Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) - [2024] AATA 3003

Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2024] AATA 3003 (23 August 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2023/6974
Re:Ismat Ahmadi
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Dr Stewart Fenwick, Member
Date:23 August 2024
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal sets aside the decision dated 23 August 2023 and remits it for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that the Tribunal is satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity.
.........[sgd]...............................................................
Dr Stewart Fenwick, Member
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – national of Afghanistan – identity – inconsistencies in family composition and biodata – inconsistent national identity documentation – consideration of biometric data – consideration of life story – decision set aside and remitted
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1086
Ali Razaee and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 1336
BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865
Confidential and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 144
Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310
GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] AATA 3245
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18
Sayed Qadir Nowrozi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 2550
Secondary Materials
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act
Dena Razmehr, ‘Renewing key documents brings hope to Afghans in Iran’, Norwegian Refugee Council (Web Page, 1 June 2023)
The Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, Landinfo, Afghanistan: Tazkera, passports and other ID documents (Report, May 2019)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr Stewart Fenwick, Member
23 August 2024
BACKGROUND

Mr Ahmadi applied on 17 September 2023 for review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent Minister dated 23 August 2023 refusing a grant of citizenship by conferral. The refusal was based upon the delegate not being satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity under s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).
Mr Ahmadi believes that he was born in Afghanistan in 1993, but his exact date and year of birth are unknown. He arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival in 2010 and was granted a protection visa in 2011. The Applicant is married and in employment, and a brother and sister also live in Australia.
This matter centres upon inconsistencies in name, dates of birth, and family composition provided by both Mr Ahmadi and other family members, and as recorded in a variety of records and documents. In summary:
(a)Names – the Applicant has been associated with up to three different names being his birth name Abdul Latif Ahmadi, the name Ismat Ahmadi which was given to him following an illness in childhood, and the name Abdul Rahman during his transit to Australia;
(b)Dates of birth – the Applicant has been associated with up to six specific but different dates of birth across four years (1992-1995), and could possibly be associated with another birth year (1987); and
(c)Family composition – the Applicant appears to have failed to formally declare an older brother.
Mr Ahmadi represented himself before the Tribunal and provided a statement by email, dated 5 May 2024, a bundle of witness statements (Exhibit A1), and a bundle of family photographs (Exhibit A2). Mr Ahmadi gave evidence at the hearing in English. His brother, Mr Mohammad Jawid Ahmadi, sister Ms Farzana Ahmadi, and wife, Ms Freshte Noori, gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hazaragi language.
The Respondent lodged a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC), documents pursuant to s 37 of the Administrate Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (T), and Supplementary T documents (ST). The Respondent also lodged a Document Examination Case Report, dated 11 June 2024 (Exhibit R1), and a translation of the Applicant’s Tazkira (Exhibit R2).
LEGISLATION
Acquiring Australian citizenship by conferral is addressed in Subdivision B, Division 2, Part 2 of the Act. In addition to a range of general and some specific requirements arising in particular circumstances, the Act sets out in s 24(1) that the Minister must make a decision upon an application. This section also provides for the form of decision in a range of circumstances and, in the case of identity, provides that ‘the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person’ (s 24(3)).
‘Identity’ is not defined in the Act, but the word and its interpretation in respect of the grant of citizenship has been subject to consideration recently: BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865 (BQG21); and, GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] AATA 3245 (GJDB). Chief Justice Mortimer observed in BQG21: ‘[u]ltimately the concept of identity is about an assessment of whether the repository of the power to confer citizenship is satisfied the human being who is the individual applying for citizenship is the person they say they are …’ [32]. The President of the Tribunal, Justice Kyrou, observed in GJDB that personal attributes (such as name, gender, nationality) may change during a person’s lifetime, but are not to be ‘confused with, or treated as equivalent to, a person’s identity’ [10].
Both of these decisions recognise (albeit with different degrees of emphasis) that it is appropriate to have reference to a document known as Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (CPI 16) in considering the question of identity. Appropriately, CPI 16 acknowledges that identity is constructed by characteristics or attributes that allow them to be uniquely distinguished from others [4]. It also notes that, consistent with an identity policy statement, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection ‘is moving from transaction-centred to person-centred processes using biometrics (for example, using a facial identity to identify a person rather than requiring them to provide a range of documents …)’.
CPI 16 provides that the Department’s assessment of identity relies upon combining and fact checking among three ‘pillars’ of identity [5]. These pillars are:
(a)Biometrics – being facial images and fingerprints;
(b)Documents – being reliable and secure identity documents; and
(c)Life Story – an account of events that have happened to a person.
CPI 16 states that changes to name or date of birth need to be supported by ‘official evidence that explains each change and shows a clear link between their original identity details and the identity details they are currently using or seeking to use’ [6]. Further guidance provides that consideration be given to the reasons for any change to a person’s attributes, and that care and sensitivity be exercised in respect of certain categories of applicant [8].
CPI 16 suggests that a person’s life story can be assessed not by asking a person to recite their life story at interview, but by considering an ‘identity timeline’ [11.2]. It provides that the objective is to ‘link the applicant’s identity at birth to the identity provided in their application’ for citizenship. CPI 16 therefore suggests incorporating into a person’s life story information captured in a person’s engagement with the department. It also sketches an indicative timeline as commencing with birth, that might potentially be documented by birth certificate or registration. Here, CPI 16 indicates that there may be circumstances where one pillar may be given greater weight than others, such as in the case of stateless undocumented persons, including illegal maritime arrivals [11.3].
Finally, CPI 16 provides guidance as to what it means to attain a state of satisfaction as to a person’s identity [12]. This, too, was addressed in BQG21, where Her Honour observed that ‘[t]here is no debate that such satisfaction must be formed reasonably and rationally’ (citing Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18 (Li)). I note that Li addressed the question of exercise of a discretionary power (specifically the power to adjourn a proceeding). While citing in effect the same test, Justice Kyrou in GJDB expressed the view that a decision under s 24(3) does not involve the exercise of a discretion, but ‘formation of such a state of satisfaction’ as to overcome the prohibition expressed in the provision [13]-[14]. It follows, therefore, that CPI 16 should not be considered as setting out a ‘formulaic approach’, but rather as a ‘useful, common sense framework’ and the Tribunal ‘is not bound to adopt the three pillars approach to the exclusion of all other factors that may inform the issue of identity in a particular case’ [26]-[28].
ISSUES
The single issue for consideration is whether I can be satisfied as to Mr Ahmadi’s identity.
EVIDENCE
In his brief written statement (also at ST26, 233), Mr Ahmadi states that his name is Ismat Ahmadi. He provides the following family composition:
(a)Father – Abdollah Ahmadi, with spelling variations of Abdullah, Abdulla;
(b)Mother – Enisa Ahmadi, also spelled Anisa;
(c)Siblings – Liaqat, Javid (Jawid), Farzana, Yadollah (Yadullah), and Zaifallah (Saifalla).
The Applicant states further, in summary:
(a)different dates of birth for himself and family members arise from estimates made prior to the issuing of identity cards;
(b)the only identity document from Afghanistan is the tazkira he recently provided, bearing his birth name Abdullatif;
(c)his family all know him as Ismat Ahmadi but he and his siblings were born at home and do not have birth certificates; and
(d)the birth year he has known is 1993 and cannot explain the year 1988 provided in the tazkira.
The materials include a number of additional statements made by the Applicant. In a Statutory Declaration dated 19 August 2023 (T6, 79) Mr Ahmadi:
(a)describes the same family composition as above, adding that his mother also lost a child before the Applicant was born;
(b)states that he has only known a date of birth in March 1993, and a statement apparently by his brother Javid that he is older may be a mis-translation;
(c)explains that he attempted to change his date of birth in 2011 at the instigation of a relative who was trying to assist the family leave Afghanistan and, while it accorded with a date ‘on the back of a book’, he did not proceed as the change did not seem very right to him;
(d)the siblings are all on average two years apart in age, but he does not know exact dates, and until they obtained passports he had used estimates; and
(e)states he has never intentionally provided false information.
In a series of emails to the Respondent’s representative (ST 26) Mr Ahmadi also states:
(a)he has found a tazkira made in 2009-2010 with his childhood name and a ‘birth year which was given to me by the Authorities that created’ it;
(b)he noted the name Abdul Rahman as an alias in departmental documents, which he does not remember using;
(c)his birth name was changed from Abdul Latif to Ismat ‘due to me being very sick when I was a kid (reason could be old superstitious believes that in order a baby get well, then the name needs to be changed)’;
(d)when living in Iran when younger he preferred the name Latif because his name Ismat was a common name for women which led to bullying; and
(e)the tazkira was among his belongings which were given to relatives in Iran and then handed over to his family.
I note the tazkira (translated at ST23) is issued in the name Abdul Latif Ahmadi, father Abdollah, ‘determined as 22 years old in 2010 (Born 1988)’, issued 13 July 2009. The source is cited as ‘Volume No: 3Q, Males 88’. This was retranslated at the Respondent’s initiative (Exhibit R2) resulting in a suggested change to the birth year as ‘Age determined to be Twenty-two (22) years old in 2009/2010 [1388]’, and to the source as ‘Book No. Volume 3 Miscellaneous Males 1388’.[1]
[1] The re-translation appears to refer to the Iranian calendaring system akin to the Islamic calendar in that it is based upon the year of the Prophet’s move from Mecca to Medina. The year 1388 equates to 21 March 2009 – 20 March 2010 in the Gregorian calendar ( It is a solar calendar and in this differs from the Islamic calendar which is a lunar (hence Solar Hijri Calendar) and is used in Afghanistan as well as Iran (>
A statement is provided by each of Javid and Farzana Ahmadi (Exhibit A1). Their description of family composition accords with that given above by the Applicant, with some minor spelling variations. His brother Javid states that he understands from his mother that the Applicant is about two years older than him, and that he was given a date of birth in December 1994 in Australia and in March 1991 in an (Iranian) amayesh card.[2] The Applicant’s sister Farzana states that she is aware Mr Ahmadi had the childhood name of Latif (Abdullatif) and that according to her passport, while her date of birth is in March 1992, she could also be between 1-3 years younger than that.
[2] I understand that these are identity cards for Afghan refugees living in Iran (>
In her statement (Exhibit A1), the Applicant’s wife states she has known her husband since 2014, and that his family only know him as Ismat (Esmat) and that he had the name Latif in childhood. She gives a birth date in February 1996, estimates that Mr Ahmadi is between 4-6 years older than her, and states that they typically celebrate his birthday on his declared date of birth in March.
In his evidence, Mr Ahmadi stated that his parents had recently provided him with his tazkira when they came to stay with him. He assumed that it had been acquired to assist him to leave the country, but did not understand it because it was written in Pashto. The Applicant became emotional when explaining the place of his older brother Liaqat in the family. He stated Liaqat had bullied him when he was young and had migrated to Europe when Mr Ahmadi was a teenager. The Applicant stated that his brother had serious mental health problems and the family had given up on him. His brother has now recovered and is a good person, but Mr Ahmadi had not had contact with him for eight-to-nine years.
In a later passage of evidence the Applicant confirmed that he had transferred money to Liaqat at least once, at his mother’s request, and had a ‘few conversations’ with him around 2018/19. Ultimately, I took from this evidence that Mr Ahmadi felt at times that he was no longer his brother and for this reason did not wish to disclose him in statements of family composition. He offered in evidence that his troubled relationship with his older brother was not a legitimate reason to exclude him.
Mr Ahmadi said he did not remember if he had declared his prior names on arrival in Australia, and had ‘probably’ given the alias Abdul Rahman at that time as he had travelled with the assistance of people smugglers. He was unable to specifically recall this name used in the protection visa application lodged on his behalf at this time. Mr Ahmadi was taken to several declarations in documents that he had no other names, but was not certain about what forms he completed and when.
Mr Ahmadi stated he was present when his tazkira was issued, but was taken by a relative to have this document issued and did not actively participate in the process. He understood the document was obtained in order for him to obtain a passport to travel out of Afghanistan. The document was made but never used as it was cheaper and easier to cross into Pakistan illegally.
The Applicant confirmed in evidence his prior explanation for his change of name as a child. He stated that he did not need to disclose the name Latif because ‘it is not my name’ and he was bullied because of it. I asked Mr Ahmadi to explain his thought processes when stating in the past that he had no previous names, and he considered this may have been because he had no supporting documents.
Mr Ahmadi confirmed that he had no formal documents from his approximately ten years in Iran, including an amayesh card. He appeared to agree that he had provided further information in a form completed in mid-2019, also noting at this point that his English literacy upon arrival was very poor. The Applicant acknowledged a date of birth given on his brother Javid’s amayesh card (ST17) in March 1991, but stated the year of birth was not likely to be accurate. He also stated that such documents tended to provide a similar birth date to that recorded as standard practice.
It was put to Mr Ahmadi that given his brother’s stated birth year, and on his own evidence about the space between siblings, and the birth year on his own tazkira, that it was more likely the Applicant was born in the late 1980’s than in 1993. He stated that he was ‘leaning’ toward being born in 1989-90 and his brother being born in 1992-93.
Mr Ahmadi then acknowledged applying via FOI processes in 2011 to change his date of birth to a date in 1995 (ST3). He also acknowledged that in this application he declared being known previously as Abdulrahman Ahmadi. The Applicant accepted that this request was supported by documents including a photocopy of a page from a Koran which in translation lists the date of birth of Ismat Ahmadi as a date in June 1995. Mr Ahmadi stated that he thought this information was provided by a third party, which he also said may explain the absence of his brother Liaqat’s name in the list of siblings. He could not vouch for the authenticity of this information, and was unable to read the original script.
It was put to Mr Ahmadi that his account of ‘not proceeding’ with this change of details request was not accurate. Rather, it was put to him that a decision was made to refuse the request (ST5) because he had consistently provided a date in March 1993, and this was also found on a fake passport in the name Abdul Rahman. Mr Ahmadi was unable to fully explain why ‘relatives and friends’ may have sought to assist him to lower his age. It was also put to him this may have been in an effort to have him considered as an unaccompanied minor on arrival, however he did not provide a clear answer to this prolonged line of questioning.
With Mr Ahmadi’s assistance I identified at least four family photos (Exhibit A2) as being original images of the Applicant, siblings and parents from their childhood in Afghanistan and including in two images the older brother Liaqat.
The Applicant’s brother, Javid, in evidence affirmed a date of birth in December 1994, but eventually acknowledged he had given a date in 1996 when interviewed upon arrival. He stated the discrepancy was that 1996 was the year provided by his mother, but as officials considered him older, they set the year as 1994. The witness also stated that he did not identify his brother Liaqat throughout the interview process because he did not have a good relationship with him, then clarifying that he had mentioned this brother in a second interview. I note that the materials include a record of interview on arrival in Australia and a detailed age assessment which conclude that the witness was likely over 18 on arrival (ST14, 15 and 16).

The witness confirmed that he had provided a copy of his amayesh card in 2017. He stated that the specified date of birth in 1991 was provided by his parents and did not consider the difference with his preferred year of birth in 1996 to be particularly important. He was unable to explain why he might have identified Ismat as being four years older than himself when interviewed (ST16, 145). Javid Ahmadi stated that his brother’s name was originally Latif but was changed by his parents upon becoming unwell. At the close of his evidence the witness was able to identify himself and his siblings in the family photographs.
In her evidence Farzana Ahmadi confirmed that she believed her date of birth may be different to that which she has adopted, and is upset she does not have a date of birth. She agreed that the family generally understands their age by reference to birth order and understood that her birth year of 1992 was given when she obtained an identity document in Iran. Ms Ahmadi also confirmed the family story about the Applicant’s name being changed upon becoming ill. The witness also identified the family members in the photographs, and stated that she believed their oldest brother to be living in Germany. She added that the family had hoped to obtain help from this brother but he experienced mental health issues which affected his connection with the family.
The Applicant’s wife gave evidence briefly and confirmed Mr Ahmadi’s family composition and that she had also heard about his name change as a child.
CONSIDERATION
In closing submissions, it was contended for the Respondent that there was no inconsistency in biodata arising in this matter, and the main focus should be upon the documentary record. After thoroughly outlining Mr Ahmadi’s life story, it was put that it is commonly accepted that Afghan nationals can be uncertain about dates of birth. However, both the Applicant and his brother Javid, it was submitted, attempted to distance themselves from documents attesting to dates of birth.
It was then submitted that evidence concerning the Applicant’s purported change of name when younger was unsatisfactory, with reference made to possible variations in the story provided by the witnesses. It was further submitted that the reasons variously given by Mr Ahmadi for not openly acknowledging his change of name were also unsatisfactory. In short, the evidence – including his dislike of his adoptive name when in Iran – was described as vague, evasive, and demonstrative of being untruthful. It was submitted that the Tribunal may have difficulty determining the reliability of the Applicant’s evidence which at times appeared evasive, and at other times indicated genuine attempts at recall.
The Respondent further contended that the Applicant’s evidence about withdrawing his name change request was less then truthful, and his stated reason for failing to mention his older brother (similar to that given by Javid Ahmadi in evidence) was unacceptable. It was also submitted that, overall, the quality of Mr Ahmadi’s engagement with departmental processes demonstrated a lack of accountability, acknowledging however that it was not in fact incumbent upon him to provide documents (citing Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310 (Dhayakpa)). Equally, it was contended that there is authority for the view that it is unfavourable for an applicant when they fail to provide documents where evidence of identity should reasonably be expected to exist (Confidential and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 144 (Confidential)).
It was conceded by the Respondent that the family photographs support the Applicant’s life story (including family structure) but otherwise can only be accepted as demonstrating that he was in the various locations depicted at the time of the photograph. Documents generated in Australia otherwise do not shed light on his identity prior to arrival in Australia. Documents from outside of Australia, it was contended, are unreliable. Overall, it was submitted that in light of the range of inconsistencies arising upon the evidence and the unreliable documentary record, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied as to Mr Ahmadi’s identity.
I note the approach taken in the RSFIC to considering life story largely corresponds to that recommended in CPI 16. That is, life story is understood as a collection of information from a variety of sources that is then assessed for consistency overall, and the large number of inconsistencies bring the veracity of the Applicant’s identity into question (RSFIC [26]).
Mr Ahmadi submitted in reply that he felt sad about the situation and had tried to provide all relevant documents. At the same time he considered that his whole family were ‘victims’ of the lack of documentation. He stated that age was not something that he considered important to remember, and birthdays were not the first priority for his parents. Mr Ahmadi restated that he was not in control of the 2011 process in which he sought to change his date of birth and his mother was in danger at this time. He added that he believed that it may have been in the mind of the person assisting him that lowering his age would be advantageous although he himself was not aware of this.
I consider that the Respondent has made two relevant and appropriate concessions: it is generally accepted that establishing useful dates of birth can be extremely challenging in the case of Afghan nationals; and, that there is no inconsistency in the biodata concerning Mr Ahmadi (which I understand to mean his various photographs). Herein lies the principal challenge in this matter. I have before me a diverse series of images of the Applicant spanning his life and commencing with his childhood in Afghanistan. There is no dispute that the person depicted is the gentleman presenting himself to the Tribunal as Ismat Ahmadi. At the same time, one (but not the sole) concern raised by the Respondent is that a very wide range of dates of birth are attributed to this person, yet I must accept that dates of birth are an inherently unreliable indicator of identity for Afghan nationals.
Thus, the thrust of the Respondent’s approach on birthdates would seem to be that the sheer diversity of possible birth dates is a factor prohibiting the forming of a state of satisfaction as to identity. Put another way, it might be said that a relatively minor discrepancy could potentially be overlooked, given the minimal cultural or administrative attachment in general to precise dates of birth. I therefore consider that it is necessary to address this issue because of the level of diversity in dates arising from the evidence overall.
I have not been able to easily identify all of the instances upon which the Respondent indicates Mr Ahmadi has used or provided different dates of birth (RSFIC [34]). In any event, I consider it more profitable to consider some of the key purported dates, and specifically those associated with documents.
The legitimacy of the tazkira provided by the Applicant has been assessed as ‘inconclusive’ in the report commissioned by the Respondent (Exhibit R1). It is of course notable that this document provides only a year of birth. In contrast, the tazkira apparently provided by the Applicant’s mother (ST4) includes a notional birthdate (1 January). Without knowing more about the circumstances of its issue – which was patently many years after the Applicant’s birth – it is difficult to form a concluded view about the document and the year of birth cited.
No evidence was advanced in this matter about the nature of tazkira and their issuing. One source, that I consider to be reputable, notes that there is conflicting information about how age is determined [2.2].[3] This report states further however, that date of birth is not usually included except in cases where a birth certificate is provided, otherwise an estimate is made about year of birth.
[3] ‘Afghanistan: Tazkera, passports and other ID documents’, Landinfo Country of Origin Information Centre, 2019 (The Norwegian Country of origin Information Centre) (available online).
The document before me conforms to the analysis contained in the report cited above, and I note that in evidence Mr Ahmadi indicated that he was leaning towards accepting a date of birth in the late 1980’s. I consider that some weight should be given to this document, being the only apparently original document from Mr Ahmadi’s country of origin. It follows I can also accept at face value the re-translation provided by the Respondent (Exhibit R2) which modifies the birth year slightly to indicate the Applicant’s age as twenty-two (22) across the years 2009-2010.
For completeness my views about the tazkira are influenced by its provenance. Mr Ahmadi sought to distance himself from the issuing process and there is in fact limited evidence about the circumstances. However, I consider I am able to accept as genuine the evidence about its appearance in this matter. That is, that it was only recently given to Mr Ahmadi in a visit by family, and had otherwise been among possessions perhaps since around the time it was issued.
The document includes information about key attributes of identity, specifically a name and year of birth, that are potentially at odds with those relied on by Mr Ahmadi in his citizenship application, the subject of this matter. Accordingly, it appears to me that it is more likely than not that the Applicant has sought to provide the best possible evidence by providing at a late stage a document from his country of origin, notwithstanding that it has the potential to complicate his situation, or indeed to contribute to a detrimental result.
Mr Ahmadi’s evidence apparently accepting an earlier date of birth is of interest because the Applicant, otherwise, has adopted the date in March 1993 as relied upon in his citizenship application as his date of birth. There appears to be no source document for this particular date. From my understanding of the material, it was provided by Mr Ahmadi himself in his interview upon arrival as an illegal maritime arrival in 2010 (ST2, 9; ST5, 51). It might be assumed from the context, which includes the use of the alias Abdul Rahman, that this may well have been the date in a fake passport, most likely prepared by the traffickers who facilitated the Applicant’s passage to Australia.
Accordingly, there is no way of determining whether this ‘adopted’ date of birth is correct. It demonstrates, obviously enough, a five-year variance with the tazkira, and puts the Applicant as 17 years of age upon arrival in Australia. Despite ostensibly already being a minor upon arrival in Australia, a narrative about minor age status emerged from the materials and evidence at the hearing. As noted, questions were put to Mr Ahmadi about the reasons why he may have sought to lower his age in the FOI process in 2011. Nothing conclusive emerged from oral evidence, and the whole basis of this process appears opaque.
I note that the documents relied upon in the FOI process posit a date of birth in 1995. Little weight was given to this material in the decision made in the FOI process (ST5, 51). I consider that the same concerns about the difficulty of validating the source material remain, and were not resolved in oral evidence. This birth year would have made the Applicant 15 years of age upon arrival, and I consider that there is no indication from the evidence overall that this may in fact have been the case.
In summary, I am unable to make any kind of definitive determination myself as to the most appropriate date of birth for Mr Ahmadi. It does, however, appear to me based upon his own evidence in the context of his tazkira, that it could be that the Applicant was in fact born in the late 1980’s.
I now turn to the question of names. Until production of the tazkira there was relative consistency across a range of sources as to the Applicant’s name, being Ismat/Esmet. One specific challenge raised by the Respondent is that the claim the Applicant’s birth name is Abdul Latif is contradicted by documents used in the FOI process (RSFIC [31]). I expressed my view on the value of this material above, being that the integrity of this material and its use in that process remain unclear. For clarity, I add that while I give the tazkira some weight, I do not afford it definitive value.
This then leads to the question of the Applicant’s life story and the contribution it may make to resolving identity. It appears to me from the uncertainty about source documents in this matter overall, life story is an inherently significant consideration. From Mr Ahmadi’s perspective, it is essential to overcoming – at the least – the variation in names. For this reason, the Applicant advanced the narrative about his name changing as a result of a childhood illness. Another important aspect of life story in this matter is Mr Ahmadi’s arrival as an illegal maritime arrival with the assistance of people smugglers.
The Respondent has contended, generally, that the Applicant’s evidence about his change of name was unsatisfactory. This appeared to be bolstered by reference to his failure to own up to this narrative at an earlier stage in his various engagements with the department. It does certainly appear to be the case, as I have noted, that this part of Mr Ahmadi’s life story was only revealed in order to explain the name included in his tazkira. If nothing else, it might be argued that the Applicant previously edited his life story because, as he offered during the hearing, there were no documents available to support it.
Nonetheless, Mr Ahmadi and the other witnesses have now attested to the Applicant’s change of name as a child. Furthermore, I did not recall at the time of the hearing, but now note that I have received evidence in a previous matter that there is a cultural practice of changing a child’s name upon illness (Ali Razaee and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 1336, [41]). Evidence to this effect has also been given in other matters (Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1086, [135]; Sayed Qadir Nowrozi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 2550, [50]).
I consider that, in the context of issues with personal identity documentation in Afghanistan generally, that it is unreasonable to expect this name change to be documented. I also do not consider that, in the wider context of the Applicant’s life story, that his name change in childhood can be discounted. I note that the evidence indicates Mr Ahmadi was reluctant to acknowledge using an alias when travelling to Australia, but this name appears to have been acknowledged by him upon arrival. There is, self-evidently, no documentary support for this alias. However, not only did the Applicant state that he disposed of identity documentation, this is a common story when dealing with illegal maritime arrivals.
On balance, therefore, I consider that there is now a feasible explanation about the different names associated with Mr Ahmadi’s identity. The final question remaining is the matter of family composition. Both Mr Ahmadi and his brother failed to declare their older brother upon arrival. The name is also absent from the documents relied upon in the FOI process.
All witnesses attested to the full family composition as including the older brother who lives overseas. This was substantiated by their evidence in relation to the biodata in the form of the family photographs. Evidence was also given for reasons why reference was not made to this individual. Given the consistency of the evidence and biodata, I do not consider any reflection upon the veracity of the story given is required. For completeness, however, I see no reason not to accept the place of Liaqat in the Applicant’s life story.
CONCLUSION
I consider that CPI 16 provides a decision-maker with ample latitude when taking into account the various attributes of identity. The only slight modification of approach I would take is to reduce the emphasis in constructing a life story upon individual data points. Clearly, a life story needs to be understood as a narrative unfolding over time, however in situations such as the present matter, too much stress upon dates is unhelpful. This is due to the agreed limitations upon determining dates of birth for Afghan nationals, and also to the nature of travel as an illegal maritime arrival. These individuals may in a sense be somewhat distinguishable from other undocumented persons in that there is more likely than not to have been abandonment of national identity documents, reliance upon false documents, and destruction – in turn – of these documents.
In this case, I place substantial weight on biodata and life story in finding that I am satisfied as to the identity of the Applicant. While I consider this finding open upon the guidance provided in CPI 16, it is also supported by the principle set out in BQG21 and GJDB. That is, I am satisfied upon the evidence that Mr Ismat Ahmadi is who he says he is.
This finding is also consistent with the older authority of Dhayakpa in which it was observed that production of documentation ‘appropriate to an established or undisturbed society’ is not a requirement [117]. This decision qualifies Confidential, which in any event I consider to be less relevant as it dealt with an application for citizenship by descent, not conferral. The existence of documents concerning identity are arguably of more significance in those circumstances.
DECISION
For the reasons given above the Tribunal sets aside the decision dated 23 August 2023 and remits it for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that the Tribunal is satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity.

I certify that the preceding 63 (sixty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr Stewart Fenwick, Member

..............[SGD]..............
Associate
Dated: 23 August 2024

Date(s) of hearing: 1 & 2 July 2024

Solicitors for the Respondent HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Ms Tegan Weir

Date(s) of hearing:	1 & 2 July 2024
Solicitors for the Respondent	HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Tegan Weir