Ahmed and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

Ahmed and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 210 (12 March 2025)
Applicant/s:  Ahmad Subhi Ahmed
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:                2024/3973

Tribunal:General Member J Cipolla
Place:Sydney
Date:12 March 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

................[SGD]..................................
Genreal Member J Cipolla
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – whether the good character requirement under paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) is satisfied – relevant law and policy considered – Applicant’s background and criminal history considered – character references considered – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) section 21
Cases
BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials
CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act
Statement of Reasons
Mr J Cipolla General Member
March 2025
BACKGROUND:

On 8 June 2024 the Applicant sought a review with the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision of the delegate of the Department of Home Affairs made on 22 May 2024, to refuse his application for the grant of citizenship by conferral.
The decision not to grant the Applicant Australian citizenship was made under section 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act) on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant was a person of good character, pursuant to section 21(2)(h) of the Act at the time of making their decision.
The Applicant was born in Iraq on 26 September 1982. The Applicant arrived in Australia on 3 May 2012 as the holder of a Subclass 200 Refugee visa.
The Applicant currently holds a Subclass 155 Resident Return visa.
On 3 December 2018 the Applicant was convicted in the Local Court of New South Wales of common assault within a domestic violence setting and was issued with a Community Corrections Order (CCO) for 18 months which included supervision and commenced on 3 December 2018 and concluded on 2 June 2020. He was also made the subject of an apprehended violence order for 12 months with conditions. Dissatisfied with the outcome and sentence in the Local Court the Applicant lodged an all-grounds appeal to the District Court of NSW. The District Court affirmed the decision on 19 June 2019 and confirmed the duration and dates of the CCO and the AVO.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant complied with the conditions of the CCO and the AVO. The Applicant has been of good behaviour since that time and there is no evidence of any adverse interaction with the criminal justice system since his offending of 14 September 2018.
The delegate when considering the Applicant’s application for citizenship determined that the Applicant had been convicted of a crime of violence, namely common assault in a domestic setting and considered it to be a significant offence.
In support of his application, the Applicant submitted a number of character references attesting to his character which have been duly considered.
The delegate considered whether a reasonable amount of time had passed since the Applicant had completed his obligation to the court with respect to his CCO and AVO. The delegate determined that “a reasonable amount of time had passed to establish a pattern of good behaviour and to conclude that you are now of good character. This weighs in favour of you being of good character. I give this factor considerable weight in my assessment of whether you are of good character.”
However, the delegate went on to find that the Applicant had failed to express “sufficient contrition or remorse in relation to your offences. You repeatedly note in your statement in relation to these offences that you believe they are ‘fake’ and that your ex-girlfriend made these charges up out of jealousy or enmity towards you. You have not taken responsibility for your part in these charges against you nor the fact that you were found guilty of them and subject to a Community Corrections Order on your finding of guilt. This weighs heavily against you being of good character and I give this factor significant weight in my assessment.” The delegate concluded in the light of this assessment that the Applicant was not of good character.
ISSUE
The only issue for the Tribunal to determine in this matter is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the Act.
APPLICANTS EVIDENCE
The Applicant provided a statement dated 24 November 2024 to the Tribunal which has been duly considered. The Applicant notes that the respondent’s statement of facts, issues and contentions had been read to him from the English language to the Arabic language by an accredited interpreter and that he now understood the seriousness of the issue in review.
The Applicant advised that he was born in Iraq and that he entered Australia as a refugee on 3 May 2012 holding a Subclass 200 visa. The Applicant stated that he lived in an intimate relationship with NH and they were both involved in arguments during the course of the relationship that were reported to the police by both of them at various points in time.
The Applicant stated that he has provided a number of character references in support of his application for citizenship and that the deponents of these declarations have advised that he is of good character.
The Applicant stated that since the incident that led to the imposition of a CCO and AVO that he has never been involved in any further issues because he did not recommence cohabitation with the victim NH despite the fact that she continued to message him. The Applicant stated that he did not respond to her text messages. The Applicant stated that he fully understands the seriousness of the offending of 14 September 2018 and states that since that date he has had no contact with NH and has lived alone. The Applicant submitted evidence of photographs and messages from NH extracted from his phone which suggests that she continues to contact him despite the cessation of their relationship. The Applicant claims that NH threatened him in the past and stated that if he did not return to cohabit with her that she would send the Ibrahim family to destroy him.
By way of background, the Applicant stated that he met NH in 2014 and they lived together as partners between 2016 and 2018, indeed until the incident of 14 September 2018.
The Applicant stated that he wanted the Tribunal to take into account that since he entered Australia in May 2012, he had never had any problems with the law until the incident of 14 September 2018, and that since that incident he had no further adverse interaction with the criminal justice system. The Applicant stated that what happened in 2018 has never happened again and that in the intervening years he has had a clean record. The Applicant stated that he understands that crimes of violence such as murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, domestic violence, armed robbery, negligent or reckless driving occasioning injury or death are serious crimes.
The Applicant stated that he is a person of good character and hopes that the Tribunal will remit his case back to the Department. The Applicant reiterated that although he has been found guilty by a court of the DV offence, that six years has passed since that time, and he has never been involved in any further offending behaviour. The Applicant stated that he hoped that the Tribunal would take his history into consideration along with the declarations of support from various deponents.
The character references provided by the applicant in support of the applicant being of good character include a statement from Rihab Hoyrad dated 23 April 2024, a statement from Abdul Latif Assaad dated 11 April 2024, a statement from Samya Raad dated 28 March 2024, a statement from Lynn Raad dated 13 April 2024, a statement from Amani Sarraj dated 20 April 2024, a statement from Marya Aloudeesh which is undated, and a statement from Suzanne Quadan dated 22 November 2024.
RESPONDENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS, ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS (SFIC)
The Tribunal received a SFIC from the Respondent dated 6 November 2024 which it has duly considered.
The submission notes the Applicant first arrived in Australia as the holder of a Subclass 200 refugee visa on 11 May 2012.
With respect to the offending, the submission notes that on 14 September 2018, the Applicant was arrested and charged with common assault that occurred in a domestic violence setting. The record of the offending indicates that:
the Applicant and victim was seated in a parked car having an argument. When the victim tried to leave, the Applicant got out of the vehicle and started chasing the victim around the car park. The Applicant then grabbed the victim’s hair and pushed her against a pole causing her head to come into contact with the pole twice. The victim managed to get away from the Applicant before collapsing on the road where she was assisted by an independent witness who had observed the incident and who called the police. Police were informed by both the victim and the witness that the Applicant had assaulted the victim.”
The submission notes that the police records indicate that prior to the incident of 14 September 2018, that there were two other times in which the victim had contacted police with respect to concerns pertaining to the Applicant on 1 July 2018 and on 19 May 2018. Further to this, that the Applicant had contacted the police with respect to the victim on 30 April 2018 and 25 March 2018. The submission notes that on 20 September 2018 the Applicant pleaded guilty to the common assault charge.
The SFIC notes that on 21 March 2024 during the processing of his citizenship application that the Applicant was invited to comment on information with respect to the common assault conviction. The Applicant provided a response including a statement claiming that the charges by the victim were ‘fake’. The Applicant provided a range of references a number of deponents pertaining to his character, three of the eight references made reference to the Applicant’s conviction history.
The Respondent in the submission contends that the Tribunal should not be satisfied that the Applicant is a good character for the purposes of s.21(2)(h) of the Act. The submission notes that the Applicant had committed a serious offence and a crime of violence and was still claiming innocence, despite a finding of guilty by the Local Court confirmed by the District Court. In addition, the submission notes that the Applicant had a history of two previous domestic violence episodes being reported to the police indicative of a pattern of threatening behaviour. The submission notes that of concern to the respondent was the fact that the Applicant continued to refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing or to take any remedial steps to address his behaviour.
The submission makes reference to a number of mitigating factors, namely that it had almost been six years since the Applicant was convicted of common assault, and over four years since the Applicant completed a Community Correction Order. Once again reference was made to the Applicant’s failure to provide any evidence that he is remorseful for his offending or accepts responsibility for it. The submission notes that character references were provided on behalf of the Applicant to attest to the Applicant’s good character, however, five of the eight references were made by deponents that appeared to be unaware of the Applicant’s offending history. The submission notes that cumulatively having regard to these factors, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the Applicant is now of good character even though it is over four years since the Applicant completed his community corrections order.
REVIEW HEARING
The Tribunal conducted a hearing on 4 March 2025. The Applicant attended the hearing along with a support person. The Applicant and the Tribunal were assisted by an accredited Arabic interpreter. Mr Jonathan Hutton, solicitor, represented the Minister. The Applicant did not have a legal representative.
As the Applicant was unrepresented in the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Tribunal suggested that it could take initial evidence from him with respect to his immigration history and with respect to the offending behaviour of 14 September 2018. Mr Hutton had no objection to this proposal.
The Applicant advised that he was born in Iraq on 26 September 1982. The applicant advised that he fled Iraq in 2006 to Syria. The applicant stated that he remained in Syria until 2007 at which time he travelled to Turkey and this where he resided until 2012. The Tribunal asked the Applicant how he managed to obtain a protection visa. The Applicant stated that he made an application to UNHCR, an application that was initiated in Istanbul Turkey, and later transferred to Ankara. The applicant advised that eventually he was issued with a Subclass 200 visa that entitled him to settle in Australia and in due course to become an Australian citizen. The applicant advised that he arrived in Australia on 3 May 2012.
The Tribunal noted that a newly arrived migrant who had obtained refugee protection in Australia was given support upon their arrival with respect to their resettlement. The Tribunal asked the Applicant what support he received. The Applicant stated that he was issued with a Medicare card and that he was offered temporary accommodation and financial assistance through Centrelink. The Tribunal asked the Applicant how long he spent in temporary accommodation, and he advised he spent two weeks in Brisbane before relocating to Sydney. The Applicant stated that he lived with friends in Sydney and in due course obtained his own rental accommodation.
Noting that the applicant received financial assistance from the Australian government from May 2012, the Tribunal asked the applicant how long he received assistance from Centrelink. The applicant stated that between 2012 in 2016 he would obtain work from time to time and during periods where he was not working, he would rely on Centrelink benefits. The applicant stated that in 2016 he applied for and obtained an Australian Business Number (ABN) and started his own business in rendering. The applicant stated that apart from the global pandemic, that since 2016 he had been working as a renderer earning between $50,000 and $70,000 per year. The Tribunal asked the Applicant whether he had accumulated savings or invested in shares or superannuation, and he advised that he had not.
The Tribunal asked the Applicant whether during his period of employment as a renderer he had built up a good reputation and he advised “yes for sure”. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he ever subcontracted his services and the Applicant stated that he mainly worked on residential properties such as houses rather than on larger developments.
The Tribunal asked the Applicant about other aspects of his life in Australia and within the Australian community. The applicant stated that he has developed a hobby as a coin and note collector. The applicant advised that he did not engage in regular sport but enjoyed walking.
The Tribunal asked the Applicant about his relationship history, and he advised that he had been in a relationship on and off. The Applicant stated that he commenced a relationship with his former partner NH in 2016. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he would characterise his relationship with his former partner, and he advised that, “it was close to marriage”. The Applicant stated that he and his former partner resided together between 2016 and 2018 in Riverwood in Sydney. The Applicant stated that the relationship came to an end in 2018.
The Applicant stated that over the course of his relationship with his former partner, that he made 3-4 complaints to police with respect to issues in their relationship because she was a very aggressive and hostile person. The Applicant stated that up until now, she continues to call him, even in recent days, and that at one point, she had made threats to kill him. The Applicant stated that before commencing a relationship with his former partner, that he met her for the first time in 2014. The Applicant claims that his former partner stole some of his belongings including tools, antique items, and documents. The Applicant stated that in 2017, he was living in Punchbowl prior to the September 2018 incident. The Applicant described that his former partner had a tool that could open any door. The Applicant claimed that he was asleep in his apartment when his ex-partner opened the door and threatened him that if he did not return to the relationship and the premises that they shared that she would send Sam Ibrahim to kill him (a reference to the Ibrahim family).
The Applicant claimed that there were a number of incidences between him and his ex-partner in which either she called the police or he called the police. Reference was made to various police reports with respect to this.
The Tribunal made reference to the major incident of 14 September 2018. The Applicant was asked about his recollection of that incident. The applicant initially stated that he had faith in the justice system in Australia. The Applicant stated that he was on his way to transfer money to his brother in Turkey who is also a refugee. The Applicant stated that he and his ex-partner attended Bass Hill shopping centre because his ex-partner wished to purchase a few items. The Applicant stated that he told his ex-partner that he wanted to smoke a cigarette before going into the shopping centre. The Applicant stated that his ex-partner entered the shopping centre and when she returned, she hit him with a fist on his shoulder. The Applicant stated that initially he thought his ex-partner was joking and he did nothing in response. The Applicant stated that his ex-partner commenced swearing at him and claiming that every time they go to a shopping centre, he uses a cigarette as an excuse not to go into the shopping centre. The Applicant stated that his ex-partner had his car keys and he asked for them. The Applicant stated that his ex-partner started opening and closing the car door to cause damage to the motor vehicle then she threw herself to the ground. The Applicant stated that he went into the shopping centre and the keys to his motor-vehicle were still with his ex-partner. The Applicant stated that the police attended the shopping centre, and he was placed in handcuffs and taken away and detained for six hours before he was released. The Applicant stated that he then went to court.
The Tribunal asked the Applicant what happened at court. The Applicant stated that a teacher attended the court as a witness on behalf of his ex-partner stating that she had witnessed the Applicant being involved in violence towards his ex-partner. The Applicant stated that “I told the female judge that I did not hurt her or assault her, however the judge responded by saying that there were witnesses and an order against me was issued”.
Reference was made to the police statement with respect to the incident of 14 September 2018, contained in the joint tender bundle at pages 8 and 9. The Applicant stated that he came to Australia to serve the country and that he did not come to Australia to assault people. The Applicant stated that he was indebted to Australia because Australia saved him from a war-torn country and a country that was experiencing religious divisions. The Applicant stated that he wanted to be a good citizen of Australia and towards the government. With respect to the alleged incident the Applicant stated, “how could I be accused of hitting her on 14 September 2018 and then us being together on my birthday on 26 September 2018”. The Applicant stated that he had photographs corroborative of this.

The Tribunal noted that when a person is charged with a criminal offence that they can avail themselves of obtaining legal advice. The Applicant stated that he contacted a number of lawyers, but was not able to get representation with respect to the local court proceedings in December 2016. The Applicant stated that he entered a plea of not guilty and the matter was listed before a Magistrate on 3 December 2018. The Applicant stated that he was found guilty with respect to the offending of 14 September 2018 and placed on a Community Corrections Order.
The Tribunal noted that when a person is sentenced by Magistrate, that the sentencing Magistrate will generally speak to the offender about the offence and with respect to the sentence. The Applicant had no recollection of this.
The Tribunal referred the Applicant to the corrections order and noted that the Applicant had been found guilty of the offending of common assault within a domestic violence setting. The Tribunal noted that the evidence indicated that the Applicant lodged an all-grounds appeal to the District Court. The Applicant confirmed that this was the case. The Tribunal asked the Applicant what the outcome of those proceedings were. The Applicant stated that he appointed a lawyer with respect to the appeal prior to the matter being dealt with by the District Court. The Applicant claimed that the lawyer took his money but later abandoned him. The Applicant advised that the judge in the District Court told him that the court was not able to change anything with respect to his conviction and that he could return home.
Mr Hutton cross examined the Applicant. Mr Hutton advised the Applicant that he wished to discuss the process of his citizenship application with him. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant whether he spoke English and he advised that he understood 50% of the English language, but that reading and writing English were not his strengths. The Applicant confirmed that he was better at speaking English than reading or writing English.
Mr Hutton asked the Applicant whether he had read the section 37 documents. Mr Hutton took the applicant to page 25 of those documents which was the application for Australian citizenship lodged with Home Affairs, New South Wales on 2 June 2023. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant whether it was his signature on the document at page 39 of the tender bundle with a date of 31 May 2023, and the Applicant confirmed that the signature and the signature on page 42 were both his signatures. Mr Hutton asked the applicant whether he completed the form unassisted, and the applicant advised that he derived assistance from the Assyrian Association.
Mr Hutton noted that a number of letters were sent to the applicant during the processing of his citizenship application, and he confirmed that this was the case. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant whether the Assyrian Association explained the declaration that he signed with respect to his citizenship application at page 42 of the section 37 documents. The Applicant confirmed that he understood that it was an offence to make a false statement. Mr Hutton confirmed with the Applicant that he was aware that when he made an application to the Department that he could not be untruthful with respect to the contents of the application, and the applicant confirmed that he was aware of this.
Mr Hutton made reference to a letter from the Department of Home affairs, contained at page 91 of the section 37 documents, which is namely an invitation to comment on adverse information with respect to his application for Australian citizenship by conferral. Mr Hutton noted that at page 92 of the adverse information letter the Applicant was asked why he believed he was a good character. The Applicant stated that he wrote a response to the adverse information letter and sent it back to the Department. The Applicant stated a friend helped him in completing the response. The Applicant stated that the friend wrote the response on his behalf and read it back to him.
Mr Hutton noted that this response could be found at pages 104-105 of the section 37 documents. Mr Hutton noted that in the letter at page 104 the Applicant stated, “all the charges against me were fake and I deny them because of the enmity of my ex girlfriend she said something is not true, and you can check the police report for more enquiry”.
When questioned further about the contents of his response to the Department’s adverse information letter at page 104 of the section 37 documents, the Applicant stated “I did not mean that at all”. The Applicant stated that his ex-partner overwhelmed him with problems.
Mr Hutton asked the Applicant what he understood he was convicted of by the Local Court in New South Wales. The Applicant stated that he was convicted of assaulting his ex-partner. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant whether he assaulted his ex-partner and the Applicant stated “in reality I did not assault her. I did not say it did not happen. I am asking for forgiveness. I am a good man”. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant whether he accepted the facts that occurred on 14 September 2018, and he advised that he did. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant to tell the Tribunal what he believed occurred with respect to the offending behaviour on 14 September 2018. The Applicant stated, “it was a normal argument, I did not commit violence, I did not hit her or pull her or put her head into a pole, there was no pole”.
Mr Hutton noted that the Applicant was asked to provide statements with respect to his character and that he provided a statement from Suzanne Quadan dated 22 April 2024 at page 99 of the tender bundle. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant how he knew the deponent. The Applicant advised that she was the wife of a friend. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant what he told the deponent about the common assault. The Applicant stated that he told her that this was a disagreement with his former girlfriend. Mr Hutton inquired whether the Applicant asked the deponent to provide a statement. The Applicant stated that he just asked her to write what she knew about him. Mr Hutton noted that Ms Quadan stated that “I am aware of the charges against him and believe it all to be fake & at the time due to Ahmad not understanding English he presented himself to court and was advised to plead guilty and get it over and done with as he could no longer take time off work”.
Mr Hutton asked the Applicant whether he read Ms Quadan’s statement before he provided it to the Department, Mr Hutton noted that the collective statements of the Applicant appeared to be forwarded to the Department by Michael. Mr Hutton asked the applicant who Michael was, and the Applicant advised that he did not know his full name. The Applicant also stated that he knew more than one Michael. The Applicant stated that some of the documents that he sent to the department he forwarded himself.
Mr Hutton asked the Applicant about another deponent that provided a statement in support of the Applicant, Mr Abdul Asaad. The Applicant stated that he knew the deponent very well and that this person was also threatened by his former partner. He confirmed that Mr Asaad provided a statement, and that the Applicant asked the deponent to write anything about him both negative and positive. Mr Hutton made reference to Mr Asaad’s statement at page 112 of the tender bundle, in which he notes, “if only we could turn back time we would have proven to the courts of Ahmed’s innocence”. The Applicant confirmed that this statement was read to him.
Mr Hutton asked the Applicant how he knew Samya Raad. The Applicant stated that she was Mr Asaad’s wife. The Applicant confirmed that she provided a statement, and direct reference was made that statement at page 114 of the tender bundle. Mr Hutton noted that the deponent in her statement indicated “I am aware of the charges against him and believe it all to be fake and at the time due to Ahmed not understanding English”. The statement continued to note “if only we could turn back time we could have proven his innocence”. Mr Hutton questioned the Applicant about the uncanny similarities in the contents of Mr Asaad’s statement and that of his wife. The Applicant stated that he could not explain this.
Mr Hutton noted that the Tribunal had the police facts before it with respect to the offending of 14 September 2018 and noted that the evidence indicated that the Applicant pled not guilty at the Local Court. The Applicant confirmed that this was the case. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant what a plea of guilty meant, and the Applicant stated it meant that you had committed the offence.
Mr Hutton noted that the Applicant had prepared a statement for the Tribunal in November 2024 and asked the Applicant how that statement was prepared. The Applicant stated that his support person that had attended the Tribunal hearing with him had provided help with putting the statement together. The support person typed the statement on behalf of the Applicant. Mr Hutton made reference to the statement at paragraph 2 in which the Applicant stated, “at the time I did not plead guilty because I did not understand the seriousness of the issue and for that reason I pleaded not guilty”. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant what he meant by this. The Applicant stated, “I made a mistake, I mean the argument, the mistake that was made”.
Mr Hutton asked the Applicant who the accredited interpreter was that read the respondent’s SFIC to him, and once again the Applicant stated that it was his support person who had attended the hearing and who was also an accredited interpreter.
Mr Hutton referred to paragraph 9 of the November 2024 statement. The Applicant stated in that paragraph “I now plead guilty for what happened but asked the Honourable Tribunal Member to take into account since I entered Australia in May 2012 I never had any problems with the law until this incident and even after the incident have never had any problems”.
Mr Hutton also made reference to paragraph 5 of the November 2024 statement in which the Applicant states “I now understand that the issue at the time was serious especially on 14 September 2018 and since that date I never had any contact with NH and I live alone”. Mr Hutton noted that the contents of the November 2024 statement appeared to contradict previous statements provided by the Applicant and statements provided in support of the Applicant by various deponents. The Applicant stated, “I did not mean that, I was overwhelmed with problems, out of the blue came a series of events”.
Mr Hutton asked the Applicant whether he had been told that he had to tell the Tribunal that he accepted the offending. The Applicant stated that nobody told him that. Mr Hutton stated that in previous statements, the Applicant advised that he never hit his former partner in the November 2024 statement he admits to the offending. The Applicant stated, “I am responsible for what I wrote I believe in the justice system”.
Mr Hutton asked the Applicant how he could believe in the justice system if he had been convicted of something that he did not do. The Applicant stated that he believed in forgiveness and believed in this country.
Mr Hutton made reference to page 10 of the tender bundle, a police document with an entry dated 19 May 2018, indicating that the Applicant attended the victim’s home and allegedly pushed her. Mr Hutton asked the Applicant whether he recalled that scenario. The Applicant stated that this did not happen at all. The Applicant stated that he was not aware of other complaints against him apart from the incident of 14 September 2018, that he had nothing further to add and that he asked forgiveness of the court.
In closing, the Applicant made some submissions to the Tribunal. The Applicant stated that other than the offending of 14 September 2018, that he had no history of offending prior to that date and has had no problems since that date with respect to any person in Australia or in any other country. The Applicant stated that with respect to the offending of 14 September 2018, he was sorry for that, it was a mistake that happened, and people make mistakes.
The Tribunal asked the Applicant whether he had a view about men who commit violence against women and the Applicant stated, “anything wrong to any person is something bad”.
The Tribunal made reference to the Applicant’s Community Corrections Order. The Applicant advised that it was in place for 18 months. The Applicant advised that he only attended the community corrections office on one occasion and was told by the officer that he did not “have the face of a criminal”.
The Tribunal asked the Applicant whether he had been in any further relationships since the relationship with his former partner, and he advised that he had not. The Tribunal asked the Applicant whether he hoped to have future relationships and he advised “yes for sure”.
The Tribunal asked the Applicant whether he believed the conviction with respect to the offending behaviour of 14 September 2018 casts dispersions over him with respect to his character. Once again, the Applicant stated that he had no problems with the criminal justice system prior to the incident of 14 September 2018 in any country, and no adverse interaction post the offending of September 2018.
Mr Hutton made closing submissions on behalf of the Minister and advised that he wanted to bring to the attention of the Tribunal three points of law.
Mr Hutton noted that the issue before the Tribunal is whether or not the applicant is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application. The task of the Tribunal is to be positively satisfied that the applicant is of good character.
Mr Hutton stated that the first point that he wished to make was that the evidence of a criminal history is on its face an indication that a person is not of good character. Mr Hutton posited that the Tribunal must look at the offending behaviour that the person was convicted of to determine whether it impugned character. Mr Hutton made reference to CPI 15, the procedural instructions with respect to the assessment of character under the Citizenship Act. Mr Hutton noted that under this policy violent offending particularly offending with respect to domestic violence were considered to be within the realm of serious offending.
Mr Hutton noted that the Tribunal in acknowledging the offending then needed to consider subsequent issues with respect to the period post offending. Mr Hutton noted the Tribunal is required to look at the 6 ½ years since the offending behaviour, which the Minister accepted was a significant period of time.
Mr Hutton noted that it was not solely determinative as to whether a criminal record is a blot on a person’s character. The Tribunal must look at a) contemporaneous views of the person with respect to their offending; b) whether the person displays an understanding of the offending; c) whether they have displayed remorse for the offending.
The third matter the Tribunal was required to give consideration to in determining whether or not a person is of good character, is whether a person has been honest and truthful with respect to their dealings with the Department around visa matters and citizenship matters. Mr Hutton noted that CPI 15 indicated that a person who is of good character would be honest in their dealings with the government. Further to this that the general proposition is that a) serious offending, namely the seriousness of the offending, tends to suggest that a person is not of good character; b) whilst a period of six and a half years has passed since the offending behaviour, the Applicant continues to deny his offending and hence does not demonstrate proper insight into his offending.
Mr Hutton noted that the evidence before the Tribunal in the materials provided by the Applicant to the Department and to the Tribunal about his offending have been inconsistent, which raises questions with respect to the honesty and good character of the applicant (the evidence denying the offending).
Turning to the evidence before the Tribunal, Mr Hutton noted that the best starting point was the fact that the applicant had been convicted for common assault within a domestic violence setting. Mr Hutton acknowledged that the Applicant pled not guilty to that offending, however he was nevertheless convicted of the offending by the Local Court, a conviction that was upheld on the all-grounds appeal by the District Court of New South Wales. Mr Hutton acknowledged that there was not a statement of the relevant sentencing facts by the Local Court as to the precise nature of what the court found with respect to the offending, as no such document was provided by return of summons. However, Mr Hutton noted that there is a police record which outlines the offending committed in the car park which contends that the Applicant grabbed his partner’s hair and caused her head to come into contact with a pole twice. Mr Hutton noted that this evidence came from a statement provided by the victim and an independent witness, and that the Applicant corroborated in his evidence to the Tribunal that an independent witness gave evidence at the Local Court against him.
Mr Hutton noted that the finding by the Local Court had to be made with respect to the criminal standard of proof, namely, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Mr Hutton acknowledged that it was not beyond the realm of the Tribunal to look behind the findings of the Local Court however, this required a high evidentiary burden in order for the Applicant to prove that the court’s finding was wrong, due to the fact that the court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr Hutton posited that the Applicant had not discharged that burden. Mr Hutton noted that in this respect the highest evidence of the applicant was his evidence that the witness at the Local Court said that “he may have harmed his partner” which, Mr Hutton contended was not sufficient to discharge the high evidentiary burden with respect to the Local Court findings that had grounded the conviction.
Mr Hutton stated that with respect to relevant policy considerations, that the Tribunal should place significant weight on the convictions of December 2014, despite the Applicant’s protestations with respect to his innocence. The Tribunal should rely on the Local Court findings which were confirmed by the District Court in the severity appeal lodged by the Applicant.
Mr Hutton noted that the Applicant provided a number of statements with respect to requests for information from the Department during the processing of his citizenship application. The Applicant’s statements to the Department were that all the charges against him were ‘fake’ and that he denied them. Mr Hutton stated that it is hard to put a gloss on those statements given the applicant’s assertions that his ex-partner had made false accusations against him. Mr Hutton posited that if the Tribunal accepts the underlying offending, then the Applicant’s claims that the charges are fake should not be given any weight.
The Applicant stated that he wanted to reiterate an earlier point that he made which is why, if he assaulted his ex-partner on 14 September 2018, she would join him for his birthday celebrations on 26 September 2018. The Applicant asked how these two facts could be reconciled. Mr Hutton commented that issues around domestic violence can be complex and multifaceted. Mr Hutton added that if this was the only thing that the Applicant was reliant on to disprove the conviction it does not overcome the findings made by the Local Court.
Mr Hutton noted that the references provided by various deponents particularly those of Mr Assad and Ms Raad were materially replicated. Mr Hutton noted that the Applicant’s evidence was that he had read and understood those letters and that those letters made assertions about the charges arising from the 14 September 2018 incident and described them as fake.

Mr Hutton stated that the overall thrust of the material submitted by the Applicant denied the assault conduct for which he was convicted. Mr Hutton noted that as recently as 8 June 2024 when the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review, he declared he was innocent as evidenced in page 2 in the application to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Mr Hutton noted that that evidence was contradicted in the Applicant’s November 2024 statement, that he now understands the seriousness of the issues having received the respondent’s SFIC and that document being read to him by an accredited interpreter.
Mr Hutton made reference to the inconsistencies in the written evidence and oral evidence provided by the Applicant with respect to the offending of September 2018.
Mr Hutton noted the Applicant’s evidence with respect to the volatility of his relationship with his ex-partner. Mr Hutton stated that in this respect there was limited reliable evidence about other disputes between the Applicant and his ex-partner other than the dispute that was determined in the Local Court of New South Wales. Mr Hutton pointed to police documents in the tender bundle in which the Applicant’s ex-partner denied claims made by the Applicant with respect to his complaints to the police.
Mr Hutton made reference to the Applicant’s evidence that his ex-partner still continues to contact him despite the offending of September 2014. Mr Hutton noted that ultimately the Applicant’s ex-partner made a complaint to the police that led to the Applicant being convicted of common assault within a domestic violence setting by the Local Court in New South Wales. Mr Hutton stated that with respect to the prior history between the applicant and his ex-partner, that it was relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration with respect to the Applicant’s character, and that the strongest evidence were the findings made by the Local Court of New South Wales in December 2014.
Mr Hutton stated there was no evidence that despite the passage of almost 6 ½ years since the offending that would overcome the shadow of the applicant’s September 2018 offending. There was no evidence that the Applicant had taken steps that addressed his offending behaviour, or that would mitigate the impact of his offending with respect to his character.
The Applicant was invited to make any closing submissions. The Applicant stated that he had supplied accounts of what transpired. The Applicant stated that he was just giving an account of what transpired with respect to his relationship with his ex-partner. The Applicant stated that he is against violence against women. The Applicant stated that he had no criminal history prior to the offending of September 2018, and that since the conviction of December 2018 he has not engaged in any offending behaviour since that time. The hearing concluded.
LAW & POLICY
As noted, there is only one issue before the Tribunal, and that is whether the Tribunal can be positively satisfied that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act 2007.
Good character is not defined in the legislation, but it has been considered by the courts on numerous occasions, including by the Federal Court in the case of BOY19 v the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. In that case, O’Bryan J stated that:
The following principles can be distilled from the authorities about the meaning of the expression ‘good character’ in section 21(2) of the Act. First, it refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person and not to the good standing, fame, or repute of that person in the community, although the latter may provide evidence of the former. The expression is not concerned with the physical or intellectual attributes or abilities of the person. Second, the expression does not have a fixed or precise content. Like other broad statutory standards, such as whether an entity is a fit and proper person to hold a statutory license, or whether a decision is in the public interest, the expression imports a discretionary value judgement to be made by reference to undefined factual matters confined only to the subject matters, scope, and purpose of the statutory provisions. Third, and as a corollary of the second point, the expression requires a judgement as to whether any proved deficiencies in the moral qualities of a person are sufficient to deny the person citizenship.[1]
[1] [2019] FCA 574 at [51].
In considering the question of good character, the Tribunal takes guidance from part 4 of the Citizenship Policy 15, which states that the Tribunal should consider factors such as the Applicant’s family life, their home environment, their employment history and the payment of taxes, together with any community work that is engaged in.
The Tribunal must make a decision as part of an overall assessment, which includes taking into account an Applicant’s offending. However, it also must include an assessment of the positive aspects of the Applicant’s life, the information must be weighed to enable the Tribunal to make an assessment as to whether it is able to reach an affirmative belief that the Applicant is of good character.
The Instructions specifically call for decision makers to ‘look holistically at an applicant's behaviour over time and reach a conclusion about the person’s enduring moral qualities.’[2] A person’s enduring moral qualities encompass:
- characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;
- distinguishing right from wrong; and
- behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
It is well established that the Tribunal will apply government policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[3] The Tribunal is guided by the considerations outlined above when determining whether the Applicant meets the good character requirement for Australian citizenship by conferral.
[3] See Re Drake and Minister for Immigration, and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645 per Brennan J, which was cited with approval in Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Gray (1994) 33 ALD 13, 30 per French and Drummond JJ
FINDINGS
The Applicant was born in Iraq. The Applicant fled Iraq in 2006 and travelled to Syria then to Turkey. The Applicant applied for refugee protection through UNHCR and was granted a Subclass 200 visa and arrived in Australia on 3 May 2012. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Australian government provided a range of supports to the Applicant to assist with his integration into the Australian community. The evidence indicates that between 2012 and 2016, the Applicant survived financially through a combination of paid work, supplemented when required, by Centrelink benefits.
In 2016, the Applicant obtained an ABN and commenced his own business in rendering. The Applicant advised that he has been able to generate an income of between $50,000 and $70,000 per annum since that time. The Applicant provided evidence that his income (like many millions of Australians) was impacted by the global pandemic from 2020. The Applicant’s ability to set up a business as a renderer is commendable.
The Applicant lives alone and that he has developed a hobby collecting currencies both notes and coins.
The Applicant met NH in 2014 and that they lived together as partners between 2016 in 2018 until the offending incident took place on 14 September 2018.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the relationship between the Applicant and NH was a volatile one. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that both the Applicant and NH over the course of their relationship contacted police a number of times with respect to a range of altercations between them.
The tender bundle before the Tribunal indicates that the first entry and law enforcement records pertaining to volatility in the relationship is dated the 3 January 2016, which notes that the Applicant and NH had at that point in time only been residing together for one month.
On 14 September 2018, the Applicant was arrested and charged with common assault in a domestic violence setting. The COPS records before the Tribunal indicate that the Applicant and his former partner were sitting in a parked car in a shopping centre arguing. The evidence indicates that the argument between the couple became more heated and that when the Applicant’s former partner tried to leave the situation, the Applicant chased his former partner, grabbed her by the hair and pushed her against a pole causing her head to come into contact with a pole twice. An independent witness at the shopping centre where the offending occurred, observed the incident, and called the police. The COPS records indicates that shortly after the incident was reported, police attended the location and spoke with all the parties involved. The record indicates that police were informed by both the victim and the witness that the victim had been assaulted by the Applicant. The record indicates that paramedics attended the location and treated the victim for her injuries, the police arrested the Applicant and cautioned him for assaulting the victim. At a later point in time, the victim was conveyed to Bass Hill Police Station where she provided a statement to police with respect to the assault. During that interview the victim informed police that she had a lump on the left side of the head from when the Applicant pushed her against a pole. The COPS record indicates that the Applicant was “afforded the opportunity to participate in an electronic record of interview, however, that was declined after seeking legal advice”.
The Applicant pleaded not guilty to the offending behaviour before the Local Court of New South Wales in Liverpool. The Applicant was not legally represented in the proceedings before the Local Court. The Applicant was assisted in these proceedings by an accredited interpreter.
Despite the Applicant entering a plea of not guilty on 3 December 2018, Local Court Magistrate Holdsworth, found the Applicant guilty of the offence of common assault in a domestic violence setting. With respect to the assault, the Magistrate convicted the Applicant and directed the Applicant to enter into a Community Correction Order for 18 months. The Community Correction Order, located at page 22 of the tender bundle, was subject to the following standard conditions, that the Applicant must not commit any offences, that the Applicant must appear before the court if called on to do so during the term of the order, and the Applicant was subject to the supervision of a community corrections officer at the Bankstown Community Corrections District Office for the period of the order. The evidence further indicates that the Applicant was subject to a final apprehended violence order with respect to his former partner for a period of 12 months requiring that the Applicant was not to assault or threaten his former partner, stalk, harass, or intimidate her, or intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage any property that belonged her.
The Applicant launched an all-grounds appeal in the District Court of New South Wales with respect to the sentence imposed by the Local Court Magistrate on 3 December 2018.
The severity appeal was dealt with on 19 June 2019 in the District Court of New South Wales in Parramatta by acting Judge Delaney. Judge Delaney confirmed the final apprehended violence order and the contents of that order as prescribed by Magistrate Holdsworth. Judge Delaney also confirmed the common assault offence and the imposition of the Community Correction Order commencing on 3 December 2018 and expiring on 2 June 2020. The District Court confirmed all aspects of the sentencing imposed on the Applicant by Magistrate Holdsworth.
The Applicant in statements to the Department, and to the Tribunal at review, has largely refuted the findings made by the Magistrate and confirmed by the District Court with respect to the convictions. In letters to the Department, the Applicant has claimed that the charges against him were ‘false’ and he did not accept responsibility for the offending behaviour that grounded the convictions.
The Applicant in his application for review lodged with the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 8 June 2024 stated that the reason he was pursuing the review application was that “the accusation is very serious even though I declare that I am innocent. I provided evidence about my innocence”.
The Applicant in a statement made to the Tribunal in November 2024 has provided conflicting evidence to the Tribunal with respect to the offending where he states at point 2 that “at the time I did not plead guilty because I did not understand the seriousness of the issue and for that reason, I pleaded not guilty”. The Applicant at point 9 states that “I now plead guilty for what happened but ask the Honourable Tribunal Member to take into account since I entered Australia in May 2012, I never had any problems with the law until this incident and even after the incident have never had any problems”.
At the review hearing, the Applicant’s evidence was also conflicting with his earlier accounts of the offending provided to the Department and the Tribunal. The Applicant posited “how could I be accused of hitting her on 14 September 2018 and then us being together on my birthday on 26 September 2018”. The Applicant also gave evidence with respect to his conviction by the Local Court Magistrate stating that “I told the female judge that I did not hurt her or assault her, however the judge responded by saying that there were witnesses and an order against me was issued”. The Applicant then gave evidence in his closing submissions that “other than this case I do not have problems all my life with any person, not in Australia or any other country”. The Applicant then described the offending as “a mistake that happened, people make mistakes” evidence which appears to acknowledge the offending behaviour.
The Applicant also provided a number of references from a range of persons attesting to his good character. As has been discussed a number of references refer to the “fake charges” with respect to the Applicant’s offending which strongly suggest that the Applicant has told the deponents that despite the convictions in the Local Court, that he did not engage in the offending and that the charges against him were falsified.
This evidence when cumulatively considered indicates that the Applicant has not been honest or consistent with respect to the events of 14 September 2018.
The best evidence before the Tribunal with respect to the offending of September 2018 are the findings of Magistrate Holdsworth in the Local Court and the findings of Acting Judge Delaney in the District Court with respect to the Applicant’s all-grounds appeal. Magistrate Holdsworth found beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence before her, that the Applicant had committed the offending behaviour of 14 September 2018 and saw fit to impose a 12-month apprehended violence order with conditions as well a Community Corrections Order for 18 months with conditions. Acting Judge Delaney affirmed the sentences imposed in the Local Court.
The Local Court and District Court findings in the view of the Tribunal are not countered by the evidence of the Applicant at hearing that it was implausible that he would commit the offending of 14 September 2018 and then be out with his former partner celebrating his birthday on 26 September 2018. Nor is it countered by his assertion that the witness in his criminal proceedings advised the Magistrate that she may have seen the Applicant assault his ex-partner.
The Applicant has demonstrated a complete lack of insight into his offending behaviour and the impact of the offending behaviour upon the victim. There is no evidence that indicates that the Applicant has ever engaged with professionals or undertaken courses with respect to anger management, impulse control or with respect to mechanisms for understanding and not engaging in relationship conflict and domestic violence.
The Tribunal finds that this raises character concerns with respect to the Applicant at the time of the Tribunal’s decision. The Applicant’s offending behaviour of 14 September 2018 does not conform to Australian values and societal expectations and the fact that the Applicant has done nothing to address his offending behaviours moving forward or is willing to freely own up to the offending behaviour is indicative of a persistent lack of insight.
The evidence as discussed indicates that the relationship between the Applicant and NH was a volatile one, with poor behaviour apparent on both sides. The Applicant expressed that NH has continued to contact him post the offending in September 2018. The Applicant has also given evidence of his former partner being threatening towards him. In the event that the Applicant still harbours fear, or is concerned about his former partners persistent attempts to contact him, he could always consider applying for a restraining order against her to circumvent this.
The Tribunal restates that there is no evidence that prior to the offending of September 2018 that the Applicant engaged in criminal offending overseas or within Australia. The evidence indicates that since the offending of September 2018, the Applicant complied with the conditions of his Community Correction Order and the 12-month apprehended violence order and has not engaged in any offending since that time.
Discussion was had at the hearing with respect to ‘spent convictions’ and how they operate in NSW and that this may be an applicable consideration with respect to the Applicant’s September 2018 conviction going forward and may feed into considerations in a future citizenship application.
In assessing whether the Tribunal can be positively satisfied that the Applicant is of good character the Tribunal in step with societal and governmental expectations finds that domestic violence offences must be taken very seriously. The Applicant’s failure to acknowledge his domestic violence offending that has persisted over an extended period of time and his failure to take meaningful steps to address this behaviour to ensure that it never happens again, is in the view of the Tribunal indicative of poor insight and impugns his character.
DECISION
The decision of the Respondent’s delegate dated 22 May 2024 to refuse the Applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral is affirmed.

Date(s) of hearing: 4 March 2025

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: J. Hutton, Australian Government Solicitor

[2025] ARTA 210

12 March 2025

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration & Refugee Law

Legal Concepts

Citizenship

Character Requirement

Domestic Violence

Good Character

Judicial Review

Date(s) of hearing:	4 March 2025
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	J. Hutton, Australian Government Solicitor