Al-Asadi and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)

[2019] AATA 2957

Al-Asadi and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 2957 (23 August 2019)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2018/6037

Re:Osamah Abdulazeez Asghari Al-Asadi

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:                  Mr S Evans, Member

Date:23 August 2019

Place:Sydney

The decision under review, being the decision made by the Respondent on 21 September 2018 to refuse Mr Al-Asadi’s Australian citizenship application, is affirmed. 

..............[sgd]..........................................................

Mr S Evans, Member

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – eligibility – refusal to grant Australian citizenship by conferral – whether the applicant is of good character at the time of the decision – whether the Applicant is truthful and honest – providing false or misleading information – providing different date of birth – enduring moral qualities – engaging in immigration fraud – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) s21

CASES

Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931

Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422; [1996] FCA 663
Jill Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 27; (1994) 19 AAR 148
Nguyen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 1082
Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Australian Citizenship Instructions

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr S Evans, Member

23 August 2019

INTRODUCTION 

1. Osamah Abdulazeez Asghar Al-Asadi (“the Applicant”) is a citizen of Iraq. He migrated to Australia in December 2011 as the holder of a Refugee and Humanitarian (subclass 200) visa.

2. On 14 March 2016 Mr Al-Asadi applied for Australian citizenship by conferral and in February 2018 he attended a citizenship interview in which adverse information pertaining to his identity was put to him.

3. On 21 September 2018 the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the “Respondent”) decided to refuse Mr Al-Asadi’s application for Australian citizenship on the basis that he was not of good character because he had practiced deception over a period of time in order to conceal his migration history from the Department. 

4. Mr Al-Asadi has asked the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. The matter was heard on 20 June 2019 in Sydney. Mr Al-Asadi attended in person and was assisted at times by an interpreter.

5. The question before the Tribunal is whether Mr Al-Asadi has been honest in his dealings with the Australian Government and if he is of good character under the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)(“the Act”).    

6. It is the contention of the Minister that the Applicant is not of good character on the grounds that he repeatedly provided false information to the Department in order to conceal his migration history and obtain a favourable migration outcome. The false information included identity documents where his date of birth was recorded differently. 

7. The conclusion of the Tribunal is that for the purposes of this application Mr Al-Asadi is not a person of good character.

   LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

8. Under section 21(2)(h) of the Act a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if, among other things the Minister is satisfied that the applicant:  

   “is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application”

   Determining questions of character

9. The expression "good character" is not defined or qualified by the Act. The expression was considered by the Full Court in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethic Affairs[1] in the context of the power of the Minister to refuse to issue a visa. Justice Davies said:

   It should also be observed that the term "good character" is not precise in its denotation. In one sense, it refers to the mental and moral qualities which an individual has. In another sense, it refers to the individual's reputation or repute: see The Oxford English Dictionary, meanings 11, 12 and 13; The Macquarie Dictionary meanings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Necessarily, when decisions are made in Australia under the Act in relation to persons who are overseas, greater attention tends to be given to objective facts and to reputation or repute rather than to a detailed analysis of the person's inherent qualities. I do not suggest that, in the context, "good character" refers to reputation and repute as such. It does not. But criminal convictions or the absence of them and character references are likely to be an important source of primary information. If there is a criminal conviction, the decision-maker will have regard to the nature of the crime to determine whether or not it reflected adversely upon the character of the applicant. If the conviction was in the past, the decision-maker will turn his attention to whether or not the applicant has shown that he has reformed. If persons speak well of the applicant, the decision-maker will take that into account.[2]

   To similar effect, Lee J said:

   Unless the terms of the Act and Regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words "good character" should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact whilst the latter is a review subjective public opinion… A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character… Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.[3]

   [1] (1996) 68 FCR 422; [1996] FCA 663.

   [2]Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 at 425.

   [3] Ibid at 431-432.

10. The Department’s official guide to decision makers, the Australian Citizenship Instructions (“the Instructions”), provide guidance for decision makers including the Tribunal in determining whether Mr Al-Asadi is of good character.

11. Informed by the discussion in Irving the Instructions suggest that:

    a decision maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout their migration and citizenship processes.[4]

    [4] Exhibit R1, p. 270.

12. The Instructions specifically call for the decision-maker to "look holistically at an applicant's behaviour over a lasting or enduring period of time".[5] Relevantly, the Instructions list various characteristics that an applicant of good character would have and include: 

    (a)be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the  Australian Government, or other governments and organisations, for example:

    (i)     providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications

    [5]Ibid, p. 272.

13. The Tribunal was guided by these considerations in determining if Mr Al-Asadi meets the good character requirement for Australian citizenship.

    MR AL-ASADI’S DEALINGS WITH THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT  

14. The Minister argues that Mr Al-Asadi does not meet the good character requirement of the Act on the basis of his interaction with the Australian Government over a sustained period of time. It is asserted in the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (“the SFIC”) that: 

    (i)Mr Al-Asadi’s migration history reveals that over a prolonged period of time, he has repeatedly provided false information to the Department in order to conceal his migration history and obtain a favourable migration outcome. 

    (ii)Mr Al-Asadi has engaged in a pattern of sustained immigration fraud in relation to his visa applications and the related provision of identity documents.

    (iii)Mr Al-Asadi’s persistent practice of deception in his dealings with the Department weighs heavily against his character and consequently he does not satisfy s 21(2)(h) of the Act which provides that the Minister must be

    satisfied that the person is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.

15. It follows that in order to determine if Mr Al-Asadi is of good character I must firstly consider if Mr Al-Asadi has been truthful in his dealings with the Australian government. 

    Was Mr Al-Asadi honest in his interaction with the Australian Government

16. For ease of reference and understanding it is helpful to begin by identifying each of the relevant visa applications as they appear in the Respondent’s SFIC, along with the outcome of Mr Al-Asadi’s applications and his birthdate as submitted for each:   

    (a)a Global Special Humanitarian Visa (XB 202) application lodged 16 June 2003 (refused) with a recorded date of birth 01/06/1978 (“the 2003 Application”);

    (b)a Sponsored Family Visitor Visa (UL 679) application lodged on 13 March 2008 (refused) with a recorded date of birth 25/02/1984 (“the 2008 Application”);

    (c)an Offshore Humanitarian Visa application dated 12 September 2011 (granted) with a recorded date of birth 08/03/1979[6] (“the 2011 Application”); 

    (d)a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) Visa, concerning the applicant’s brother and his then wife lodged on 27 May 2013 where the Applicant’s recorded date of birth is 01/01/1978 (“the 2013 Application”); and

    (e)an application for Australian citizenship which is the subject of the Tribunal’s review, lodged on 14 March 2016 with a recorded date of birth of 08/03/1979 (“the Citizenship Application”). 

    [6] The Respondent incorrectly lists this as being lodged on 15 September 2011 in the SFIC.

17. As mentioned Mr Al-Asadi arrived in Australia 2011 having lodged a Refugee and Humanitarian (subclass 200) visa in September that same year.

18. It is not in contention that each of these visa applications was lodged with the recorded date of birth being as stated. With the exception of the 2013 Application, it is agreed that all the applications were completed by the Applicant or for the Applicant by a relative on his behalf. 

19. In the interest of simplicity I will consider each application in chronological order and the Applicant’s specific explanation for any errors relating to that application. 

    The 2003 Application

20. Mr Al-Asadi’s first application for an Australian visa was for a Global Special Humanitarian Visa XB 202 lodged on 16 June 2003 under the name of Mr Osama Asghar born 01/06/1978. 

21. Mr Al-Asadi contends that this application was made on his behalf by his father, Abdul Aziz Al-Asadi. The Applicant states that he had no knowledge of his father having made this application for a visa on his behalf in 2003 until after he had been alerted by the Department during the process of considering his Citizenship application.  

22. The Applicant testified before the Tribunal that upon receiving notification of the refusal he made enquiries with his father who confirmed that he had made the Global Special Humanitarian Visa application on his behalf in 2003.  

23. It is the Applicant’s attestation that his father made errors of fact on the 2003 Application including provision of an incorrect birthdate (‘01/06/1978’) and an incorrect spelling of his surname (‘Asghar’).

24. Due to the destruction of documents relating to this application, the Tribunal is unable to view the original application or supporting documentation which was provided at the time.

25. The Applicant has provided a statutory declaration from his father, Mr Al-Asadi senior, which states:

    I have applied for a humanitarian visa for my son Osamah Abdulazeez Asghar Al-Asadi [the Applicant] in Lebanon… I relied on an individual to assist me in filling out the humanitarian visa form… I relied on my weak memory to fill out the required information in the application form as I did not have any documents with me to refer to and I was not able to contact my son to confirm the accuracy of the required information. Unfortunately, there were some unintentional mistakes in the information I provided.

26. It is not clear to me why Mr Al-Asadi senior would make a visa application on behalf of his son, without his son’s knowledge when he did not have access to fundamental information such as his son’s date of birth and the spelling of his surname. 

27. It is also unclear if Mr Al-Asadi senior is of the view that the errors were due to his ‘weak memory’ or the ‘individual’ who assisted him in completing the application forms. 

28. If I am to accept the Applicant’s version of events, I must be satisfied that the Applicant was unaware that his father had made the visa application for him, or that it had been refused, until over a decade later when he found out from the Department.. 

29. I am not convinced that this is the most likely sequence of events. On the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the Applicant either assisted in the lodgement of the 2003 Application or was aware that the application had been made on his behalf at the time it was lodged. I do not accept that he was unaware of the 2003 Application prior to the 2016 Application. 

    The 2008 Application

30. The Applicant applied for Family Visitor Visa (UL 679) on 13 March 2008 for three months beginning 1 April 2008. This application was sponsored by Mr Al-Asadi’s brother Mr Saad Al-Asadi. On the application form Mr Al-Asadi’s date of birth is recorded as ‘25/2/1984’.

31. The Applicant testified that he did not fill out this visa application form and that it contains information which is incorrect. He also testified that he did not sign the document.  

32. The Applicant writes in his statement of 26 January 2019 that the 2008 Application was, like the 2003 Application, made by a member of his family without his knowledge: 

    In mid-2008, Saad [the Applicant’s brother] advised that he “talked” to a migration agent about my case, and he was sorry for not being able to help me out as he was not qualified to sponsor anyone to travel to Australia. Yet, in the interview of Feb 2018, it came to my attention that my brother Saad had “lodged” a family visitor visa “application” for me, and I found out in T-document that it was refused.[7]

    [7] Exhibit A6.

33. I do not accept that Mr Al-Asadi was unaware of the 2008 Application at the time, particularly as he provided copies of his passport and signed forms to his brother prior to the application. As he writes in his statement:

    While I was in Syria in 2007, my brother Mr.Saad Al Asadi called me from Australia, and told me that he might be able to help me out. He asked me to

    translate my IDs and to get Syria [sic] judicial record…etc, and to have them handy as he intended to come to Syria by the end of the year.

    As at that point of time I had only the 3 IDs provided by Mr.Ali Nabil, I provided my brother with copies of the English translation of them in addition to a Syria judicial record … My brother arrived in Syria in December 2007 and took all… the documents with him to Australia in January 2008.[8]

    [8] Ibid.

34. On the balance of evidence before the Tribunal I find the most probable scenario is that the Applicant was aware that the 2008 Application was being made by his brother on his behalf. Further, I find that the Applicant provided documentation to support the 2008 Application which falsely recorded his date of birth as 25/2/1984.

    The 2011 Application  

35. On 12 September 2011 Mr Al-Asadi successfully applied for an Offshore Humanitarian visa. On the application form[9] Mr Al-Asadi lists his date of birth as ‘08/03/1979’. 

    [9] Exhibit R1, p. 80.

36. This application is supported by a Refugee Certificate issued by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees dated 03/08/2011[10] which also records his date of birth as ‘08/03/1979’.

    [10] Ibid, p. 104.

37. The Applicant contends that this is his actual birthdate and the documentation which gives substance to this has been analysed and its authenticity confirmed by the Respondent.

    The 2013 Application  

38. In her application for a Prospective Marriage Visa dated 27 May 2013, Ms Nabaa Hadi Salman Al-Dulaimi listed her fiancée’s family details including those of her prospective brother in law Mr Osamah Al-Asadi. In the application she had listed Mr Al-Asadi’s birthdate as 01/01/1978. 

39. When Mr Al-Asadi was asked by a delegate of the Minister during his 2018 citizenship interview if he knew Ms Al-Dulaimi he stated that he did not know who she was. I agree with the delegate that it is unlikely that the Applicant would not know the name of his brother’s now former wife.  

40. However, noting that Ms Al-Dulaimi lists all her fiancée’s siblings as being born on ‘1 January’ the Tribunal believes that she did not know the exact date of birth of those listed, including Mr Osamah Al-Asadi. 

41. As Mr Al-Asadi is not the beneficiary of this application, I do not place any weight in this error in isolation or view it as evidence he provided false or misleading information to the Australian Government.

    The Citizenship Application

42. Mr Al-Asadi made the Australian citizenship application which is the matter under review on 14 March 2016. 

43. In his citizenship application Mr Al-Asadi recorded his date of birth as ‘08/03/1979’.

    Statutory Declaration

44. In addition to the above visa applications, Mr Al-Asadi signed a statutory declaration at the Australian Embassy in Amman on 17 October 2011. The signed declaration records the Applicant’s birthdate as 25 February 1984[11]. The Applicant conceded at the hearing that it was his signature on this document.

    [11] Ibid, p. 134.

45. This is the same incorrect birthdate that the Applicant had used for the 2008 application that he claimed was incorrect on account of it being lodged on his behalf without his knowledge.

46. The Tribunal notes that Mr Al-Asadi provided the Australian government with an incorrect date of birth in October 2011. It is known that at the time he signed this declaration the Applicant had multiple forms of identification which listed his correct birthdate and he had been using his actual birthday with other agencies since at least June 2009 as his marriage certificate issued on 29 June 2009 lists his year of birth as 1979.

47. The Applicant’s UNHCR issued Refugee Certificate of 3 March 2011 also lists Mr Al-Asadi’s date of birth as ‘08/03/1979’. 

    Mr Al-Asadi’s explanation for providing different dates of birth

48. Mr Al-Asadi has provided an explanation for the ‘issue of dates of birth and the confusion it has caused,’ in a written statement dated 26 January 2019 and he expanded upon this at the hearing.[12] I will attempt to reconcile the Applicant’s explanation with the other evidence before the Tribunal.  

    [12] Exhibit A6.

49. Mr Al-Asadi states ‘the confusion’ began when he lost his civil ID Card and Iraqi Nationality Certificate.

50. According to Mr Al-Asadi the loss of these documents presented him with a problem as he ‘had to flee’ Iraq and to do so he needed a passport. He could not, he says, apply for a passport without the Iraqi identification cards which had been lost. 

51. In his written statement, Mr Al-Asadi states that he engaged a family friend who was a ‘broker’, Mr Ali Nabil, to assist in replacing the lost documents and providing an Iraqi passport. Mr Nabil provided a ‘package of 3 identification documents’ consisting of an Iraqi civil card, Iraqi passport and a Certificate of Iraqi citizenship, which was subsequently lost.

52. Whilst Mr Nabil was able to procure the documentation and assured Mr Al-Asadi they were genuine, Mr Nabil told Mr Al-Asadi that ‘the officer who issued them made a mistake when he wrote out the date of birth’. Each of the three documents had a different date of issue, but consistently listed Mr Al-Asadi’s date of birth incorrectly as 25 February 1984.

53. Mr Al-Asadi says that he had the option to have the documents re-issued through the broker, Mr Nabil, but it would require him to ‘restart the process from the very beginning’. Writes Mr Al-Asadi in his statement: 

    The wrong date was identical on all three documents, and as I was unexperienced [sic] young man and had no time and in hurry [sic] because of the tribal threats, I did not care much about the wrong date of birth on the three documents. I fled Iraq to Syria. 

1. Mr Al-Asadi proceeded to use the documents which incorrectly identified him as being born on 25 February 1984 as the basis for which he would make future visa applications. 

2. In December 2007, the Applicant states that his brother, Mr Saad Al-Asadi, arrived in Syria and took from him copies of the Iraqi documents with the incorrect birthday and copies of the English translation of Syrian judicial record issued on the basis of the Iraqi documents. The Applicant also signed some papers provided by his brother at this time, but he claims that he does not remember what they were. 

3. The Applicant then used the same documents to make an appointment with the UNHCR in ‘mid-2008’. The appointment was scheduled for 1 April 2009.

4. Mr Al-Asadi states that after the appointment with the United Nations was scheduled, two important developments occurred. 

5. First, another of the Applicant’s brothers, Mahdi, applied for an Australian visa at the Embassy in Jordan. The Applicant writes: 

   The Embassy advised that his IDs were not genuine. As Ali Nabil was the same person who provide [sic] Mahdi’s documents, I concluded that my IDs (civil card and the Certificate of Iraqi citizenship) are not genuine too. 

6. Second, the Applicant’s aunt found his ‘original genuine civil card and the Certificate of Iraqi citizenship’. This was fortunate as it enabled the Applicant to use these original, genuine documents to have his Iraqi passport updated with a notation of his correct date of birth, 8 March 1979. 

7. In the Decision Record based on a detailed interview with the Applicant which took place on 12 February 2018, the delegate makes a number of assertions which I have considered carefully as they undermine the plausibility of Mr Al-Asadi’s account of events surrounding his identification documents.

8. Mr Al-Asadi’s claim that a Mr Nabil provided three identity documents with the incorrect birthdate is not accepted by the Tribunal. As the documents (the Syrian extract of judicial record, Iraqi identity card and passport) were issued by different issuing offices at different times (6 November 2007, 21 February 2006, 5 March 2007 respectively) this contention is not supported by the facts.  

9. The Applicant’s claim that ‘the fact of the missing IDs slipped [his] mind’ during the interview with the delegate lacks credibility. On balance the facts strongly support the

   probability that the Applicant knowingly provided false information about his date of birth to the Australian government. 

   The hearing

10. At the hearing the Tribunal sought to gain a clearer understanding from Mr Al-Asadi about issues including what identification was relied on by him at particular times and what was known to be correct and when.

11. During his testimony the Applicant was disposed to providing clear and direct answers to questions when asked to do so, but promptly qualifying his answers. Consequently I was unable to place much weight on them. This frustrated efforts to establish some facts and provide credence to the at times confusing sequence of events which the Applicant claims led to the Australian government being presented with incorrect information including different dates of birth.  

12. The efforts of the Tribunal to establish whose signature was on the 2008 Application, for example, proved futile. Both the Applicant and his brother, Mr Saad Al-Asadi, were unable to assist the Tribunal. Mr Saad Al-Asadi conceded that he had filled out and submitted the application, but was unable or unwilling to say who signed the document on behalf of the Applicant.

13. I found the Applicant to be an impassioned and persuasive witness and self-advocate. He presented as quick thinking and intelligent, with a comprehensive appreciation of detail. 

14. Mr Al-Asadi noted, for example, that the Respondent had made an error in a date in paragraph 4 of the Respondent’s SFIC, and used this to demonstrate that everyone is capable of making mistakes.   

15. The difficulty for the Tribunal is that this is juxtaposed with how Mr Al-Asadi presented his role in the ‘misunderstanding’ which has ultimately led to provision of incorrect information to the Australian government and the subsequent refusal of his application for Australian citizenship. 

16. He asks me to accept that he was an overwhelmed individual who cannot recall what documents he signed prior to providing them to his brother. He stated that he could not

recall the name of his former sister in law when asked by the delegate in the citizenship interview and has ‘forgotten some of the details’ of his own ‘two-dates-of-birth story’. 

1. Mr Al-Asadi testified he was speaking regularly to his family members including his brothers and father prior to arriving in Australia, but that he was unaware they had made visa applications on his behalf. I am not satisfied that this is the case. 

2. He apportioned responsibility for the provision of incorrect information over a sustained period to factors beyond his control including the need to escape Iraq, his passport broker, the passage of time or the earnest but unknown efforts of well-meaning relatives. 

3. I find Mr Al-Asadi’s explanations are not credible when considered in the overall context of each other. 

   CONCLUSION

4. Australian citizenship is a privilege and the community places high expectations upon those whom citizenship is conferred. In Nguyen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 1082 Senior Member Puplick observed:

   Citizenship of Australia is regarded as a special privilege when extended to those not automatically qualified. Earning it requires adherence not only to statutory requirements but also to the set of moral values and qualities related to honesty in dealings with the Government. These values and qualities are themselves a hallmark of good citizenship.[13]

   Citizenship cannot be awarded on the basis of false statements. There are no excuses for making false statements in this regard.

   Equally, it is a hallmark of citizenship to take personal responsibility for one’s own actions and not cast them off onto the shoulders of others. Even persons who are not able to manage well in the English language can do this without resort to placing themselves in the hands of deceitful third parties.

   [13] See Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304 at [120].

5. This is the starting point from which I must consider the Tribunal’s findings.

   Character references in support of Mr Al-Asadi

6. Mr Al-Asadi has provided written submissions to demonstrate his contribution and connection to the local community. 

7. The Manager/Director of the Hussaineyat Ale Yassin mosque Ali Sourat writes that the Applicant regularly visits the centre and he is a ‘kind-hearted, honest and righteous individual’. 

8. His voluntary work in graphic design and IT is commended by Redha Saih Ahmed Al-Nakeeb. 

9. Giordana Caputo of the Community Media Training Organisation also notes the Applicant’s volunteer work, again utilising his IT skills. 

10. Azher Al-Hadi of Smart and Skilled Pty Ltd also notes the Applicant’s volunteer work and notes he is an ‘honest, kind and respectful friend’. 

11. It is unclear if any of the referees were aware of the reasons for Mr Al-Asadi having his citizenship application refused when they provided the references. 

12. I also note the unblemished RMS driving record report and absence of disclosable court outcomes on the National Police Certificate. The applicant provided evidence that he has donated blood regularly over the past two years. 

13. I accept the references but note they provide sparse detail and few insights into Mr Al-Asadi’s community standing or ongoing contribution.  

14. In considering these references I am mindful of the potential to mistake ‘of good character’ with the absence of criminal conviction in matters such as this. 

15. In Jill Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 27; (1994) 19 AAR 148 DP McMahon states:

    The observance of truth in dealing with officials in migration matters (particularly where the truth is known only to the person making the statement) is of fundamental importance to the control mechanism which this country exercises in visa applications when dealing with the many reasons for coming to Australia. To lie consistently, as Mr Lachmaiya has over a period of years, is to subvert the administration and, in the context of the Act, to demonstrate that Mr Lachmaiya is not a person of good repute or good character. Australia can have no confidence that he would not again trangress [sic] in matters where truth and good faith could be deceptively withheld.

1. DP Breen in Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 states:

   The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home…

   The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts. It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of State. The refusal does not deprive [the applicant] of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few year's time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.

   Findings

2. I find that the Applicant did knowingly provide incorrect information to the Australian government on multiple occasions beginning most likely in 2003. 

3. It follows that Mr Al-Asadi was aware for an equal period of time that he has provided incorrect information to the Australian Government. There is no evidence that he has sought to rectify this or to correct the record.  

4. Most recently, when he completed his Application form for Australian citizenship dated 8 March 2016, in response to Question 7 ‘Have you ever had a different date of birth to the one shown at Question 6?’, the Applicant marked the ‘no’ box. Mr Al-Asadi has conceded he knew this was not true at the time he signed his application for citizenship. 

5. Even if the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant was unaware of the 2003 and 2008 applications as the Mr Al-Asadi claims, there is no question that he knew he had a different date of birth recorded on his Iraqi passport and he should have marked ‘yes’.

6. In choosing not to be forthcoming with the facts, I find that Mr Al-Asadi did not meet the character requirements at the time of his application for Australian citizenship.

7. Furthermore, the Applicant has provided no indication of remorse for his actions beyond expressing regret that the errors in his date of birth has prevented him and his family from obtaining Australian citizenship.

1. He writes recently that he ‘did not care about the wrong date of birth … as it is not of high importance in our culture’.[14] 

   [14] Exhibit A6.

2. In putting forward excuses and not accepting responsibility for these errors he is forgoing an opportunity to be truthful and honest with his interactions, as required in the Instructions.  

3. Consequently I am not satisfied that Mr Al-Asadi is of good character under s 21(2)(h) of the Act and it follows that he is ineligible for Australian citizenship by conferral at this time.

   DECISION

4. The decision under review is affirmed. 

I certify that the preceding 95 (ninety -five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S Evans, Member.

......................[sgd]..................................................

Associate

Dated: 23 August 2019

Date(s) of hearing:	20 June 2019
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr A Cunynhame- Sparke Helmore Lawyers