Alimoradi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by Mr Alimoradi, who had been granted a protection visa and claimed to be stateless. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs refused to approve the application, citing a lack of satisfaction regarding the applicant's identity. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether it was satisfied as to the applicant's identity for the purposes of granting citizenship under section 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth).

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was the assessment of the applicant's identity, particularly in circumstances where he claimed to be stateless and therefore unable to provide documentary evidence of his identity predating his arrival in Australia. The Tribunal considered the Attorney-General's Department National Identity Proofing Guidelines 2014 and Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16, which acknowledge that individuals may face genuine difficulty in providing necessary evidence and permit alternative identity proofing processes, such as a detailed interview assessing the consistency and legitimacy of their life story. The Tribunal noted that in cases of claimed statelessness, the "life story" pillar of identity may be given more weight.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the respondent contended key aspects of the applicant's life story were implausible, the oral and documentary evidence provided by the applicant and his father, including statutory declarations and university transcripts, was consistent and compelling. The Tribunal found the applicant's narrative regarding his Feyli Kurd ethnicity, statelessness, expulsion from Iraq, and journey to Australia, including the use of false passports, to be plausible. The Tribunal concluded that the preponderance of consistent evidence, particularly the oral testimony, outweighed the respondent's assertions and general country information. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied as to the authenticity and plausibility of the applicant's life story and, therefore, his identity.

The Tribunal set aside the Minister's decision of 6 February 2020 and remitted the matter to the respondent for reconsideration, being satisfied as to the applicant's identity for the purposes of granting Australian citizenship.