was apprehended and punished for the wrongdoing alleged against the father.
While it may be a stretch to expect the Applicant to produce relevant records from the Somali government apparatus, one would expect a statement from the father would resolve this aspect of the Applicant’s evidence once-and-for-all. No such statement from the father is produced. Nor can the Applicant reasonably say the tyranny of distance precludes her from obtaining such a statement, however rudimentary. We know from her own evidence that the Applicant remains in telephonic contact with her family in Somalia.
The Applicant fails to explain the discrepancy between the dates on which she claims to have learnt about the father’s destiny. If she became aware he was alive “in late 2012” one wonders why she said nothing to the Respondent’s department in circumstances where her visa application was still being processed at that time. If she became aware he was still alive in “August 2013” (when she telephoned her mother) there is an available inference that she deliberately adopted this latter date because it post-dates the grant of her visa on 2 July 2013 and would thus cast her evidence in a more favourable light.
Put at its highest, the state of the evidence about the identity of the Applicant’s father is opaque. The state of that evidence must, by implication, extend to the Applicant’s purported explanation about his apparent death and subsequent re-appearance.
The arranged marriage in Somalia
The circumstances of the Applicant’s departure from Somalia are not clear from the evidence. The primary factor seemingly motivating her departure appeared to be a pending arranged marriage in which she did not want to be involved. The primary conflict in the evidence on this point revolves around whether the compulsion to involve the Applicant in an arranged marriage came from her mother or her father.
When being interviewed by the UNHCR on 23 September 2011, the Applicant was questioned about whether she held any fear of persecution in the event of her return to Somalia. She spoke of (1) her mother forcing her into a marriage and (2) the proposed husband forcibly marrying her seemingly against the Applicant’s will:
“Subjective fear
The [Applicant] is unwilling to return to Somalia as she fears that her mother would force her to marry her father’s older friend, as they are a very poor family and need money very badly. She also fears that Farah, her father’s friend would kidnap her and marry her forcibly should he return to her home country.”[42]
[42]T1, 259.
Approximately one month later, on 20 October 2011, in the course of an interview with Australian authorities, the Applicant’s story about an arranged marriage contained a new protagonist: her father. Further to that, her story now changed to suggest her mother was “not” supportive of this arranged marriage and, instead, the father was now trying to “force me to marry an older man who was already married.” This is what the Australian authorities recorded when they interviewed the Applicant on 20 October 2011:
“Can you tell me why you left Somalia?
[…] The country is violent and I am the only daughter. My mother was afraid I would be raped or harmed. My father tried to force me to marry another od,er [sic] man who was already married. My father thought he would get some money from this man if he married me to him. For these reason and to help them Financially [sic]
[…]
Did your mother support the wedding: No she didn’t like it but she was afraid of my father”[43]
[My underlining]
[43]T1, 270.
This conflict in the Applicant’s evidence was not resolved in her oral evidence before me. She seemed to have various versions of who was motivating the marriage. She initially said it was arranged by her father. She then said her mother was “obviously […] in on it.” She then said “they were both trying to arrange the marriage”:
“Ms Tobin: Would you have ever told anybody that it had been arranged by somebody else?
Applicant: I can't recall. Obviously, my mum was in on it. I mean, she wasn't happy with it but she also did not say no, so I guess it was arranged by family, but I could say that it was my father, the head of the family, that made the decision.
Ms Tobin: Now, I believe, Ms Ahmad, in the information that you provided to the UNHCR in Tunisia, at - and there's - some of that information is in the T document as part of your resettlement registration form. At 259 there's some information about that arranged marriage, page 259 of the T documents, and about halfway down the page, it says:
The PRA -
Which is you -
is unwilling to return to Somalia, as she fears that her mother would force her to marry her father's older friend.
Do you think - is there any reason why your father isn't mentioned here?
Applicant: No, no reason. As I said, they were both my parents. They were both trying to arrange the marriage, and my mum would follow anything my father says, and he was the person who introduced this person to our lives, or introduced it to - the idea to my mother and she went along with it, so - and even, yes, if I have stayed, I don't think she would be supporting me or trying to help me in any way. She will also be part of this process of forced arranged marriage which is very common in my country.
Ms Tobin: Okay. So they seem like slightly different versions of events that you have mentioned, your mother, but - but also your father. Do you have anything to say about that, why some of the information refers to one and some refers to the other?
Applicant: Well, both the - both of them were responsible for this, and when I mentioned my father, that was true, and when I mentioned my mother, that was true as well. And I just - when you are answering these questions and you're asked once and twice and three and 12 years later, like I'm talking to you now, I don't answer exactly the same - with the same wording, because both of my parents were going to force me anyway regardless. So yes, my mother was forcing me and my dad too, so it was both, and I answered in - in different questions that I was - my mother and father, and it truly was.”[44]
[44]Transcript, 15, lines 22–47; 16, lines 1–14.
As noted by the Respondent,[45] the Applicant was providing this evidence about an arranged marriage as part of a claim to fear harm and persecution upon a return to Somalia. This claimed arranged marriage was provided by the Applicant in the context of a “subjective fear” of harm. It is extraordinary that in seeking to base a fear of harm on something as subjective as a marriage involving herself, she could not consistently provide detail around the motivating source(s) for that marriage.
[45]R1, [46].
The further point of tension in the Applicant’s evidence about the claimed arranged marriage arises from her inconsistent recollection of the prospective husband’s name. The written evidence evolves thus. First, in her engagement with the UNHCR authorities on 23 September 2011, she told them the prospective groom’s name was “Farah”.[46] Second, when being interviewed by the Australian authorities on 20 October 2011, the following exchange transpired: “[w]ho was the man you were to be married to: I don’t know his name. Did you meet him: Once he came to my home.”[47]
[46]T1, 258.
[47]T1, 270.
Third, in her Statutory Declaration made on 17 May 2020, the Applicant said:
“12 - I escaped from arranged marriage to an older man who is also from our clan & already had wives and kids but my parents needed money &. he promised them he will give them what they need so I ran.”[48]
[Errors in original]
[48]T1, 230.
Fourth, in their abovementioned letter to the Applicant dated 8 July 2020, the Respondent’s department noted the preceding three evolutionary steps to which I have referred and noted, “[…] you appear to have provided inconsistent information regarding the person your father wanted you to marry and whether you knew him or not.”[49]
[49]T1, 244.
By way of explanation, the Applicant told the Respondent’s department the following in her letter of 7 August 2020:
“When I was asked for the name of the man that my parents wanted me to marry I may have thought that I was asked for his family name which till this day I don't know and I only knew his first name which is Farah and we call it in Somali (Faarax) and I only met him once or twice and didn't know him well.”[50]
[50]T1, 249.
The Respondent accepts the Applicant may not necessarily have known the family name of the proposed groom. As do I. That said, the Applicant was nevertheless on notice to “[…] provide an extensive and detailed explanation of [her] life story” by virtue of the Respondent department’s letter to her of 24 April 2020.[51] It is thus difficult for the Applicant to escape a finding of inconsistency and unreliability about the further point of tension in her evidence relating to the name of the proposed husband.
[51]T1, 186–187.
This evidentiary tension is not resolved by the Applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing before me. In cross-examination, she was asked how she met the proposed husband. She said this:
“Ms Tobin: You had been arranged to marry someone, hadn't you?
Applicant: Correct.
Ms Tobin: And what was his name?
Applicant: Farah.
Ms Tobin: And had you met him?
Applicant: Yes, I met him, but not - just out in public, not in our house or, like, me being with him in the same room. Just outside.
Ms Tobin: Were you introduced to him when you met him?
Applicant: No, I wasn't introduced to him.
Ms Tobin: So did you - how did you meet him then?
Applicant: My family and my dad knew him. Normally men and women don't - like, they're not together in the same area normally, and he was someone that my dad knew. He was a friend of my dad, and it was just an arranged marriage. Normally parents don't even ask women or young people, the young women for choice or if they are happy with it or anything like that.”[52]
[52]Transcript, 14, lines 14–29.
This evidence is in direct conflict with what she told the Australian authorities who interviewed her on 20 October 2011. There, she was asked: “Did you meet him?”, to which she replied, “Once he came to my home.”
When pressed in cross-examination about her telling the Australian authorities (on 20 October 2011) that she did not know the proposed husband’s name, she introduced the elements of “stress”, “anxiety”, and a “blanked” mind as reasons for this inconsistency in her evidence:
“Ms Tobin: So I know that in that initial visa interview you said you didn't know his name. Did you - did you think to provide his first name?
Applicant: No, I thought - it didn't - when I look at it back now, I think maybe I thought they were asking me for his family name or full name, which I didn't know, but also, as I said, I was under a lot of stress and I was very anxious, and maybe my - my mind blanked and I just didn't even think of saying his first name at least. That's the only thing I knew but I didn't even think maybe of saying that.”[53]
[53]Transcript, 15, lines 1–7.
Having regard to the nature and totality of the evidence about the claimed forced marriage, I am of the view that the two specific points of tension in the evidence – (1) the motivator of that marriage; and (2) the name and identity of the proposed spouse – remain live and unresolved. Those points of unresolved tension, in turn, cast doubt on the entirety of the Applicant’s story about this claimed arranged marriage and its propounded status as one of the reasons motivating her to leave Somalia.
The Applicant’s departure dates from Somalia and her travel history
I will deal first with inconsistencies in the evidence about the Applicant’s travel dates. In its SFIC, the Respondent has tabulated the Applicant’s travel history as it has been variously disclosed in specific documents appearing in the material.[54] It suffices to say the Respondent propounds four separate departure dates (from Somalia): (1) “After June 2009”; (2) “July 2009”; (3) “September 2009”; and (4) “1 May 2010”.
[54]R1, [51].
It is critically important to note that the material contains not one, but two Form 80 documents (Personal Particulars for Character Assessment). First, there is reference in the material to a Form 80 that is undated.[55] This first Form 80 is immediately preceded by some departmental records titled “Migration Record Case Dump”.[56] On the second page of this latter document,[57] there is an entry containing the following details:
[55]See T1, 416–423.
[56]See T1, 393–415.
[57]T1, 394.

Req Description

How

Sts

Exc

Status Date

PP Personal Particulars -80

DOC

A

–

20/03/13

DOC

A

–

08/01/12

DOC

Z

–

30/10/11

The last date recorded in the table having reference to this first Form 80 is 20 March 2013. The Applicant was granted her current visa on 2 July 2013.[58] I therefore conclude that this Form 80 was completed and lodged with the Respondent’s department in or before March 2013, approximately four months before the Applicant was granted her visa.
[58]See T1, 253.
Question 21 of this first Form 80 is put thus:
“Previous addresses of the places where you have lived during the last 10 years (including Australia). You must account for every year. If you are unable to provide an address for any period of time please provide an explanation.”[59]
[59]T1, 420.
Immediately beneath Question 21 is a table for completion by an applicant. This is how the person assisting the Applicant completed this table beneath Question 21:

From
(Month / Year)

To
(Month / Year)

Country

Address

/ 2

QATAR

Somalia

Ethiopia

Mogadishu

Addis Ababa

Sudan

/ 2009

/ 2011

Tripoli –> Tunisia

Second, the Material contains reference to a subsequent Form 80.[60] This second Form 80 is dated 17 May 2020 and was completed and lodged with the Respondent’s department as part of the Applicant’s application for citizenship. Part E of this second Form 80 is titled “International/Movements”. Beneath that heading, there is the following narrative:
“18 Have you travelled to any country other than Australia in the last 10 years?
Note: If you are applying for a refugee/humanitarian visa, you must provide all visits to any country other than Australia for the last 30 years.”[61]
[My underlining]
[60]T1, 211–229.
[61]T1, 214.
When the Applicant completed and lodged this second Form 80 (17 May 2020), she did so as part of an application for citizenship. She did not do so as part of an application for a refugee/humanitarian visa because this visa had already been granted to her in July 2013.
In its letter of 8 July 2020, the Respondent’s department noted the variously stated departure dates The Respondent raised the dates with the Applicant by connecting those dates to claimed events or circumstances the Applicant says happened on those dates, and suggested the Applicant had given inconsistent information:
“Your journey from Somalia
In you subclass 200 visa application, you stated that you travelled from your home country Somalia, to Ethiopia, Sudan, Libya and finally at arriving at Shousha Transit camp in Tunisia on 11 March 2011. According to your life story submitted through UNHCR, you departed Somalia around September 2009. At your interview, you marriage was organised for June 2009 and you departed shortly after. In your statutory declaration, you stated you departed in Somalia in July 2009.”[62]
[Errors in original]
[62]T1, 244.

As I understood the letter from the Respondent’s department dated 8 July 2020, the “inconsistency” propounded by the delegate relates to (1) the actual month in 2009 in which the Applicant left Somalia and (2) the year the Applicant left Somalia – specifically whether it is 2009 or 2010. This, in turn, produces four different departure dates from Somalia, they being, June 2009, July 2009, September 2009 and May 2010.
In her letter of 7 August 2020, the Applicant sought to explain the asserted inconsistencies in her documents about the date of her departure from Somalia. The collection of dates is curiously – and perhaps unreliably – described. The September 2009 and July 2009 dates are said to have occurred because the Applicant “truly forgot what month” it might have been. There is reference to the Applicant consulting her mother about these two dates. Her mother apparently “confirmed” the Applicant was “mistaken” about the actual month of her departure from Somalia in 2009. The balance of the inconsistencies are sought to be explained on the basis of the Applicant not fully understanding the question and of her having the impression that only a “basic explanation” was required as opposed to an “exact date”:
·“I left my home and my family in September 2009 and I truly forgot what month and assumed it was roughly in July but I asked my mother recently and she confirmed I was mistaken and it was mostly likely in September that I left.
·When I wrote my movements in the last 10 years for form 80 question 18 I didn't fully understand the question and when I wrote (Left home country) I thought it was basic explanation and reason as to why I was in Libya and not about exact date itself.”[63]
[63]T1, 249.
The “form 80 question 18” referred to in the immediately preceding dot-point can only be a reference to second Form 80 – that is, the one that the Applicant filled out as part of her application for citizenship.
This assertion of inconsistency based upon four separate departure dates from Somalia (June, July and September 2009 plus May 2010) was pursued by the Respondent’s representative in cross-examination. In response, the Applicant gave broadly identical evidence to what she submitted in writing to the Respondent’s department:
“Ms Tobin: Now, you have already given some evidence today about the different dates that you said you left Somalia, and you have provided different sets of dates, and looking at those dates, they range from about June 2009 to May 2010. Now, these dates are inconsistent, aren't they?
Applicant: I did not say June 2009. I said July, I remember, and then I was corrected by my mother and it - and I realised it was in September. There was a question in the Form 80 that they ask me what I was doing or where I was in the last 10 years, and I calculated it. I - when I calculated that - I didn't realise that they wanted to put it to the month, to the year, to the date, and they put May somehow, or they said, "Based on the calculation what you have given us, I believe" - this is what I recall - "in the last 10 years you have been in Somalia or left Somalia in May". I never said I left Somalia in May, but it was due to miscalculation with the timeline of where I spent, I believe, last - last 10 years. I need to go back to the question in Form 80 because I remember it was a very confusing question and I didn't get it.”[64]
[64]Transcript, 16, lines 26–40.
The Applicant was taken to the specific question in the Form 80 (ie, the second Form 80) said to have caused her confusion.[65]
[65]See quoted portion at [‎70], above.
This question includes a series of dot-pointed reasons a person may have had cause to visit another country (other than Australia) in the course of the preceding 30 years. They include: work or study; holiday/leisure trips; business; military deployment; and visits back to the person’s country of origin. In answering this question, in the form 80, the Applicant gave two responses:[66]
[66]See T1, 214.

Date from Date to Reason for visit Country

11/3/2011 11/8/2013 Refugee Camp Tunisia

1/5/2010 11/3/2011 Left home country Libya

The Applicant accepted that contrary to what was put to her in cross-examination, she did not enter Libya on 1 May 2010 and that this date is incorrect. She sought to explain this error on some kind of temporal basis such that the question had led her to believe she only needed to record her travel arrangements for the 10 years backwards from the time she was completing the Form 80, that is, 17 May 2020:
“Ms Tobin: And what you're saying is that May date is not correct; is that right, Ms Ahmad?
Applicant: No, no, it's not correct. So I put the date 1 May to July - sorry, March 2011, as in in the last 10 years, where I was and the reason why I - I was in those countries, and I put, "Left home country," and I was in Libya, but I didn't realise that this is the question as to when I left home, because I didn't put when I left home and I just was calculating the last 10 years and where I was […]”[67]
[67]Transcript, 17, lines 15–21.
She was then taken to her Statutory Declaration made on 17 May 2020 that accompanied her completed Form 80. In that Statutory Declaration, the Applicant said:
“13- I didn’t have any formal employment before coming to Australia and in July 2009 when I was 18 I used everything I saved and sold my only goat to start my journey by car to Ethiopia and by both car and walk to cross the border of Sudan shortly after. I entered Libya through the desert by going with a large group of people in a lorry in late 2009 and stayed in Tripoli for about a year and a half. […]”[68]
[68]T1, 231.
In cross-examination, the Applicant was asked about which of the two recorded dates about her entry into Libya was correct: May 2010 or late 2009:
“Ms Tobin: So which - Ms Ahmad, which version of the dates is the right one? Is it the one in the Form 80, May 2010 arriving in Libya, or is it leaving in July 2009 and entering Libya in late 2009, in the declaration?
Applicant: So May is definitely incorrect. May was a mistake, because I was just calculating where I was in the last 10 years, and I did put in my statutory declaration the reason why I made the mistake. I am just trying to find that. I could be wrong. I can't seem to find it. So May was not the date I left and it wasn't - the - the question - the question wording was confusing for me and I just was trying to confirm between May 2020 to May 2010 in the last 10 years where I was, but that was not how I understood the question, 1 May 2010 being the date that I left home, which is not the case.”[69]
[69]Transcript, 17, lines 38–46; 18, lines 1–2.
In order to properly analyse the totality of the Applicant’s evidence – and any asserted inconsistency in that evidence about when she left Somalia – it is necessary to have regard to the totality of the information recorded by the Applicant in both Form 80s. In the first Form 80, she recorded every single country she had lived in during the preceding 10 years. The Respondent listed those countries from Qatar onwards. To repeat, the first Form 80 was completed in relation to the Applicant’s application for a humanitarian visa. The Applicant went beyond what was required on the first Form 80 and listed every single country in which she had lived up until that point of her life.[70]
[70]See [‎66]–[‎67], above.
The second Form 80 was completed in relation to the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship. In completing that second Form 80, the Applicant was only required to respond to the question “Have you travelled to any other country other than Australia in the last 10 years?” This is exactly how the Applicant completed the second Form 80. She was completing the Form 80 in May 2020. She went back the mandated 10 years and effectively asked herself “where was I 10 years ago?” She recorded “1/5/2010 – 11/3/2011 […] Libya”. What she means in this answer is that as at May 2010, she was in Libya. She does not mean that in May 2010 she left Somalia and went to Libya. Accordingly, I am of the view that to proceed on the basis that there are four separate departure dates from Somalia is to misconceive the evidence.
In her first Form 80 the Applicant was told to provide: “Previous addresses of the places where you have lived during the last 10 years […]. You must account for every year.” The Applicant was applying for (and was ultimately granted) a “Refugee and Humanitarian (Subclass 200) visa”. She listed all of the countries in which she had resided for the totality of her life to that point. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest otherwise.
The next component of this heading relates to the Applicant’s travel history after departing Somalia. In the second Form 80, the Applicant declared to the Respondent’s department that after leaving Somalia, she travelled to Tunisia and Libya. Yet in her oral evidence at the hearing, she said that in addition to Tunisia and Libya, she travelled to Ethiopia and then Sudan.[71] Her explanation for failing to mention her passage through Ethiopia and Libya was again based on the temporal nature of the question – that is, the requirement in the second Form 80 that she go back 10 years from the date she was filling out the form. This is what the Applicant did. Further, there is no mystery about where the Applicant was prior to 1 May 2010. She tells us where she was prior to that time in the first Form 80.
[71]This was also noted by the Respondent’s department: See T1, 244, bottom three lines.
Thus, the sequence of countries in which she lived after leaving Somalia can be stated thus: (1) Somalia, then (2) Ethiopia, then (3) Sudan, then (4) Libya, then (5) Shousha Transit Camp, in Tunisia. From there, the Applicant came to Australia. This is what is sustainably revealed in her (1) UNHCR Resettlement Registration Form; (2) her interview with the Australian authorities at the Shousha Transit camp; (3) and in her statutory declaration made on 17 May 2020. Although it may be a small point, even a cursory perusal of a map of Africa reveals that the above travel sequence is both linear and plausible.
My apprehension is that the cross-examination of the Applicant proceeded on the basis of the cross-examiner only knowing about the second Form 80 completed in May 2020, and incorrectly assuming it was completed in relation to the Applicant’s refugee visa application. Accordingly, a number of the questions put to the Applicant in cross-examination were, to my mind, and with respect, put on these misconceptions:
“Ms Tobin: Okay. And now, you travelled to a number of countries after you left Somalia, didn't you?
Applicant: M'mm.
Ms Tobin: Are you able to recall today which countries you went to?
Applicant: Yes. So Ethiopia, and then after that, Sudan, and then after that, Libya, and then I ended up in Tunisia in Choucha Camp.
Ms Tobin: Now, in the information that you have provided to the Department, you haven't always declared all of these countries, have you?
Applicant: I'm pretty sure I did.
Ms Tobin: Taking you, Ms Ahmad, back to that Form 80, if you will bear with me. So that's at page 214. You have listed the countries other than Australia travelled to as Tunisia and Libya, but you didn't list Ethiopia and Sudan. Do you know what the reason was for that?
Applicant: Yes. Two-fourteen. Okay. Well, I had it here. Hold on a sec. Yes. Okay. Yes. The reason was I was answering for the question where I was in the last 10 years, and in the last 10 years, I was in Libya, Sudan - sorry, Libya, Tunisia and Australia, but the other countries was before 10 - the last 10 years. So I - I thought that they only wanted me to know where I have been in the last 10 years, which is these countries.
Ms Tobin: I can see that question talks about if you're applying for a refugee or humanitarian visa that you need to provide all visits to any country other than Australia for the last 30 years?
Applicant: It says here:
Have you travelled to any other country other than Australia in the last 10 years?
So I put - the way I understood it was where I had been in the last 10 years, and in the last 10 years, I was in Libya, and the reason I was in Libya, because I left home, and I was in Tunisia because I was in a refugee camp. This is how I understood the question. I prepared this form by myself and - and English is not my first language, but I actually - the last 10 years, that's how the question is. Yes, I was in the last 10 years in those places only. Yes.”[72]
[72]Transcript, 18, lines 21–45; 19, lines 1–9.
It is plain that the cross-examination is predicated upon a singular Form 80 that being the one at page 214 of the T Documents. This is where the second Form 80 is located. I have already made a finding that about the temporal issue relating to the Applicant having to go back 10 years in the second Form 80. The abovementioned questions she was asked in cross-examination about not mentioning other countries apart from Libya and Tunisia (in the second Form 80) is squarely answered by reference to the list of countries provided by the Applicant in her first Form 80 and in the additional material to which I have specifically referred at [‎86].
During re-examination, inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence about the date of her departure from Somalia was sought to be explained on the basis of (1) the temporal reason of being under the impression of only having to go back 10 years (in the second Form 80); (2) her being “pretty sure” she had mentioned other countries in this Form 80; and (3) the Form 80 was “a very large form” in which there were “[…] many, many questions.”[73]
[73]See generally, Transcript, 25, lines 22–47; 26, lines 1–31.
The temporal point was fairly made by the Applicant’s representative during re-examination. There is credibility in the Applicant’s evidence of her being “pretty sure” she had mentioned other countries in “the Form 80”. The critical point is that the Applicant had mentioned those other countries but that she had done so in the first Form 80 as well as in a statutory declaration which she signed and sent to the department on the same day as she sent the second Form 80. She subsequently confirmed those other countries (i.e. in addition to Libya and Tunisia) in the abovementioned additional documents I have specifically referred to at [‎86].
Boiled down to its essentials, this component of the evidence (i.e. “The Applicant’s departure dates from Somalia and her travel history”) goes no further than an inconsistency about whether the Applicant left Somalia in any of June, July or September 2009. While she sought to give some kind of explanatory and ameliorative evidence about this inconsistency, it is not, to my mind, unreasonable or necessarily fatal for present purposes, for a relatively young, unsophisticated and unsupported person travelling unassisted to mis-record their departure time from Somalia by a factor of no more than three–four months.
The Applicant’s education
The Applicant’s life story contains some additional inconsistency arising from her variously-stated levels of completed education. The Respondent’s SFIC contains a tabulated version of her education history.[74] It contends that the Applicant has given three different answers to education history questions: (1) she has never attended school;[75] (2) she was placed into grade 6 and left school before finishing grade 10;[76] and (3) she can provide no record of any primary or secondary schooling at all prior to her arrival in Australia.[77]
[74]See R1, 15[60].
[75]T1, 257.
[76]T1, 230.
[77]T1, 216.
The abovementioned third item referred to in the Respondent’s tabulation is, to my mind, misconceived and most probably incorrect. The misconception is best understood by quoting the relevant portion of the second Form 80 upon which reliance is placed to propound inaccuracy or inconsistency in this answer:
“Part G – Education
20 Give details of all tertiary education and qualifications
Education/qualifications includes:
* College/vocational schools
* University
* Research/thesis
* Specialist training
* Skill/trade qualifications
Note: If you are applying for a Refugee and Humanitarian visa, you must provide details of all education and qualifications since birth.”[78]
[My underlining]
[78]T1, 214.
In this part of the second Form 80, the Applicant has specifically recorded certain tertiary / post-schooling qualifications obtained in 2014 and 2015 in Australia. The Respondent propounds that the Applicant has not said anything about her education prior to coming to Australia because, says the Respondent, she was required by the second Form 80 to have told the Respondent’s department about her education “since birth”. The reality is that the Applicant is not required to do any such thing on this second Form 80. This is because the second Form 80 does not relate to an application for a refugee and humanitarian visa. It relates to an application for citizenship. Therein lies the misconception. Therefore, the Applicant has not given three separate versions of her secondary schooling prior to arrival in Australia. The remaining two versions appear, at first blush, to be inconsistent.
In its abovementioned response (dated 8 July 2020) to the second Form 80 completed by the Applicant, the Respondent’s department brought these apparent inconsistencies to the Applicant’s attention:
“Your education
In your subclass 200 visa application, it was stated that you had never attended school. In your statutory declaration you stated ‘I did an evaluation test and was placed in Grade six when I was 13 and left public school called Iftiin before finishing grade 10’. In the Form 80, you did not provide any educational history prior to your arrival in Australia. You appear to have provided inconsistent information regarding your educational history.”[79]
[79]T1, 245.
It is important to point out that my finding about the second Form 80 not compelling the Applicant to provide her early education history (ie primary/secondary school) does not absolve her from explaining the inconsistency between what appears in the UNHCR resettlement registration form dating from 2011 and what she said in her statutory declaration dating from May 2020. This inconsistency can only be resolved, one way or the other, by recourse to her written and oral evidence.
As a precursor to understanding the remaining two statements by the Applicant apparently giving rise to inconsistency in her life story regarding her education, it is necessary to first endeavour to understand what the Respondent’s department was getting at in its letter dated 8 July 2020 (see quoted portion thereof at [‎95], above). The first sentence of the above-quoted paragraph is, “In your subclass 200 visa application, it was stated that you had never attended school”. I comprehend the phrase “your subclass 200 visa application” to comprise the entire contents of the department’s file before the Respondent’s department at the time of the Applicant’s application for her visa. This is surely the case because in the same letter under the heading “Relevant Information”, the Department does, at the first bullet point, clearly define what “your subclass 200 visa application” means. [80]
[80]See T1, 239.
Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the remaining two inconsistencies in the Applicant’s education history. The inconsistency is this: the UNHCR’s “Resettlement Registration Form” dating from 2011 records that the Applicant “[…] has never attended school.”[81] In her statutory declaration made on 17 May 2020 and lodged in response to the Respondent’s department’s email of 24 April 2020,[82] the Applicant said “I did evaluation test and was placed in grade six when I was 13 and left public school called Iftiin before finishing grade 10.”[83]
[81]T1, 257.
[82]See T1, 186–209.
[83]T1, 230.

While perhaps not rising to the same level of objective inconsistency as her evidence relating to previous aspects of her life story, there are, nevertheless, inconsistencies in the Applicant’s associations while in transit to, and while living at the Shousha Transit Camp. They may be stated thus:
·the UNHCR Resettlement Form (dating from 23 September 2011) records the Applicant arriving at the Shousha Transit Camp on 11 March 2011;[103]
[103]T1, 258 (bottom dot-point and fourth dot-point from bottom).
·this same Form records that as at 23 September 2011, the Applicant is “[…] currently living in Shousha Transit Camp, with another single young Somali woman named Neima.”[104]
·in her Statutory Declaration made on 20 May 2020, the Applicant said:
o“16- In the refugee camp called Shousha I use to live by myself in a tent.”[105]
·in her letter to the Respondent’s department dated 7 August 2020, the Applicant said:
o“in the beginning of the refugee camp, I was placed with a woman named Neima but shortly after I lived alone and was on my own for the rest of my stay.”[106]
·in her evidence in cross-examination, the Applicant said that when she first went to the Shousha Transit Camp “I lived with a lady called Nyema in the beginning, but then we didn’t get along and I ended up and moving with my – by myself in my own tent.”[107]
[104]T1, 264.
[105]T1, 231.
[106]T1, 250.
[107]Transcript, 21, lines 22–24.
There is thus inconsistency between the UNHCR resettlement form which notes the Applicant was living with Neima as at 23 September 2011 and the Applicant’s evidence contained in (1) her statutory declaration made in May 2020 where she says she used to live by herself with no mention of Neima; (2) her letter to the Respondent’s department of 7 May 2020 where she accepts she lived with Neima but only “in the beginning” after arriving at the camp in March 2011; and (3) her oral evidence in cross-examination where she repeated that she only lived with Neima at the camp “in the beginning.” If the Applicant was living with Neima from March 2011, and still living with Neima in September 2011, that is a period of nearly 6 months.
While not necessarily fundamental to her identity, there remains, to my mind, an unexplained lack of credibility in the Applicant’s introduction of further identities during this period in the form of “Fatima”, “Falihan” (also referred to as “Faleexan” in the material) and “Priya”. She offers “no specific reason”[108] for introducing these further associates during her oral evidence at the hearing other than to say “[…] in a four-year journey between age 18 and until 22, I met many people, […]”[109]
Some further aspects of the Applicant’s evidence
[108]Transcript, 21, line 30.
[109]Transcript, 21, lines 36–37.
The absence of corroborative statements from members of her family in Somalia
Towards the end of her cross-examination, the Applicant was asked about the absence of any supportive or corroborative evidence from members of her family. She agreed that she remained in contact with her mother while at the same time conceding the mother had not provided any statement in support of her application for citizenship. She added that:
“[…] my Mum cannot read or write actually, so I don’t […] know […] I didn’t think that this will help or make any difference.”[110]
[110]Transcript, 23, lines 28–30.
Her evidence about the lack of any supportive statement from her father was more forthright. Her memories of her father are clearly tinged with bitterness and a desire to renounce any connection between them:
“Ms Tobin: Do you have any other, I suppose, evidence that you could have provided about your father today?
Applicant: Honestly, no, and if I can just remove him completely from my application and my entire life, I would. I have no relationship with him. He wasn't the best father, and I - it was just a - it was just - yes, it wasn't the best - I just don't have a good relationship with him and I just wish I can just remove him completely and just denounce him and say I - I don't want to be his daughter. I don't want to be associates with him, and just live my life without the trouble and this heartache that he has given me.”[111]
[111]Transcript, 23, lines 12–20.
With reference to whether she maintained any level of contact with her siblings, the Applicant was asked whether those siblings could support or corroborate her version of her life story prior to Australia. In response, she said “Yes, they can. If they are asked, if they need to write a statement, yes.”[112]
[112]Transcript, 23, lines 37–38.
When pressed about why the siblings had not provided any corroborative statement, the highest the Applicant’s evidence went was as follows:
“They [the siblings] haven't [provided any corroborative statements] because I wasn't sure if their statement is credible, if it is important, if it is something that has any value or weight to it, […] I don't know if I - I didn't think that this will help or make any difference.”[113]
[113]Transcript, 23, lines 27–30.
The Applicant’s efforts to replace her lost Somali passport
The Applicant was taken to her evidence about the Somali passport she lost after her arrival in Australia. In particular, she was asked about what, if any, steps she had taken to replace the lost passport with a new one. The Applicant spoke of multiple attempts to contact the Somali consulate, with no apparent response from that consulate. She also spoke of receiving information that one needs to be physically in Somalia in order to receive a Somali passport:
“Ms Tobin: You have talked about the fact you used to hold a Somalian passport and you lost it in Australia. You have also said today that you did try to contact the Somalian consulate about it. Do you have any evidence of trying to contact them to get - to get a passport?
Applicant: Yes, I have phone calls. Like, I tried to call them multiple times, so I have that.
Ms Tobin: And you have said that your family told you you have to be in Somalia to get a passport?
Applicant: Yes, the - yes, they told me you have to be there to take it. They can't produce it if I'm not there. That's what they were told, at least.
Ms Tobin: Do you know who told them that?
Applicant: I believe the government, or the passport office.”[114]
[114]Transcript, 23, lines 43–47; 24, lines 1–7.
The Applicant then gave evidence of an apparent three-way narrative between her mother, the passport office in Somalia, and herself about a failed attempt to secure a new or replacement passport. This apparent attempt produced nothing and it remains unsubstantiated by either the Applicant’s mother or any competent Somali government source:
“Ms Tobin: Did you try to contact the government in Somalia yourself?
Applicant: No, but my mum was in the passport office at some point and I talked to them. I said, "Mum, can you give me the phone and I can speak with them," and I said, "Hi, is there is a way if I provide you with my birth certificate to be able to produce this passport? This is my mother. I am Somali. I'm speaking Somali. My family live here. There is no, like, question about me being Somali, so - and I have the document to prove it. Can you please help my mother somehow find a way to obtain a Somali passport," and they said no, they need my fingerprints and they need eye scan, something, and they said that's the only way.
Ms Tobin: Ms Ahmad, why haven't you provided any evidence from - from your mother or from your family that they tried to help you with the passport?
Applicant: I didn't know that I needed to do that, and the only thing that they did is go into the passport office”[115]
[115]Transcript, 24, lines 9–23.
The Applicant then spoke of taking up the cudgels herself and by making her own endeavours – within or near Australia – to secure a replacement passport. She spoke of conducting her own Google-based research about obtaining a replacement passport. All of these apparent attempts proved futile. There is no evidence of any Google (or other) research in the material. There is no evidence of a logged phone call by any Somali governmental authority. There is no evidence of the Applicant having made any diary note (or equivalent) of any such call:
“Applicant: […] I did also my own research where I was searching for the consulate in Melbourne, for example, giving them a call, realising they're closed, and trying to check if there is an embassy in New Zealand, as I mentioned earlier, and there was nothing, and I just did my own Google research and trying to find a way in order to be able to obtain a Somali passport, but unless I am there I won't be able to. Somalia, or at least a country that has a Somalian embassy where I can go and ask them.
Ms Tobin: Have you made any other attempts to get any other kind of identity documents from Somalia?
Applicant: I ask them also if there is a form of ID that I can make and they said no, and the only ID document that I had was - fortunately that I had, I'm grateful that I had, was my birth certificate.
Ms Tobin: Okay. Do you have any records of the authorities saying that you couldn't get another identity document?
Applicant: No, it was a phone call.
Ms Tobin: But did you make any notes about the phone call, or - - -?
Applicant: When I asked for the ID document, it was my mother that I asked, and when she asked them, they said they don't provide that.”[116]
[116]Transcript, 24, lines 23–41.
Some concessions made by the Applicant
In the course of closing submissions, the Applicant’s representative made some relevant concessions. They were, to my mind, correctly made. First¸ the Applicant’s representative said:
“Ms Samuta: It is conceded that on the face of it there are some discrepancies throughout Ms Ahmad's dealings with the Department. During, we say, her immigration journey from the refugee camp and her application for a subclass 200 visa and subsequently for the citizenship application, which is the subject of the current proceedings today, those discrepancies we concede relate to her passport, her father, the intended marriage which led to her fleeing Somalia, and the dates around the departure from Somalia, her education and employment.”[117]
[117]Transcript, 27, lines 46–47; 28, lines 1–6.
Second, “[…] it is conceded that there is inconsistency in the declaration of dates pertaining to Ms Ahmad’s departure from Somalia.”[118] It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant:
·the range of dates provided by the Applicant are not so distinct or significant such as to materially affect or deteriorate her life story;
·her recollection of dates must be viewed in the context of her humanitarian journey which extended across a four-year period from the time of her departure from Somalia to her arrival in Australia; and
·her inconsistent recall of dates and milestones should not be viewed as unreasonable given the lapse of time and the trauma said to have befallen her in fleeing difficult circumstances and in seeking asylum in foreign countries as a young vulnerable woman.
[118]Transcript, 28, lines 17–18.
As I understood the submission put on behalf of the Applicant, the Tribunal should view the discrepancies in the Applicant’s spoken and written evidence through the lens of incompleteness on the basis of the Applicant’s past and present circumstances. It is also said on behalf of the Applicant that those deficiencies in the evidence are not redolent of an applicant seeking to mislead the Tribunal about her identity nor are they such as to deteriorate the credibility of her life story.
It is also said on behalf of the Applicant that incomplete or absent documentary evidence should not necessarily preclude the Tribunal from being “[…] reasonably satisfied[119]that Ms Ahmad’s identity is that which she claims it to be.”[120] To my mind, the difficulty with this submission is that the issues for the Applicant’s case go further than mere incompleteness. There are some gaps which could have been easily cured.
[119]Note: s 24(3) of the Act requires the Minister (or in his stead, the Tribunal) to be “satisfied” of the identity of a person.
[120]Transcript, 29, lines 16–17.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Tribunal must be satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity. If the Tribunal is not satisfied of the Applicant’s identity, it must affirm the delegate’s decision to refuse the grant of citizenship dated 17 August 2020.
Establishment of a person’s identity facilitates access to government services and benefits. Further, the Respondent’s satisfaction about a person’s identity facilitates a grant of citizenship and, in turn, the provision of further critical identity documents such as an Australian passport.
With specific reference to the three pillars of identity, the extent of the material before the Tribunal only goes to two of those pillars comprising (1) the Applicant’s identity documents; and (2) her propounded life story. It is common ground that biometrics are of limited assistance in this case. It is also common ground that the Applicant has provided a Qatari birth certificate. The Respondent does not seek to impugn its status. The information in the birth certificate about the Applicant’s date of birth, place of birth, and the identity of her parents is consistent with what is recorded as her “individual biodata” in the UNHCR resettlement registration form.[121]
[121]T1, 254.
I am of the view (and I find) that apart from the Qatari birth certificate, the Applicant has failed to produce any other credible and verifiable documentation to support her identity from Somalia. Her explanation of the circumstances in which she is said to have lost her previous Somalian passport is lacking in credibility and plausibility.
Likewise, I am not persuaded (and do not find) that the Applicant has exhausted all reasonable efforts to acquire documentation to establish her identity or to credibly explain the incomplete state of this documentation. With particular reference to her Somali passport, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate she has exhausted all avenues reasonably available to her[122] to (1) establish it has been genuinely lost and (2) demonstrate she has genuinely tried to find it or secure a replacement.
[122]CDNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 757 [99].
Instead, we have a vague and unsubstantiated reference to the mother apparently making unsuccessful enquiries with Somali authorities (in Somalia) about the passport. There is no statement from the mother to corroborate these enquiries. Nor are those purported enquiries supported by even a cursory document from the Somali passport authorities noting, for example, that “Somali passport bearing registration number XYZ123 in the name of [the Applicant] issued on [date] has been lost and application is now made for a replacement passport to issue.” In a similar vein, there is no reference or note from the Somali passport authorities detailing “next steps” in the path of securing a replacement passport. Such a form or guidance document would have surely been provided by the Somali passport authorities to the mother (or the Applicant) if an approach had been made for a replacement passport.
I have similar misgivings about the incomplete and unsatisfactorily explained attempt(s) by the Applicant to secure a replacement Somali passport from Australia. She spoke of (1) unreturned calls from Somali authorities in Australia; (2) an unsuccessful attempt to progress matters with the Somali authorities in New Zealand; and (3) conducting a Google search about how to replace her lost Somali passport.
There is no corroborative evidence in the form of (1) any correspondence from the Somali authorities either here or in New Zealand noting any attempt by the Applicant to replace her passport; (2) any formally logged telephone call or on-line enquiry from or to those authorities; or (3) any self-made diary note or other manual record of when the Applicant made any such approach to the Somali authorities. There is not even a record of the Google search said to have been made by the Applicant.
Even if the Applicant were able to demonstrate the making of reasonable – but ultimately unsuccessful – efforts to obtain such documents, it is incumbent on her to produce other forms of evidence to facilitate the Tribunal’s necessary state of satisfaction about her identity. In another case, the Tribunal (differently constituted) said “it is not sufficient for the Applicant merely to state that such documents are not able to be produced in order to satisfy the Tribunal”[123] about her identity. This Applicant’s case is only helped because she has the benefit of a birth certificate and independently prepared documents from the United Nations. If she did not have these, the lack of documents from Somalia would have been fatal to her case.
[123]Ater and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 4677 [61].
The Applicant has failed to acquire any evidence from any person in Somalia. While her relationship with her father remains fractured, she remains in contact with her mother. Yet there is not a single statement from her mother or any of her siblings. Any of those family members would have been capable of corroborating specific and significant components of the Applicant’s claims about her identity.
Her reasons for not calling or producing such evidence lack credibility. It is very difficult to accept she did not do so because this corroborative evidence did not have “any value or weight to it” or that [she] didn’t think [it] would help or make any difference.” This failure to call such evidence is all the more curious having regard to the following portion of the Transcript:
“Ms Tobin: Do you think that your siblings would be able to support what you're saying about your time prior to coming to Australia?
Applicant: Yes, they can. If they are asked, if they need to write a statement, yes.”[124]
[124]Transcript, 23, lines 36–38.
However, the Tribunal’s primary task in this case is not to decide whether the Applicant is a credible witness. With specific reference to the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence going to the life story pillar, it is necessary to analyse the claims made by that person and to gauge the consistency of their story with the documents adduced (or not adduced) by that person.
The totality of the evidence has led me to two broad categories of findings. The first of those categories deals with remaining and insufficiently explained inconsistencies (or dearth of any evidence) around the evidentiary componentry of the Applicant’s life story. Those categories comprise (1) her father; (2) the claimed forced or arranged marriage; (3) her associations; (4) the status of her Somali passport; and (5) the absence of corroboration from her family members.
The second of those categories comprises (1) the date of her actual departure from Somalia; (2) her travel history prior to arriving in Australia; (3) her education; and (4) her employment. When the totality of the evidence around these topics is considered, with particular reference to the issues caused by the confluence of two Form 80s, which I have sought to explain, the Applicant’s explanations for the inconsistencies are either sufficiently credible or not so significant as to cause me to doubt that she is the person described in the Qatari birth certificate.
I am of the view (and I find) that the totality of the evidence around the second of the two abovementioned categories is more probative towards establishing that the Applicant is, and always has been, the person described in the Qatari birth certificate before the Tribunal. I am of the further view (and I further find) that adverse and incomplete though the evidence may be in relation to the first of the two abovementioned categories, it does not cumulatively impugn the Applicant’s propounded life story to any fatal extent. Even if these parts of the story are, in fact, untrue, they do not go to a “most critical element” of the Applicant’s identity in the sense described in CDNB.

I am therefore satisfied of the Applicant’s identity for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act. The department did not assess the Applicant’s character under s 21(2)(h) of the Act.[125] I am therefore of the view that the matter should be remitted to the department with the direction that the Applicant satisfies the identity requirement, so that the remaining criteria in the Act can be considered by a delegate.
[125]See the decision record at T1, 19.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Respondent for re-consideration, with the direction that the prohibition in s 24(3) of the Act is not engaged by the Applicant.

149. I certify that the preceding 148 (one hundred and forty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Theodore Tavoularis

...........................[sgd]......................................
Associate
Dated: 8 September 2021

Date(s) of hearing: 14 July 2021

Advocate for the Applicant: Ms J Samuta, Director

Solicitors for the Applicant: Samuta McComber Lawyers

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms I Tobin, Lawyer

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz
ANNEXURE A

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE

DATE OF DOCUMENT

DATE RECEIVED

T1

Section 37 T-Documents
(paged 1–427)

-

16 October 2020

R1

Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1–17)

21 June 2021

21 June 2021

A1

Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1–11)

24 May 2021

24 May 2021

Pillar of Identity	Individual Characteristics
Biometrics	Personal identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person's signature. Biometrics can be used for comparison, with, for example, facial images held by the Department or other domestic or international agencies.
Documents	Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features. Documents contain biodata, or personal information, such as name, date of birth, nationality, and/or citizenship, and may also contain biometric information.
Life Story	A person's life story is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. Officers should consider the events that happened to the person, and the information and detail correlating to the events. A person's life story may include descriptions of family composition, education, employment, countries of residence, countries visited, social footprint, and online presence.

Req Description	How	Sts	Exc	Status Date
PP Personal Particulars -80	DOC	A	–	20/03/13
	DOC	A	–	08/01/12
	DOC	Z	–	30/10/11

From (Month / Year)	To (Month / Year)	Country	Address
/ 2	QATAR
Somalia
Ethiopia
Mogadishu
Addis Ababa
Sudan
/ 2009	/ 2011	Tripoli –> Tunisia

Date from	Date to	Reason for visit	Country
11/3/2011	11/8/2013	Refugee Camp	Tunisia
1/5/2010	11/3/2011	Left home country	Libya

Date(s) of hearing:	14 July 2021
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms J Samuta, Director
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Samuta McComber Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms I Tobin, Lawyer
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
T1	Section 37 T-Documents (paged 1–427)	-	16 October 2020
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1–17)	21 June 2021	21 June 2021
A1	Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1–11)	24 May 2021	24 May 2021