Ali and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for Australian citizenship made by the Applicant, who had been refused citizenship by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The refusal was based on the delegate's assessment that the Applicant was not of good character, as required by section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth), due to the provision of false personal information and dishonest behaviour in an earlier migration outcome. The Respondent now accepts the Applicant's claimed identity.

The sole issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant was of good character for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the Act. This determination hinged on whether the Applicant was aware of, or complicit in, a 2007 application made on his behalf, which involved the provision of false identity information. The Tribunal was required to assess whether the Applicant's ignorance of this earlier application, as claimed, should be accepted, or if his involvement or complicity, and subsequent explanations, reflected negatively on his character.

The Tribunal applied the principles of good character as outlined in the relevant Policy, which requires enduring moral qualities demonstrated over a long period, the ability to distinguish right from wrong, and ethical behaviour conforming to Australian societal values. While there was no evidence of character concerns since the Applicant's arrival in Australia in 2014, the central question remained his knowledge of and involvement in the 2007 application. The Tribunal noted that if the Applicant was genuinely unaware of the 2007 application, he could not be criticised for failing to disclose it. However, the Tribunal drew an adverse inference from the Applicant's failure to call his mother as a witness, who could have corroborated his claims of ignorance, citing the principle from *Jones v Dunkel*. Ultimately, the Tribunal was unable to be satisfied that the Applicant was not involved in or complicit with the 2007 application, and therefore was not satisfied that he was a person of good character, even though it accepted there was a chance he might be.