Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) - [2017] AATA 1086

Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2017] AATA 1086 (13 July 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2017/0085
Re:Assadullah Ahmadi
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member J Sosso
Date:13 July 2017
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is set aside and in substitution thereof the Applicant is determined to be of good character as required by paragraph 22(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.
...........................[Sgd].............................................
Senior Member J Sosso
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – whether of good character – uphold the values of the Australian community – no criminal convictions – employment history – claimed false statements - applicant’s contribution to society.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act1958
Australian Citizenship Act 2007

CASES
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Irving v Minister for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Fenn V Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [2000] AATA 931
Sadiq and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 463
Al Hashimi and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] AATA 534
Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] 19 AAR 148
Bilouni and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] AATA 233
Al Temimi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 97
Zheng and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQHH (2012) 125 ALD 481
Da Wei Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304; 55 AAR 94

SECONDARY MATERIALS
Migration Regulations1994 – Schedule 2
Citizenship Policy (Last Published 2015)
Australian Citizenship Regulations 2007

REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member J Sosso
13 July 2017
INTRODUCTION

Mr Assadullah Ahmadi (the Applicant) is a 30 year old citizen of Afghanistan. He first arrived in Australia on 14 September 2009 as an unauthorised maritime arrival and was granted a Protection (Class XA) subclass 866 permanent Protection Visa in November 2009 – Exhibit 1 T6 p.133.
In the Protection Visa Decision Record it is noted that the Applicant stated on his arrival that he was born during 1987 in the province of Ghazni, Afghanistan. He identified as a Shia Moslem of Hazara ethnicity- Exhibit 1 T5 p.126.
In support of his claim for protection, the Applicant made the following submissions (Exhibit 1 T6 pp.121 and 127):
·His father was missing and his mother and four brothers remained in Afghanistan;
·In 2001 his father went missing while seeking treatment;
·After his father went missing the Applicant fled to Pakistan and resided there illegally, as being the eldest son and of Hazara ethnicity, he feared the Taliban would force him to fight for them;
·In 2005 he was deported by the Pakistani authorities but the area where he resided in Afghanistan was a Pashtun/Taliban village, and he was fearful that the Taliban would kill him;
·In the years following his return to his village, Taliban influence grew and a number of Hazara residents of the village were kidnapped, beaten or killed;
·As a consequence of the growing violence and danger he believed he was in, the Applicant in 2008 again fled to Pakistan;
·He was also in fear for his safety in Pakistan where, he claimed, the Baluch ethnic group were killing Hazara’s for the same reason as the Taliban.
On 21 October 2009 a finding was made that the Applicant had a genuine fear of harm and there was a real chance of persecution occurring if he returned to Afghanistan, and, accordingly he should be recognised as a refugee – Exhibit 1 T6 pp.120 – 125.
It was also found that the Applicant was owed protection obligations for the purposes of s36 of the Migration Act 1958 and had met the prescribed Regulations for the granting of a Protection (Class XA) subclass 866 visa. He was, consequently, granted such a visa – Exhibit 1 T6 pp.126 – 133.
On 28 October 2014 the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship (Exhibit 1 T13 p.289) and passed the citizenship test on 18 November 2014 (Exhibit 1 T24 p.349).
In his citizenship application, the Applicant stated that his occupation was a meat worker (p.290) and that he had not, inter alia, been convicted of any offences in Australia, or overseas, been associated with any terrorist organisations or involved in any activities that would represent a risk to Australia (p.296).
Following the lodgement of this application, the Applicant was interviewed twice by officers of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department).
The first was a telephone interview on 18 March 2016. The officer conducting the interview recorded concerns about certain information the Applicant provided about his family which was inconsistent with previous information he had provided – Exhibit 1 T16 p.312.
The second interview was held on 19 April 2016 in the Brisbane CBD and was face-to-face with two Departmental officers. The record of that interview discloses that the officers fairly and appropriately put to the Applicant a series of questions concerning possible inconsistencies in the information he had provided since his arrival in Australia – Exhibit 1 T 19 pp.326 – 328.
Following these interviews the Department wrote to the Applicant on 11 May 2016 (the procedural fairness letter) outlining the concerns held by the Department and providing him with an opportunity to respond. The substantive portion of the letter concluded with the following comment (Exhibit 1 T 20 p.333):
“The inconsistencies in information provided by you at different times throughout your interactions with this Department leads me to consider that you may have provided false or misleading information to this Department on at least one occasion.”
The Applicant took advantage of the opportunity to respond and forwarded to the Department a letter witnessed by a Justice of the Peace (Exhibit 1 T23 p.341) a statutory declaration sworn on 1 December 2016 (Exhibit 1 T 23 p.343) and a statement of Mullah Imam Abdul Ali Arefi from Quetta, Pakistan who stated that he knew the Applicant and his family and provided information about them (Exhibit 1 T 23 p.345).
On 22 December 2016, the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Respondent) refused the application on the basis that he was not satisfied that the Applicant was of good character – Exhibit 1 T 24 pp.349 – 360.
In reaching this conclusion the delegate found that the Applicant had supplied false and misleading information to the Department on more than one occasion in relation to:
(a)His mother’s date of birth;
(b)The composition of his family;
(c)His name and names he was previously known by;
(d)His reason for leaving Afghanistan;
(e)His journey to Australia.
On 5 January 2017 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision. – Exhibit 1 T2 p.3.
The Applicant was unrepresented and appeared in person at the hearing which was held on 26 May 2017. The Applicant was assisted by an interpreter, Mr Liaqat Ali Nadir Shah, and also gave evidence under oath.
The Respondent was represented by Mr Adam Cunynghame of Sparke Helmore Lawyers.
THE LAW
Subsection 21(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act) provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
Subsection 21(2) deals with the general eligibility criteria for an applicant who is 18 years or older and who is a permanent resident. Of relevance to this matter is paragraph 21(2)(h) which provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
“(h) is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.”
The term “good character” is not defined by the Act. Fortunately policy guidance is now provided by the Citizenship Policy which replaced the Australian Citizenship Instructions from 1 June 2016.
The stated role of the Citizenship Policy is to support the Act by providing guidance on the interpretation of, and the exercise of powers under, the Act and the Australian Citizenship Regulations 2007.
The Tribunal will generally apply the provisions of the Citizenship Policy unless there is a cogent reason not to do so – Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645 per Brennan J.
Chapter 11 of the Citizenship Policy deals with good character. Importantly, it is expressly stated at the outset that it is not Departmental policy for decision-makers to be bound by a check list. Rather, decision-makers are to look at the merits of each case and turn their minds to the issues of character until they are satisfied, on a reasoned basis, whether the applicant is, or is not, of good character.
Reference is made to the definition of “good character” given by Lee J in Irving v Minister for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 (at 431-432):
“the words ‘good character’ should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact whilst the latter is a review of subjective public opinion…A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character…Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.”
The Policy also refers to Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [2000] AATA 931, where Deputy President Breen discussed the role of the character requirement in a citizenship application (at para 8):
“The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not to be bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home. The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts. It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of the State. The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few years’ time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.”
To assist decision-makers the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of the characteristics of good behaviour, which is set out below:
“an applicant of good character would:
·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries
·be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay their taxes, and not be in dishonest receipt of public funds)
·be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments, for example
oproviding false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications
oinvolvement in a bogus marriage
oconcealment of convictions that could lead to the cancellation or refusal of a visa or citizenship
oinvolvement in Centrelink or Australian Tax Office fraud
ogiving false names and/or addresses to police
·not to be violent, involved in drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without licence or insurance)
·not to be associated with others who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour, or others who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia
·not to have evaded immigration control or assisted others to do so, or been involved in the illegal movement of people
·not to have committed, been involved with or associated with war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide
·not to be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant
·not to be involved in or providing assistance to, or reasonably suspected of being involved in or providing assistance to, terrorist organisations or acts of terrorism overseas or in Australia and
·not to be the subject of any verifiable information causing character doubts.”
The Policy also provides guidance on weighing up the character decision. It points out that the assessment of whether an applicant is of “good character” requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. More weight is to be given to serious offences.
The Policy states:
“In weighing up the various factors, the decision maker must not apply their own personal standards, but must apply community standards. Having regard to the words of the Preamble, and the pledge to be made if citizenship is approved, decision makers are asking themselves:
·would a person of good character have behaved the way the applicant did
·what is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law
·has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia’s community standards
·does the applicant share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties”.
CONSIDERATION
Introduction
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are whether the Applicant knowingly gave false information to the Australian Government and, if so, whether, after considering the merits of the case, the Applicant is or is not a person of good character for the purposes of the Act.
Background Information
The Applicant identifies as an Hazara. The Hazara are the third largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. They speak a dialect of the Persian language which is known as Hazaragi.
The vast majority of the Hazara are Shia Muslims.
The ethnic background of the Hazara is complex, but unlike the majority Pashtun population, the Hazaras have significant Turkic and Mongol DNA. Their appearance and parts of their culture and language show clear links to Mongolians and Central Asian Turks.
In modern times the Hazaras have been subject to discrimination and persecution. In the late nineteenth century there were widespread massacres of the Hazara by the government of Abdur Rahman Khan. Many thousands of Hazaras fled to Pakistan, and, in particular, to Quetta.
In more recent times the Taliban specifically targeted the Hazara, with this persecution increasing after their capture of Mazar-e-Sharif in 1998 when the Taliban carried out large scale massacres of the Hazara. An outline of this history is set out in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQHH (2012) 125 ALD 481 at 483-485.
As a result of the upheaval in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion in 1979 and events since, large numbers of Hazaras have moved to Pakistan, and, in particular, to Quetta.
In Quetta there are two localities that are predominantly Hazara – Hazara Town and Mehr Abad. There are no reliable statistics on the number of Hazara residing in Quetta, but it is estimated that there are somewhere between 100,000 and 500,000.
Factual Background
As much turns on the falsity or otherwise of the information provided by the Applicant following his arrival in Australia, it is useful to set out the information he provided, commencing with his Entry Interview which was conducted on Christmas Island on 27 September 2009 – Exhibit 1T4 pp.10 - 34.
The Applicant gave his name as Assadullah Ahmadi and said he was born in 1987 in Afghanistan, was unmarried and was of the Hazara ethnic group (pp. 12 and 15). He said that he had no formal education and only had three months education in a mosque (p.14) previous addresses were noted to be Quetta in 2000 and Pakistan in 2003 (p.13).
Previous employment was limited to four years as a shoe maker in Quetta, Pakistan. No employment was recorded for Afghanistan (p.14).
The Applicant’s father was stated to be “Abdul Hussan” who, in 2009, was said to be “about 68 years of age”, whose occupation was a farmer, but who was “missing” (p.16).
The mother of the Applicant was said to be “Arifa” who was, in 2009, said to be “60 years old”. The Applicant said she was living in Afghanistan and was a “housewife” (p.16).
Details of brothers and sisters were as follows (p.16):
·H       female 25;
·F         female 23;
·N         male    16;
·R         male    14;
·N         male    12;
·K H     male    10.
All were said to be living in Afghanistan.
In response to the question why he left his country of nationality, he replied (p.20):
“My life was in danger. Q Why- A We had land in Afghanistan and then there was a dispute. Q What was the dispute about. A- My family owen (sic) a piece of land and we had a dispute with other land owners in the area over water, they killed my uncle and wounded my father, who later went missing. Q Where is your father now. A- he’s still missing. Q Who told you to leave. A- My uncle. He said that I would not be safe if I stay and that I may get killed.”
Later in the interview the Applicant was asked if he had any reasons for not returning to Afghanistan. His reply was as follows (p.28):
“Yes I have. Q What are they. A- I want to stay away from fighting and conflict. Q Is there anything else. A-I want a better future for my family. If I return to Afghanistan I will be killed because the Taliban and the pashtoon people hate the hazara. The (sic) come to our area and they rob the hazara people and kidnap them. Malik who my family have the feud with has connections with the taliban. If I return he will alert the Taliban and I’m sure I will be killed.”
The Applicant was specifically questioned about his journey to Australia and he provided the following information (all personal details have been modified) (pp. 30-31):
“While I was in Quetta a friend of my employer contacted AP. My friend O made all the contact through A , I did not meet A myself. I took around six months for A to arrange everything. O contacted me and said everything is in place. I have my visa for Singapore. I had to wait another two months because I didn’t have enough money. When I had all the money O contacted A and he moved me to Karachi where we stayed one nite (sic). The next day A’s agent met me at the hotel and took me to the airport, the mans name was Ak. At the airport Ak check me in, gave me the passport and showed me where to board the plane. I don’t remember the airline. We flew to Singapore and when I arrived I rang another person called A who took the passport from me and went away and came back later and we went to the airport. A took me by car and drove to Malaysia. We arrived at a place called Chowket. We stayed in Chowket for 25 days. We stayed in a placed called N M hotel. After 25 days we drove for four hours to the water….
The Applicant then described his journey to Indonesia and subsequently to Australia. This aspect of his statement is not relevant to this matter.
When the Applicant sought a Protection (Class XA) visa three days later he completed (with assistance) a number of forms. One of these was Form 866B which deals with the family composition of an applicant – Exhibit 1 T5 pp.43 – 56
In this document he named two sisters and four brothers. The sisters were stated to have been born in 1984 and 1986 respectively, and were married and living in Afghanistan. The four named brothers were the same named persons as set out in the Entry Interview. They were said to be born in 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1999. The Applicant also stated that he had a further brother and sister who passed away when he was young (pp.48 -50).

The Applicant’s mother was referred to as Arefa Ahmadi, who was said to have been born in 1949 (p.48). Again this is consistent with the information in the Entry Interview.
Also on 2 October 2009 the Applicant made a statutory declaration. The relevant portions are set out below – Exhibit 1 T 5 pp.90-91:
“My name is Assadullah Ahmadi and I am a 22 year old male born in Qogha, Echa, Jaghoori, Afghanistan. My ethnicity is Hazara and my religion is Shia. My father is missing. My mother and siblings remain in Afghanistan…
Approximately 8 years ago my father went missing. He was on his way for treatment when he went missing. The Taliban had the power back then and so we do not know what happened to him.
I was the oldest male in the family and so after my father went missing, fled to Pakistan. The Taliban were taking young Hazara men like myself and forcing them to fight for them.
In approximately 2005, I was deported by the Pakistani officials for being illegal. Our area neighbours Pashtoo/Taliban villages and as such, I continued to live in fear that they would kill me. Over the next couple of years, the Taliban got stronger and stronger and would kill Hazaras from our area.
They are all Sunni and kill Hazaras because we are Shia. They can identify us as we look different and we do not Pashtoo.
In 2008 I again fled to Pakistan as it was getting more and more dangerous in my village. Many Hazaras from my village were also either kidnapped and beaten or killed by the Taliban. Our area was very close some Pashtoon villages and so this is where they would come from to attack us.
I also feared for my life in Pakistan because the Balluch were killing Hazaras shias for the same reason as the Taliban. Furthermore, I was residing in Pakistan illegally and so I was an easy target.”
The final form completed on that day was a document entitled “Request for refugee status assessment and statement of claims” – Exhibit 1 T5 pp.92 – 115.
Of particular relevance was the answer to Question 2. That question was “What other ways do you spell or write your name?”, the answer given was as follows (p.93):
“My first name was Sajadi when I was small but my father changed it to Assadullah”.
There is a Departmental file note of a telephone conversation with the Applicant of 20 January 2010. The file note contains the following record (Exhibit 1 T 7 p.134):
“Client claims his mother’s DOB should be 1959 however interpreter made an error and recorded as 1949. Mother currently in Pakistan as refugee. Unable to provide evidence of this DOB. Advised to contact Melbourne Offshore Humanitarian Processing. His mother is due to lodge a new applicant, currently unlawful in Pakistan.
Applicant cannot speak English was assisted by his friend JR”
The Applicant also wrote to the Department about his mother’s date of birth on the same day. In that letter he said (Exhibit 1 T8 p.135 – the document is quoted as is without correction of any grammar):
“With due respect my mother (AHMADI, Areefa) was born in Afghanistan in 1/1959 according to our afghan Calendar. In my first interview in Christmas Island with Immigration Officer my mother date of birth Was mistaken and on the documents shows 1/1/1949, I mention to my interpreter about the error. But when I got issued a 786 visa I found that my mother date of birth was written wrong. when I came To Brisbane I contacted the Immigration office in Brisbane and the officer mention for correction and The officer asked for date of birth from Afghanistan and some more documents to fix the error. Unfortunately in Afghanistan all our infrastructure has been destroyed by the war especially in my Area there is no government offices to fix such an error I am now going to lodged my family visa And I deeply request to Immigration Officer to consider my situation and please fix this error and Change my mother date of birth 1/1/1959 is correct one..”
Following the Applicant’s arrival the other members of family also sought to migrate to Australia.
Three attempts were made: in 2010, 2011 and 2012. All were unsuccessful.
In the first attempt, the Applicant’s mother Arefa Ahmadi completed the relevant migration paperwork in February 2010.
In the Form 80 (Personal Particulars for character assessment) Mrs Ahmadi stated that her date of birth was “01.01.1959” – Exhibit 1 T9 p.137. At that time her residential address was in Quetta, Pakistan and her occupation was stated as “single mother (no work)” – pp.140 – 141.
In the Form 681 (Refugee and special humanitarian proposal) Mrs Ahmadi listed her dependant family members as N, R, N and K H. The respective birth dates of the named persons were 01.01.1993, 01,01,1995, 01.01.1997 and 01.01.1999. The “precise relationship to the main applicant” was stated in each case as “son” – Exhibit 1T9 pp.147-148.
Finally, in the Form 842 (Application for an Offshore Humanitarian visa), Mrs Ahmadi again provided the above information, but, in addition, stated that each of the above named males had the biological relationship of “son by birth”. Mrs Ahmadi further indicated that each of her “sons” were born in a particular town in Afghanistan – Exhibit 1 T9 pp.152-154.
Mrs Ahmadi’s application for a Refugee and Humanitarian (Class XB) visa was formally rejected on 12 July 2010 – Exhibit 1 T9 pp.179-180.
A further Form 681 was lodged by Mrs Ahmadi in March 2011. Attached to the form were various documents including sworn affidavits of N, R, N and K H. The affidavits are dated 22 February 2011. In each case the deponents described themselves as the son of “Abdul Hassan Ahmadi” and state that they wish to proceed to Australia “as my brother is resident of Australia” – Exhibit 1 T 10 pp.192 – 195.
In addition copies of the tazkara, passport and birth certificate of Mrs Ahmadi and her “sons” were also provided (pp. 196 – 219). Mrs Ahmadi’s birth certificate states she (p.215):
“was born in Ghazni province of Afghanistan on 01/01/1959”.
There are a number of other forms also completed by Mrs Ahmadi which repeat the above information.
As previously stated, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship on 28 October 2014.- Exhibit 1 T13 pp.289 – 299.
Question 3 asks applicants if they have been known by other names. In smaller letters and in italics underneath are the following words:
“(including name at birth, previous married names, aliases, or alternate spellings or full spelling of all names).”
The Applicant ticked the “No” box – p.289.
The Applicant provided the same response in a Form 1399 (Declaration of service) dated 9 April 2016 – Exhibit 1 T18 p.316.
The Department’s concerns first crystallised on 18 March 2016 when a Departmental officer telephoned the Applicant. The full record of the conversation is set out below (Exhibit 1 T16 p.312):
“Client was asked about his wife as he had previously mentioned her but no record of her was found in DIBP systems.
Client advised.
Wife’s name AS 01/01/1995 – no matching records found.
Client was queried about his family and he stated his mother’s name is Arifa (matches 3 x 202 applications). Client was asked about his siblings to which he stated he has 2 sisters and himself, no other siblings.
The 3 refused 202 applications list 4 males as brothers. Client advised that these are his uncle’s sons- confirmed all by name. Reiterated that they are his father’s brother’s sons and not his siblings.
Given that the client declared these 4 males as brothers on his PV application, and the 3 humanitarian applications, this creates concerns regarding the client and a face to face interview is likely to be required to explore this in further detail.”
A face to face interview was conducted on 19 April 2016, and during the course of the interview the Applicant gave answers which only further deepened the concerns of the Department.
The Applicant was asked about his journey to Australia from Pakistan in 2009. The record of part of his response is set out below (Exhibit 1 T 19 p.327):
“He paid $9000 US to an agent who provided him with a fake blue passport (not AFG). He flew from Karachi to Kuala Lumpur on a direct (unsure of airline) flight. Client was asked to clarify again that this was a direct flight and made no other stops. Client was adamant that he flew one plane between Karachi and Kuala Lumpur without making any stopovers.”
The next issue of concern related to the names the Applicant provided when he arrived at Christmas Island (CI):
“Officer was asked for the name he provided when he first arrived on CI. Client claimed Assadullah AHMADI however officer advised client that the Department held another name that he stated was his when he first arrived on CI. Client then admitted he was known as Sajjad (name on file is Sajadi) and went to the UNHCR office in Jakarta and claimed this as his name. He claimed it was a shorter name and easier to say. Claimed everyone put in a different name in IDN, no one told him to do so. He stated that he has never been known by this name at any other time in his life, only when he was in Indonesia. No one in his family has ever called him Sajjad.”
Departmental officers then asked the Applicant to clarify if he had four brothers, or were they his cousins (p.328):
“This was put to the client who denied that the 4 males were his cousins and claimed they are his brothers. He then claimed that he was tired when the officer called and he was confused and didn’t understand the question, also that his English is not very good. Officer reiterated that this appears unlikely as he had understood the prior conversation over the phone and his English skills are very good. Officer further pointed out that if he was indeed tired, it would be more likely that he would answer honestly and his response was likely the truth. Since the phone call he realised he had made the error and was attempting to rectify it. Client was not happy with this claim and repeatedly stated that they are indeed his brothers and again claimed he was tired from work on the day officer placed the phone call.”
On 11 May 2016 the Department wrote to the Applicant – Exhibit 1 T20 pp.330 – 336.
The letter commenced by setting out the information the Applicant originally provided on arrival at Christmas Island about the age of his mother and “brothers”. The author of the letter then said (p.331):
“According to the information you provided, your mother was aged between 44 and 50 when she gave birth to your four younger brothers.”
The author then recounts the events following the original interviews (p.332):
“Your phone call to the Department on 20/01/2010 and the documents received on 22/01/2010, appear to be an attempt to alter your mother’s age to make it more feasible that the four males on the application, whom you later stated were your cousins, are her sons and therefore your brothers.”
Then the author dealt with the issue of the previous names of the Applicant (p.332):
“During the interview on 19/04/2016 you were asked if you have ever been known by any other names, to which you stated ‘No’. I rephrased the question to ask if you had ever provided any other names to the Department that might be on record, again you stated ‘No’. You were asked later in the interview what name you had provided when you first arrived and stated ‘Assadullah Ahmadi’. I advised you that the Department held a different name on file and you then confirmed that you were known as ‘Sajjad’ when you first arrived on Christmas Island. You further stated that you used this name at the UNHCR office in Jakarta as it was a shorter name and easier to say. You stated that you have only ever used this name in Indonesia and no one in your family has ever called you ‘Sajjad’.
Finally the author dealt with the differences in the Applicant’s account of his journey to Australia (332-333):
“During the interview you were asked about your path to Australia. You stated that you flew from Karachi airport to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on a direct flight; you clearly stated that you did not fly anywhere else on this leg of your journey to Australia.
Multiple documents in your protection visa application contradict this claim. On your Refugee Status Assessment (RSA) form, at question 28 ‘If you are missing identity documents please explain why you do not have these documents’. You responded ‘The smuggler took the passport in Singapore’...
Based on your statement during entry interview, you entered Singapore and drove to Malaysia however at interview on 19/04/2016you claimed to have flown directly to Malaysia from Pakistan.”
The Applicant made further submissions but on 22 December 2016 his application for Australian citizenship was refused – Exhibit 1 T 24 pp.346 – 367.
The Hearing
As previously mentioned, the Applicant appeared in person at the Tribunal hearing. He was assisted by a translator.
He not only made submissions from the bar table, but agreed to give evidence under oath and be available for cross-examination.
The Tribunal, was, accordingly in a position to independently assess the demeanour of the Applicant when giving evidence and to form a view as to his reliability as a witness.
The Applicant testified that he never deliberately intended to give false information to the Department. Instead, he claimed, there were some misunderstandings and mistakes. He is, he said “an illiterate person”. These were the words of the translator, but I take it that the Applicant was trying to convey that he is a largely uneducated man.
The Applicant testified that since arriving on the Australian mainland and obtaining a visa he has always sought employment.
The uncontested evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant was employed as a meat worker in Rockhampton between March 2011 and September 2013 and since August 2014 as a processing worker at Golden Cockerel at Mount Cotton – Exhibit 11 T18 p.319.
In Sadiq and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 463, Deputy President McDermott made the following observations (at [26]):
“I am able to consider the applicant’s contribution to society through his employment in determining whether he is of good character. In Al Hashimi and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] AATA 534 this Tribunal remarked at [53] that ‘stable, gainful employment’ would reflect favourably on an applicant’s character.”
Likewise in this matter I have taken into account when determining whether the Applicant is of good character his employment history.
The Applicant testified that he has always paid taxes, obeyed the laws of Australia and never been convicted of any criminal offences.
He claimed to have volunteered in the clean up after both the 2011 floods and the more recent flooding in south-east Queensland.
Under oath he testified that he believes in democracy, the freedom of religion and respects and loves Australia. He said that Australia had given him a new life, and if he had remained in Afghanistan he may not be alive now.
He testified that since he has lived in Australia he has learned the value of individual rights and values.
He has been married for four years, but his wife lives in Quetta. During evidence he said that being separated from her was very stressful and difficult, and he was very keen that she join him in Australia.
False Statements
The Respondent’s submissions about the Applicant’s character are hinged on whether he made a series of false statements, commencing when he was first interviewed on Christmas Island and culminating after he made his application for citizenship.
There is a considerable body of authority on the implications that arise when it is shown that an applicant for a visa or citizenship has consciously made false and misleading statements to the relevant Australian authorities.
Reference can be made to the observations of Deputy President McMahon in Re Lachmaiya (1994) 19 AAR 148 (at 155-156):
“The observance of truth in dealing with officials in migration matters (particularly where the truth is known only to the person making the statement) is of fundamental importance to the control mechanism which this country exercises in visa applications when dealing with the many reasons for coming to Australia. To lie consistently, as Mr Lachmaiya has over a period of years, is to subvert the administration and, in the context of the Act, to demonstrate that Mr Lachmaiya is not a person of good repute or good character. Australia can have no confidence that he would not again transgress in matters where truth and good faith could be deceptively withheld.”
Although Lachmaiya was a visa decision, President McMahon’s comments are of relevance to the question of good character in citizenship matters.
One distinguishing point, however, is that in Lachmaiya there was an extensive history of deception and lying. As Deputy President McMahon noted (at 150):
“Mr Lachmaiya admitted in evidence that he had told many lies to various authorities.”
The making of a false statement per se is not necessarily fatal to an application for citizenship – Bilouni and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] AATA 233.
In that matter Mrs Bilouni entered Australia in June 1997 under a spouse visa. Her husband, also a Syrian by birth, was already an Australian citizen. On 31 July 1998 Mrs Bilouni was caught, and subsequently convicted, of shoplifting. She was charged with stealing $17.69 worth of goods from a Woolworths supermarket. On 20 July 2000 she applied for Australian citizenship but replied in the negative to the question whether she had ever been convicted of an offence.
Senior Member Sassella found that Mrs Bilouni was of good character and made these observations (at [50]):
“The shoplifting offence was relatively minor. The Applicant pleaded guilty and she appears not to have re-offended in the two and half years since. Likewise, the misleading conduct engaged in by the Applicant and her husband appears on the evidence an isolated incident relating to a relatively minor recorded offence, disclosure of which was thought by the Applicant and her husband to be likely to bring about a catastrophic consequence for them. There was also no understanding by the Applicant that a failure to disclose certain information was illegal. She and her husband merely thought that they would be able to lodge another application.”
Mother’s Date of Birth
The question to be determined is not whether the Applicant’s mother was born in 1959 or 1949, but whether the Applicant provided honest answers to the questions asked of him on arrival at Christmas Island and since that time.
The Applicant relied at the hearing on the Birth Certificate issued by the Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its Consulate in Quetta which clearly states that the Applicant’s mother was born in Ghazni Province on 01/01/1959 – Exhibit 1 T10 p. 215, and her Passport which also lists her birth date as “1/1/1959” – Exhibit 1 T10 p.202.
The Respondent contends (Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC) para 36) that the Applicant has provided false information to the Department in relation to the age of his mother both for the purpose of his Protection visa application and his application for citizenship.
The Respondent further relies upon an “accurate” translation of her taskera which, it is submitted, indicates that she was 59 years old in 2009, and was therefore born in approximately 1950 – RSFIC para 36.
The document referred to is Exhibit 2 and in the column “Date of birth and age” records the following:
“As per facial appearance she is 59 years old in 2009”
One problem is illustrated from Exhibit 2. The age of the Applicant’s mother is, to a degree, a matter of guesswork. Even the official document issued by the Afghan Directorate of Census, and on the preferred Departmental translation, provides a guesstimate of her age based on her facial appearance.
This is not particularly surprising for a number of reasons.
First, official documentation in Afghanistan is, by all accounts, rudimentary and because of the security situation almost continuously since 1979, incomplete.

Second, the rate of illiteracy in most parts of Afghanistan is very high. The Applicant and his family have their origins in Ghanzi Province, and in particular the Jaghori District. In 2013 that District had a population of approximately 560,000 people which was almost 100% Hazara. The literacy rate in 2005 was approximately 35% and falling. For those born before 1970 the literacy rate was even smaller, particularly amongst women.
In these circumstances the keeping of accurate official records is particularly difficult.
Third, even when records are kept, it appears that a precise birth date is not common practice in Afghanistan. Rather, in the case of the Applicant’s family, the official records, simply note 1 January of a particular year as the date of birth.
Finally, rendering matters even more difficult and confusing, the official calendar of Afghanistan is the Islamic solar calendar (Hijri Shamsi), although both the Islamic lunar calendar (Hijre Qamari) and the Gregorian calendar (Miladi Isawee) are also used. The first month of the Islamic solar calendar corresponds to the 21^st of March in the Gregorian calendar. 2017 in our calendar equates to 1396 in the Islamic solar calendar. In these circumstances, particularly amongst rural and poorly educated Afghans, some confusion could be expected.
The Applicant’s explanation for the discrepancy in the information he provided about his mother’s date of birth is as follows (Exhibit 1 T 23 p.341):
“The difference in my Mother’s date of birth in various Documents is Because in first Interview when they asked about My Mother’s date of birth I didn’t know the exact date of birth of my Mother and I said 1/1/1949 which is not correct because later when I asked my mother about her age she told me that 1/1/1959 is correct. In Afghanistan remembering the exact date of birth is not a common practice that’s why I didn’t know the exact date.”
At the hearing the Applicant stated that when he first arrived at Christmas Island by boat he had no documents. Moreover, he didn’t know his mother’s date of birth. He claimed that he didn’t give an exact date of birth but said she was approximately 50 – 60 years of age. The Applicant stated that he was asked to give an approximate date of birth and gave an incorrect one. Further, the Applicant claimed that he informed the Immigration Officer about this and was told he could correct it once he had obtained a visa.
The Applicant stated that he contacted his mother while he was in detention and asked her for her birth date, and having got that information subsequently contacted the Department.
This account is consistent with the chronological sequence of events in 2009. As previously noted the Applicant made telephone contact with the Department on 20 January 2010 (Exhibit1 T7 p.134) and wrote to the Department at the same time (p.135).
The Respondent imputes to the Applicant bad motives in giving the wrong birth date. However, the more likely explanation of what occurred is as stated by the Applicant.
One can either view his actions through the prism of a liar who gained illegal entry to Australia and then used his refugee status as a means of attempting to bring other family members to Australia, or as a near illiterate refugee, without English language skills and from an impoverished background who made either a genuine mistake or, more probably, did not know the answer and made a guess.
I find, based on the documentary material and the evidence at the hearing, that the Applicant provided an honest, albeit incorrect, answer to Immigration Officers at Christmas Island regarding his mother’s age.
Family Composition
The Respondent contends (RSFIC paras 37 – 43) that the Applicant has provided false and misleading information over time in relation to his siblings and has not provided a reasonable explanation for such information having been provided.
The Respondent’s concerns relate solely to the telephone interview where the Applicant said he had no brothers, and the persons previously identified as his brothers were in fact his cousins.
The Applicant does not deny that he gave that information. However, in his letter of 1 December 2016 to the Department he said (Exhibit 1 T23 p.342):
“In 18 march 2016 I receive phone call frome (sic) Department I give him wrong information about my brother its my Mistake Because night shift work and some family Problem that time I was Mentally disturbed, now it has been a long time that I am separated from my Mother, Brothers and Wife that’s why I am worried and can’t concentrate. I hope you understand my condition.”
The Applicant also swore a statutory declaration that he had four named brothers and provided a signed declaration from the mullah of his mosque in Quetta. The declaration states (Exhibit1 T23 p.345):
“I, AAA work as Mullah Imam of a mosque in HA, K area since 2000. Therefore, I know Assadullah Ahmadi very well. He and his family migrated from Afghanistan to Quetta, Pakistan in 2001 due to unrest and war. His family is currently living in HAK. He is a Hazara from Afghanistan by ethnicity and a Shia Muslim by religion. Assadullah Ahmadi is currently lives in Brisbane, one of the Australian cities. Likewise I know his family personally, which consist of his mother, wife and four brothers from the same father and mother. I confirm this and their names are as following…”
The mullah then sets out the name and birthdates of the Applicant’s “brothers” as well as the name and birth date of his mother and his wife.
At the hearing the Applicant testified that he had four brothers, and that he was confused when telephoned by the Department partly because he was tired and also because his English is poor.
All of the material before the Tribunal strongly suggests the Applicant has four brothers. Birth certificates have been supplied (Exhibit 1 T10 pp.216-219), passports have been supplied (Exhibit 1 T10 pp.203 – 213), as well as the above statement of the mullah and various statements and declarations of the Applicant.
The only information to the contrary is the one short telephone conversation he had on 18 March 2016.
The overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the contention of the Applicant. His explanation is understandable, and he provided convincing evidence. Although the concerns of the Respondent are understandable, they are not sustainable having regard to the weight of the evidence presented.
The names of the Applicant
The Respondent points out inconsistencies in the Applicant’s answers as to whether he was known by any other names – RSFIC paras 21 – 23.
In his original visa application documentation, the Applicant stated that his name was originally Sajadi but his father changed it to Assadullah – Exhibit 1 T5 pp.57 and 76.
However, when applying for citizenship the Applicant indicated he had not been known by any other names- Exhibit 1 T13 p. 289 and T13 p.316.
Further, at the Departmental interview of 19 April 2016 the Applicant stated that while he was in Indonesia he was known as “Sajjad” as it was a shorter name and easier to say, but that was the only time in his life he was known by that name.
The Respondent contends (RSFIC para 23) that the Applicant provided false information in his citizenship application and has failed to provide any explanation for doing so.
In his letter of 1 December 2016 the Applicant provided the following explanation (Exhibit1 T23 p.342):
“My real Name is ASSADULLAH AHMADI and everyone knows me by this Name but SAJADI was my Name when I was baby for some reason my father changed my Name and called me ASSADULLAH. When I came to Indonesia I thought SAJADI is short name and easy to say so I gave my name SAJADI to UNHCR AND CHRISTMAS ISLAND.”
At the hearing the Applicant testified that he was only known as Sajadi for a few months after he was born. He further said that there is an Afghan custom that if a baby or child becomes ill the family will change the name. Apart from the short time he was in Indonesia, he said he has been known by the name of Assadullah all his life.
Clearly the Respondent is correct in highlighting the inconsistency in the Applicant’s responses to whether he has been known by any other name. The fact that a person has been known by another name can be a critical matter, particularly if while known under another name crimes have been committed or unacceptable activities have been engaged in.
However, normally when the good character test is activated because of failure to disclose another name, it is in the context of the particular applicant trying to hide potentially damaging conduct.
One illustration of this is Al Temimi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 97.
The applicant in that matter was a 51 year old Iraqi citizen and was originally known as Ali Al Temimi.
In his citizenship application he answered in the negative to the question whether he had been known by any other names. He reiterated this in a later document.
In fact Mr Al Temimi had changed his name by deed poll in 2003 to “Sam Regan”. In 2012 he again changed his name to ”Ali Abdul Amer Adullah Al Temimi”. In addition he changed the name of his father and grandmother to his new name.
It was subsequently determined that Mr Al Temimi had not disclosed that he was convicted of fraud in 2005 in the name of “Sam Regan”.
The Tribunal, not surprisingly, determined that he was not a person of good character.
In this matter there is no suggestion that the Applicant’s failure to disclose that he was named Sajadi at birth was intended to mislead or deceive or to obtain an unfair advantage.
The uncontested evidence is that except for a few months after his birth, and for a very short period of time while he was living in Indonesia, he has always been known as Assadullah.
The failure of the Applicant can be characterised as a honest mistake rather than a deliberate lie. Further, it could not be seriously said that this mistake leads anywhere or compromised anyone. It was, in the scheme of things, a slip up and in the particular circumstances of this matter could be characterised as trivial.
Reason for leaving Afghanistan
The Respondent contends (RSFIC paras 28-32) that the Applicant has provided inconsistent information over time in relation to his reasons for leaving Afghanistan and has not provided a reasonable explanation for such inconsistencies.
The Respondent points out that the Applicant claimed in various documents that he left Afghanistan:
(a)To escape the fighting and that his life was in danger;
(b)There was a land dispute and his uncle as killed and his father wounded;
(c)He wanted a better life for his family, and if he returned to Afghanistan, M, who his family had a feud with, has links to the Taliban and he will be killed.
The Respondent contends that he failed to mention any land dispute when he sought refugee status- Exhibit 1 T6 pp.120 -125. Furthermore, later documentation does not indicate his uncle is dead (pp.161 and 326).
In his letter of 1 December 2016 the Applicant said (p.342):
“The reason behind leaving Afghanistan and seeking asylum in Australia was the threats from the Taliban we were living in fear Because our village was close to the area of Taliban and second reason was the ongoing dispute over the land but the major danger was the Taliban and we were living in uncertain situation.”
It will be recalled that the Applicant left Afghanistan for Pakistan on two occasions. He first left in 2001 and remained in Pakistan until circa 2005 when he was deported. The second occasion was in 2008 – Exhibit 1 T18 p.318.
It would appear when reading all of the material that there is no inconsistency. Clearly there was, according to the Applicant, an ongoing land dispute. Further, M, the person who the Applicant’s family was in dispute with, had links to the Taliban.
In 2001 it would appear that the Applicant fled after his father disappeared, and at that stage the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, and he feared he would be conscripted or killed – Exhibit 1 T5 p.90.
When he returned in 2005 he witnessed a resurgence of the Taliban and the killing of Hazaras in his district – p.90.
The Applicant stated that the land dispute was over water and his “uncle” was killed and his father was wounded, and later disappeared – Exhibit 1 T4 p.20.
The Departmental notes of the 19 April 2016 meeting in this regard are instructive (Exhibit 1 T 19 p.328):
“Officer advised he claimed his uncle was killed however from his family composition he only has one uncle and he already stated that he was alive and in AFG. Client then stated that it was his father’s uncle who was killed over a land dispute with a man named ‘M’ – this is consistent except for the father’s uncle part- may be a miscommunication during PV interview.”
During the hearing the Applicant explained to the Tribunal that it was part of the culture of his area to refer to multiple relatives as “uncle”, including the uncle of his father.
The evidence suggests that the Applicant fled Afghanistan in 2001 for a number of reasons, however each of those reasons were linked. They all involved risks to the Applicant’s health or life. He claims the land dispute had resulted in the death of his “uncle” and wounding, and possibly the death, of his father. The person against whom they were disputing water rights had links to the then Taliban government, and this made the Applicant’s situation doubly insecure. He was a Hazara, and thus a member of a minority persecuted by the Taliban, and secondly the oldest surviving son of a family in dispute with a Taliban sympathiser.
The second departure from Afghanistan in 2008 would appear to be connected with the rise of the Taliban again, and, most probably, a desire to return to Quetta where there was the prospect of greater security.
The fact that the Applicant has emphasised the Taliban as the prime reason for his departure is understandable. He clearly wanted to “escape the fighting” and he wanted “a better future for my family” and there was still the undercurrent of the ongoing land dispute with the fear that M would alert the Taliban and he would be killed. In short the land dispute, the Taliban, the breakdown in security and the fear of physical harm were all intertwined.
I am therefore not of the opinion that the Applicant gave consciously wrong information to the Department about his reasons for leaving Afghanistan.
The journey to Australia
The Respondent contends (RSFIC paras 24 -27) that the Applicant gave false information at the interview of 19 April 2016, namely that he omitted to mention that on his journey to Australia he flew from Karachi to Singapore. At the interview the Applicant said he flew direct from Karachi to Malaysia. The Respondent contends (para 27) that the Applicant’s explanation “namely that he had forgotten that he transited through Singapore, should not be accepted.”
In his letter of 1 December 2016 the Applicant gave the following explanation for not mentioning Singapore (Exhibit 1 T23 p.342):
“About my journey to Australia as I said in my interview I came from Karachi to Singapore and then by road to Malaysia but during my interview in department of Immigration and Border Protection on 19 April 2016 I forgot to mention Singapore Because it is long time I had been through Mentally confused and Stressful condition while coming to Australia. It’s hard to leave your Family behind and seek asylum for a better life without fear so I have stress and can’t remember things with details…
The Department was of the view that the Applicant’s journey to Australia was a significant event in his life and did not accept that he “would forget important details such as a leg of your journey whereby you had passed through an airport, I consider this inconsistency to be significant” – Exhibit 1 T 24 p.357.
This position is a perfectly reasonable one, and viewed through the prism of most travellers it would be unexceptional. However, as the Applicant testified this was his first airline flight. He was frightened and somewhat confused. He was moved around by people smugglers before being placed on a boat in Indonesia. Seven years elapsed before his interview in 2016, and, as he said, he was confused and stressed.
However an obvious question arises. For what reason would the Applicant not disclose his stopover in Singapore? There is no evidence that he had anything to hide. Indeed his omission to mention Singapore only aroused the suspicion of the Department.
The Department formed the view that the Applicant had deliberately provided false information. Usually when a person deliberately provides false information there is an ulterior purpose. There is something to gain from such deception.
Here there is, ostensibly, nothing that the Applicant would gain from omitting to mention Singapore.
This leads the Tribunal to weigh the two scenarios. One being that the Applicant was either lying at the 19 April 2016 interview or on arrival at Christmas Island about his journey or whether he told the truth on arrival and got confused at the interview and made a mistake.
Having observed the demeanour of the Applicant when giving evidence on this point, and considering all of the evidence, I consider the second scenario to be the more likely.
CONCLUSION
The conferral of citizenship is a privilege and those reposed with the task of assessing applicants necessarily are required to carry out their duties with due vigilance and with a critical eye. Deputy President Forgie in Da Wei Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304; 55 AAR 94 explained the consequences that flow from the conferral of citizenship ([51]/110-111):
“Citizenship takes a person from a position in which he or she has many of the privileges and responsibilities of an Australian citizen to a position in which he or she enjoys and bears them all. In the ordinary rush of day to day living, the differences between the two are of little consequence as a rule. A citizen and a permanent resident each has access to private institutions such as banks and schools, to public institutions such as educational institutions and to benefits such as Medicare benefits and many under social security legislation. Each can own real and personal property without restriction. There are differences, however, and they relate to two main areas. The first is the freedom to come and go from Australia at will. A citizen may do that but a permanent resident must bear in mind the need to obtain the appropriate return visa. The second relates to voting. In general terms, only those who are Australian citizens are entitled to vote.”
The only additional comment that can be made is that the practical restrictions on a permanent resident go beyond personal movement and voting. There are various restrictions on obtaining public sector employment at both a Federal and State level. For example, Australian citizenship is a prerequisite for most employment with the Defence Forces, Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. A permanent resident is subject to deportation in certain circumstances and cannot stay outside of Australian as long as they wish. This flows from the fact that a permanent resident cannot be issued with an Australian Passport. Certain up front higher education fees are required, and there a number of other limitations.
Assessing good character is by its very nature a subjective and ambiguous exercise.
While vigilance is essential in assessing claims for citizenship, particularly having regard to the significant consequences that flow from the bestowal of this privilege, care needs to be exercised not to unduly focus on minor or peripheral inconsistencies in an applicant’s overall account and then doubt the veracity of the account and impute bad motives.
Further, when assessing an application, it is always important to factor in and give due weight to the particular personal circumstances of an applicant.

In this case the applicant is a poorly educated man with a limited grasp of the English language. He comes from a cultural milieu of rural Afghanistan and the backstreets of Quetta. His life experiences involved working on the land and in a shoe factory whilst overseas and in meat processing works while in Australia.
His record whilst he has lived here is unimpeachable.
He has no criminal record of any type; at least none was submitted to the Tribunal.
He has been employed in manual work of a type that many Australians no longer wish to do. By all accounts he has been a hard-working and honest man.
Further, he has, apparently, been a good citizen, seeking to help others in times of crisis and hardships during recent floods.
He has purchased a home and is trying to pay it off.
He came before the Tribunal without any representation and only with an interpreter. He volunteered to give evidence under oath and be cross-examined.
The Tribunal observed the Applicant give evidence. He did not try and evade questions. His answers were given in an efficient and open manner. There was no hesitation or prevarication.
In short he presented as an ordinary citizen giving honest answers to the questions posed.
The Department has viewed his contradictions and omissions as the actions of a person who has deliberately given false and misleading information. That is a view which is open, and it is appropriate that the Department cast a sharp eye on applicants lest citizenship be bestowed upon undesirable persons.
However, in this instance the Department’s scepticism is, ostensibly, misplaced.
When assessing credibility the decision-maker is primarily focusing on the credibility of the evidence as distinct from the credibility of the person. At its most basic, this assessment involves a determination whether a witness appears to be telling the truth as he or she believes it to be at the time of the giving of the evidence.
Human memory is a fragile vessel. Its contents can change and evaporate over time. Infallibility is a concept grounded in theology as distinct from the realities of ordinary mortal existence. The issue for a decision-maker is, at the end of the day, to assess whether an Applicant for citizenship answered the questions posed from entry to Australia up and until a Tribunal hearing honestly, even though there may be misunderstandings and inconsistencies along the way.
Assessed from this perspective, the Tribunal formed the opinion that the evidence given by the Applicant was credible.
The Applicant has demonstrated to the Tribunal that he is an honest, hardworking, decent person deserving to be admitted as a citizen into the Australian family and bear all the privileges and responsibilities that flow therefrom.
The Tribunal has, in all the circumstances, decided that the preferable decision is that the Applicant is of good character under s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside and in substitution thereof the Applicant is determined to be of good character as required by s 22(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.

I certify that the preceding 192 (one hundred and ninety -two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J Sosso

..........................[Sgd]..............................................
Associate
Dated: 13 July 2017

Date` of hearing: 26 May 2017

Applicant: In person

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Adam Cunynghame

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

Date` of hearing:	26 May 2017
Applicant:	In person
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Adam Cunynghame
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore