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

Alkizaie and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2022] AATA 2434 (30 June 2022)
AppID:  Alkizaie and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
MatterType:    Citizenship
CitationNumber:         New
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s):      2021/6533
Re:Jaisem Alkizaie
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President
Date:30 June 2022
Place:Sydney

The correct or preferable decision is to set aside the reviewable decision dated 3 September 2021, and remit the application to the Respondent for consideration with a direction that:
(a)the applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act; and
(b)the applicant’s identity is established for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act.

.............................[sgd]..........................................
The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – citizenship by conferral – delegate not satisfied of good character – delegate not satisfied as to identity – where the applicant has legally changed his name – where the authenticity of the applicant’s documents is in question – consistent life story – number of documents produced in support of application – decision under review set aside and remitted.
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) s 21, 24
CASES
Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422; [1996] FCA 663
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement]
Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction (CPI) 15 - Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act
Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction (CPI) 16 - Assessing Identity
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President
30 June 2022
BACKGROUND

This matter relates to an application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent, dated 3 September 2021, to refuse the applicant’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral.
The delegate decided that s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’) applied to prevent approval of the application, as the delegate was not satisfied of the applicant’s identity. The delegate further decided that s 21(2)(h) of the Act, which requires satisfaction that an applicant for citizenship is of good character, was not met.
The respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions contained a useful summary of the background of the matter, which is replicated below.
The applicant arrived in Australia on 26 June 2010 as an unauthorised maritime arrival. On 12 September 2010 the applicant applied for refugee status assessment.
On 18 July 2011, by review of an independent merits reviewer, the applicant, then using the name 'Jasim Mohammed Mezban', was found to be a person to whom Australia has protection obligations.
On 26 August 2011 the applicant was granted Protection (subclass 866) visa.
On 1 April 2016, the applicant lodged an application for conferral of Australian citizenship.
In his application form, the applicant declared that his name was 'Jaisem Alkizaie', and declared that he had been previously known by the name 'Jasim Mohammed Manhoush Mezban.
He stated the reason for his change in name was 'to protect myself from overseas travel when visiting' and listed the following identity documents:
·Australian 'Titre de voyage' issued on 18 May 2015 with expiry on 18 May 2017;
·Iraqi national identity card in the name of 'Jasim Mohammed Manhoush Mezban';
·Australian driver’s licence, issued in Queensland.
On 3 May 2016, the Department received a completed Form 80—Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment (Form 80), in which the applicant declared that his name was 'Jaisem Alkizaie' and that he had been previously known by the name 'Jasim Mohammed Manhoush Mezban'. In the Form 80, the applicant also declared that he did not have, or had ever had, any national identity documents or numbers (including birth registration numbers and/or social security cards) at Question 14. However, the applicant provided details of the following documents:
·expired Australian travel document number issued to 'Jaisem Mohammed Manhoush Mezban' on 18 October 2013; and
·current Australian travel document issued to 'Jaisem Alkizaie' on 18 May 2015.
On 10 June 2016, the Department sent the applicant a request for further information that would support his claimed identity prior to his arrival in Australia, including any identity documents.
On 23 May 2017, the applicant responded to the Department's letter by email stating 'I do not have any original document… all the original documents are not in my possessions right now [sic]'. The applicant did not provide any further evidence with respect of his past employment or education. However, the applicant did provide uncertified copies of documents, which included:
·Iraqi passport issued on 25 August 2009 to 'Jasim Mohammed Manhoush Mezban';
·Iraqi driver licence issued on 23 August 2016 (translated and untranslated copied);
·Graduate Certificate, Technical Institute, Nasiriya (translated and untranslated);
·certificate of Iraqi Nationality issued 23 September 1991 (translated and untranslated);
·personal identity card in respect of Jasim Mohammed Manhoush (translated and untranslated);
·personal identity card in respect of Mohammed Jasim Mohammed (translated and untranslated);
·personal identity card in respect of Ali Jasim Mohammed (translated and untranslated);
·personal identity card in respect of Jaafar Jasim Mohammed (translated and untranslated);
·personal identity card in respect of Omalbanin Jasim Mohammed (translated and untranslated); and
·a marriage certificate (translated and untranslated).
On 9 October 2018 the applicant contacted the Department to request an appointment to provide the original documents. On 5 November 2018 the department reiterated its request for certified copies of the applicant's documents.
On 12 June 2019 an officer of the Department contacted the applicant by telephone to schedule an appointment to submit the original Iraqi identity documents. The applicant did not pick up the telephone, however a voicemail message was left.
On 13 June 2019 the Department invited the applicant to attend an appointment scheduled for 11 July 2019 to submit his original identity documents and a completed Form 80. The applicant failed to attend the appointment.
On 12 August 2019 the applicant contacted the Department to enquire about the progress of his citizenship application. On 19 September 2019 the department received two emails from the applicant attaching uncertified copies of the following documents:
·Form 929—Change of contact and and/or passport details dated 18 September 2019;
·change of name certificate dated 8 August 2019 in the name of 'Jassim Mohamed Alkeze', in duplicate;
·pages from the applicant's Titre de voyage issued 19 August 2019 in the name of 'Jaisem Alkizaie';
·an Iraqi identity card (translated and untranslated).
On 15 January 2020 the Department wrote to the applicant inviting him to comment on adverse information in relation for Australian citizenship by conferral. In that letter, the department advised that it held information that:
·the aforementioned Iraqi identity card is not recorded in the Iraqi records and not issued by the relevant directorate;
·the Iraq passport had been reported missing and a new passport was issued in 2016; and
·the applicant's correct year of birth is 1969 and not 1968.
On 23 January 2020 the applicant, via his migration agent, sent an email to the Department which stated that 'all the documents [the applicant] has lodged to the Department of Immigration since his arrival in Australia are genuine and authentic'. A number of documents were attached to this email, including a letter from the Consulate General of the Republic of Iraq. The applicant's migration agent provided a further letter from the Consulate General of the Republic of Iraq on 23 September 2020.
On 3 November 2020 the applicant's migration agent sent a further email to the Department attaching a third letter from the Consulate General of the Republic of Iraq dated 29 October 2020, which stated that the Iraq identity card was verified as genuine.
On 8 February 2021 the Department wrote to the applicant requesting original documentation. Under a cover letter dated 17 February 2021 the applicant's migration agent provided the following original documents:
·an Iraq identity card undated;
·an Iraqi passport issued on 3 October 2016; and
·an Iraqi driver licence issued on 23 August 2016
On 19 July 2021, the Department's Document Examination Unit (DEU) determined and reported that:
(a)the manufacturing or issuing security characteristics of the Iraqi certificate of nationality have been fraudulently compromised or personal data is fraudulently altered; and
(b)the manufacturing or issuing security characteristics of the Iraqi identity card have been fraudulently compromised or personal data is fraudulently altered.
The Department also obtained information from the International Relations Manager of the Department of Home Affairs posted to the Australian Embassy, Amman advising that [redacted].
On 3 September 2021, the delegate refused the applicant's application for citizenship.
THE LAW
The decision-maker, and the Tribunal on review, is required to assess the applicant's application for citizenship against the 'general eligibility' criteria at subsection 21(2) of the Act.
Subsection 21(2) provides:
A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied
that the person:
(a)is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the
application; and
(b)is a permanent resident:
(i) at the time the person made the application; and
(ii) at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application; and
(c) satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and
(d)understands the nature of an application under subsection (1); and
(e)possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; and
(f)has an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and
(g)is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and
(h)is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.
Section 24(1A) of the Act provides that a person must not be approved to become an Australian citizen “unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8)”.
Section 24 provides for certain circumstances in which the conferral of Australian citizenship is prohibited. Section 24(3) relevantly provides that:
(3) The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.
The Tribunal accepts that, if it is not satisfied of the Applicant’s identity, it does not need to assess the applicant’s character under s 21(2)(h) as s 24(3) prohibits the granting of Australian citizenship.
THE RELEVANT POLICY
The relevant policy to be considered in this matter is relevantly provided below. The Tribunal also takes into account the Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement], which provides general guidance on citizenship applications to decision-makers.
Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction - 16 – Assessing Identity
Guidance on the identity requirements of s 24(3) is found in the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction (CPI) 16 - Assessing Identity. The Tribunal accepts that it should apply the policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[1]
[1] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
CPI-16 states:
Three pillars of identity
When assessing a person's identity, the Department relies on a combination of three elements, referred to as the three pillars of identity. Each pillar is made up of individual characteristics.
Biometrics – a measurable characteristic that is unique to a person such as fingerprints or face.
Documents – reliable and secure identity documents as defined by the Security Standards for Proof-of-Identity Documents. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features.
Life Story – an account of the events that happened to a person during their lifetime.
Combining and fact checking the Three Pillars of Identity against each other provides a strong evidence‑base to establish an identity.
The level of risk associated with the service being applied for determines the type of evidence required to assess a person's life story. For example, a citizenship application is likely to require more evidence than a visitor visa. In some cases, officers may determine that not all of the pillars of identity are necessary to establish a person's identity.
Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction – CPI 15 - Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act
CPI 15 relies on the decision in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422; [1996] FCA 663 to describe the meaning to be given to 'good character' in the context of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act:
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 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 while the latter is a review of 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.
CPI-15 relevantly states:
If the applicant has knowingly presented incorrect information or a bogus document, this may reflect on the person’s character. If the applicant presents the incorrect information or bogus document unknowingly, there would be no ground for character concern.
CPI-15 also states:
The good character requirement necessitates consideration of an applicant viewed in a holistic way; that is, all aspects of his/her life may be relevant to consideration of character. 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 the time the applicant held a visa, and during the time their citizenship application was lodged and processed.
THE ISSUE
The issues to be decided by the Tribunal are:
(c)Whether the Tribunal should be satisfied of the identity of the applicant under s 24(3) of the Act; and
(d)Whether the Tribunal should be satisfied that the applicant is of good character under s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
THE EVIDENCE
The Applicant
The applicant gave both oral evidence and written evidence. He affirmed his statements of 25 February 2022 and 12 May 2021.
The applicant gave evidence that he had arrived in Australia as a refugee in 2010. He identified himself as an Iraqi national.
He said that his full name was Jaisem Mohammed Manhoush and that his nickname was Mezban. The name Alkizaie or Alkeze was a name given to members of his tribe. He said that ‘Mezban’ was not a nice name and that in Arabic it meant “dirt” or “rubbish”. The applicant said that his tribal name was Alkizaie.
He said that he had been born in a village on the banks of the Euphrates River. His village was called Al-Chibayish, and it was located about 100 km from Nasiriyah, where his family now live. The applicant said it was a small village of about 100,000 people. He said that his father was still alive, but his mother had died at the age of about 40. His father lives in the village of Al-Chibayish. The applicant had completed his compulsory military service in Iraq after he had graduated. He completed his military service in 1997 in the city of Al-Hillah.
After graduation and his military service, the applicant said that he had had trouble finding employment and that he had taken any job that he could to get. Ultimately, he said he worked for a company called Iraq State Phosphate Company in Nasiriyah. He had subsequently moved to Baghdad and then decided to come to Australia after being threatened at his workplace. He said that he went from Baghdad to Malaysia and then to Indonesia where he caught a boat to Australia and was taken to Christmas Island.
The applicant said that he had married in Baghdad and that he had four children who now lived in Nasiriyah in Iraq. He gave his children’s details as follows:
(a)Mohammed Jasim Al Mohammed
(b)Ali Jasim Al Mohammed
(c)Omalbanin Jasim
(d)Jaafar Jasim Mohammed
The applicant said it was not really safe for his family in Iraq because of all of the conflict still taking place in that country. Around a month after his arrival in Australia, he had applied to sponsor his family to join him, but to date his efforts have not been successful. He stated he received a letter saying that he would be unable to bring his wife and children to Australia unless he was an Australian citizen. He then put in an application for Australian citizenship in 2016.
He wants to bring his family to Australia once his citizenship has been confirmed.
The applicant said that he had met his family once in Iran since his arrival in Australia and two times in Iraq. The applicant had travelled to Iraq in order to obtain personal documents which he felt would assist him in gaining citizenship in Australia. He said that it was risky for him in Iraq as he had been a critic of the various parties in government in that country.
He had tried to maintain a very low profile whilst in Iraq. He had, however, been to the relevant government offices in order to get documentation. This had meant travelling back to the place where he was born. The applicant gave evidence about his attempts to change his surname to Alkizaie.
The applicant was questioned extensively about his citizenship application, which he said he had filled out himself and which he said was correct. The document recorded his full as Jaisem Alkizaie, and noted that he had previously been known by name ‘Jasim Mohammed Manhoush Mezban’.
He said he renewed his nationality certificate in Iraq in 2001. In his statutory declaration of 25 February 2022, he stated that he did not have the original document as there had been a government decree that anyone with a certificate from 1991 or earlier should exchange it for an updated one.
The applicant also discussed his national identity card. It is difficult to determine the date on that document, but the applicant said that he obtained the document from government offices in Iraq and that he needed to go to Iraq in order to get the card. He said that his gave his old card to the officer, that they had checked records and that he had then received new documents in return.

When it was put to the applicant that the documents had been forged, he said that they had not been forged.
When cross-examined as to the inconsistency of his name on different documents (his certificate of Iraqi nationality and his personal identity card), the applicant stated that the reason the names were different because on Iraqi personal identity cards they only put three names. Accordingly, the name on the personal identity card was Jasim Mohammed Mezban. The applicant clarified that the inconsistency was the result of cultural naming practices in Iraq.
The applicant was also asked about inconsistencies with his birth year. He stated that confusion had arisen due to an error with the census in 1972, and that that census “is not recognised in Iraq anymore.” He said that he had asked his father to go to the department to get a certificate or letter to explain what had happened but that they were told that the register showing his birth year as 1969 had been destroyed and that the only register they had was the 1957 register which recorded his birth year as 1968.
The applicant also stated that his year of birth was correctly recorded on his release from military service certificate as 1968.
The applicant had put his full name on his citizenship application. He was also referred to his 2009 Iraqi passport in the name of Jasim Mohammed Manhoush, with the surname Mezban. He said he obtained a passport in Iraq before travelling to Australia and that a copy of the passport had been provided to detention centre officials along with his citizenship certificate. He stated that the original 2009 passport had been lost in the boat trip to Australia, but he had had a scanned copy of the passport on a USB. His identity had been recognised and he was granted permanent residency.
The applicant was questioned about his Iraqi passport issued in 2016 and what documents he used to get the 2016 passport. The applicant gave evidence that he had received the 2016 passport by attending the relevant departmental office and presenting them with several copies of different identity documents. The applicant also said he then had to attend court in order to get his passport and that he had done so in the city of Nasiriyah.
The applicant gave evidence that he had married in 2000 and as to the birthdates of his children. He was also questioned about his wife’s identity and the names on the children’s personal identity cards.
The applicant said that he feared the Iraqi political parties and that he regarded them as a ‘mafia’. He said that he had had to be very careful whilst he was in Iraq. During cross-examination, the applicant stated that he did not fear harm while at the government offices in 2012 getting his documents because they were civil offices with public employees and that “they won’t do anything to us.”
He also noted that when visiting Iraq in 2012, he was very careful and stayed in Arbil which he stated “is a bit independent or separate from Iraq. Many of opposition who will oppose political regime, they live in Arbil.”
The applicant explained that he had obtained his Iraqi driver’s license in 2016 after going to the testing authority, filling in forms and doing a driving test. In his statutory declaration, the applicant noted he had done this in support of his citizenship application to provide more original Iraqi identity documents to the Department.
The applicant was also questioned about his changes of name whilst in Australia, and also about the Form 80 he filled out in support of his citizenship application. He was cross-examined regarding why he had not included certain information, such as his work history in Iraq and his Iraqi identity documents and numbers. He explained that he had believed the questions on the form to relate to his time in Australia only, and only to Australian identity documents. He stated he had filled out the form himself with no assistance.
Mr Adel Al Humaidi
Mr Humaidi confirmed his date of birth. He had been born in Dhi Qar, Iraq and came to Australia in 2010. He was now held Australian citizenship.
He knew the applicant as ‘Jaisem’ and said that he had known him for a long time and that the applicant used to buy items from his shop. He said that on most occasions he had seen the applicant with his wife. He said that his full name was Jaisem Mohammed Manhoush Mezban. He said that the fourth name was used for the region in Iraq and that the name Alkizaie was a tribal name. He said that it was the same as his name, Humaidi, which was also a tribal name.
He did not know the name of the applicant’s wife and said that in Iraq it was culturally not normal to know the name of another man’s wife. During cross-examination, Mr Humaidi stated he knew the names of the applicant’s children and provided them.
Mr Humaidi gave evidence that Dhi Qar and Nasiriyah were in fact the same place. He said the applicant and his family were Iraqi citizens.
Mr Humaidi stated that he was in detention with the applicant in 2010 and they had remained in contact since that time. They had become close friends and had a very good relationship. He described the applicant as a very good person.
DISCUSSION
Citizenship is a very important privilege, which carries many benefits including the opportunity to travel on an Australian passport. It is not to be conferred lightly. It is well-established at law that the Tribunal must be satisfied as to the identity of the applicant and that the burden of proof rests with the applicant.
Deputy President Breen in Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 stated at [8]:
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.
In this case, the applicant gave evidence that he was an Iraqi national who was born in Al-Chibayish on the Euphrates river in Dhi Qar on 1 July 1968. He arrived in Australia after leaving Iraq and travelling via Malaysia to Indonesia. He arrived on Christmas Island in 2010, and later in Australia in 2011. On the evidence before the Tribunal, he has no criminal record either in Australia or in Iraq.
The applicant was granted a protection visa in 2011.
The applicant gave evidence that his wife Jinan Ajeel Al Mohammed and his children Mohammed, Ali, Omalbanin and Jafaar, remain in Iraq. The applicant had left Australia on a number of occasions to visit his family – two times in Iraq, and once in Iran. He said he said his family was currently living in Baghdad.
The applicant relied primarily on a number of documents in support of his citizenship application and as proof of his identity. These documents were as follows:
·His nationality certificate, issued 3 October 2001;
·His Iraqi identity card, issued 15 February 2012;
·A copy of his Iraqi identity card, issued 22 October 2007;
·A copy of his Iraqi passport, issued 25 August 2009;
·His Iraqi passport, issued 3 October 2016;
·His Iraqi driver’s licence, issued 23 Aug 2016;
·His graduation certificate from the Technical Institute of Nasiriyah addressed to the General Company for Railways/Directorate of Al-Samawa Railways, dated 1 February 2003;
·His marriage certificate, dated 25 December 2000;
·A copy of his military service card;
·A copy of his ration card; and
·The identity cards of his wife and children.
The applicant said that he had obtained some of these documents when he returned to Iraq in 2012 and 2016. He said that he had gone back to his birthplace Al-Chibayash as required by Iraqi law in order to obtain the relevant documents.
The applicant said that he had had to be careful in Iraq not to attract the attention of the authorities and that he had essentially kept a very low profile whilst in Iraq. The applicant also said that he had attended court in Nasiriyah as part of his quest to obtain the relevant documents. However, the applicant did not produce any documents relating to the court proceedings, which can perhaps be explained by the fact that the passport he obtained as a result of those proceedings was considered to be genuine. A record of the court proceedings may have thrown light on the question as to the validity of his Iraqi national identity card, which was likely to have been a relevant factor. The failure to produce such documents without any explanation is not helpful to the applicant. The applicant was not cross-examined on why he had not produced documents from the court.
The applicant’s fear of attracting attention in Iraq sits somewhat uncomfortably with his evidence that he instituted court proceedings and attended government offices whilst in Iraq. The applicant said, however, that he considered this a reasonable risk to take and that the people who he was dealing with were not involved in politics.
The applicant claimed that the passport and his Iraqi identity document were completely genuine, and gave evidence, which I accept that the Iraqi Consulate in Sydney had verified that the identity document was genuine. From the evidence, it is unclear whether the Consulate also verified the applicant’s passport, although the applicant had requested them to do so.
The Iraqi Consulate advised as follows:
We hereby advice [sic] that the Iraqi Civil Identity Card number…issued in Dhi Qar on the 15^th of February 2012, which is held by Mr. JASIM MOHAMMED MANHOUSH MEZBAN, has been verified as genuine by the Iraqi authorities.
The respondent placed in evidence before the Tribunal correspondence from the Australian Embassy in Amman stating that they had been in contact with the relevant Iraqi authorities, who stated that the applicant’s national identity card is not on record with the Iraqi authorities, and that the issuing officer does not exist in any official records.
The information obtained from the Australian Embassy in Jordan does not purport to deal with the applicant’s passport.
The applicant was unable to offer any explanation as to why the Australian Embassy in Jordan, after consulting with the Iraqi authorities, advised that the documents produced by the applicant were not genuine. [redacted].
The applicant’s Iraqi identity card was examined by a forensic document examiner of the Department (‘the DEU’) and was found to be ‘fraudulently compromised or fraudulently altered’. The applicant’s certificate of Iraqi nationality was also found to be ‘fraudulently compromised or fraudulently altered’. In this regard, the applicant said that he had not altered the documents and that they were genuine.
The applicant, in his statutory declaration of 12 May 2022, stated he believed that the problem may lie with a discrepancy in in 1957 and 1972 registers. I note he was extensively cross-examined on this issue, and stated that a discrepancy between the two registers had occurred because he was erroneously recorded in the 1972 census, which also lead to a discrepancy in his birth year being recorded as 1969 and not 1968.
I give weight to the Country Information Report, published by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), published in 2017, which states that the identity documents in use prior to the 2016 national identity card were vulnerable to fraud, with the national identity cards introduced to replace the use of other previously issued residency documents. The report also states that the Ministry of Interior is responsible for the issuing of national identity documentation.
The DFAT material goes to the weight that the Tribunal gives to the findings of the DEU.
In contrast, as noted above, the applicant gave evidence that he had sought verification of the relevant documents through the Iraqi Consulate in Sydney. The applicant contends that the Tribunal should rely upon his evidence and the correspondence from the Iraqi Consulate, rather than that of the DEU or the information from the Australian Embassy in Jordan.
The applicant relied upon a section of the DFAT country information referred to above which stated that ‘Procedures for issuing documentation are antiquated. Records are kept manually and most types of documentation do not have adequate security features.’ The applicant submitted that the most plausible explanation was a discrepancy in Iraqi records.
The difficulty for the applicant is that even if the Tribunal were to place limited weight on the separate findings of the DEU, the DFAT country information and the information from the Australian Embassy in Jordan, when put together, this evidence, in my opinion, must be given substantial weight.
The Tribunal also has regard to the many different names on documents relating to the applicant. The table below, which was not disputed and was compiled from various documents before the Tribunal, shows the various names by which the applicant has been known:

Jasim Mohammed Manhoush

Jasim Mohammed Manhoush Mezban

Jasim Mohammed Mezban

Jasim Muhammed Manhoush Mezban

Jaisem Alkizaie

Jaisem Mohmed Alkeze Alkeze

The applicant gave a number of explanations relating to the use of various names. He said that his name at birth was Jasim Mohammed Manhoush. He also said that the name ‘Mezban’ had an unfortunate meaning in Arabic, namely “rubbish”. He also said that in Iraq, it was normal to only put three names on documentation.
Even if the applicant’s evidence is accepted it remains a concern that so many different names were used on official documents. For example, on his Iraqi marriage certificate, his personal identity card, his Iraqi passport, Iraqi driver’s licence, and various other documents put in evidence before the Tribunal.
In relation to his name changes in Australia, the applicant said that the name Alkizaie was his tribal name, and that he had sought to change his name in Queensland to Alkizaie. He then later changed his name to ‘Alkeze’ in New South Wales which he stated was for ease of spelling and pronunciation.
When asked why he had changed his name so often in Australia, the applicant said that changing his surname was easy in Australia, and that he had the freedom to change his surname in Australia. He also said if he had known the difficulties his changes of name would cause, he would not have made the changes.
I accept that the applicant’s explanation as to why he changed his name in Australia. I also accept the applicant’s evidence as to why his date of birth may have been recorded differently on his Iraqi documents.
The applicant produced a number of photographs to the Tribunal, including photographs showing him with his family in Iraq. I accept those photos genuinely depicted the applicant, but they are of limited value although I give them some weight especially in light of the evidence of Mr Humaidi who says he knew the family including the applicant’s children in Iraq.
Overall, at the hearing, the applicant’s life story was more focused on his life immediately prior to his leaving Iraq, and his life in Australia. There was a lack of detail as to his schooling and education, and his employment history in Iraq. He gave evidence, which I accept, that after his graduation he found it difficult to find work and took work where he could get it. He said that he had worked for Iraq State Phosphate Company, but there was little evidence to corroborate most aspects of the applicant’s life history in Iraq. However, certain elements of the applicant’s life story were supported by evidence from Mr Humaidi, who said he had known the applicant for most of his life and that they were close friends. His evidence was, however, somewhat limited in scope particularly as to details as to the applicant’s life in Iraq, and this was unfortunate given the absence of documentary evidence as to the applicant’s schooling and work history in Iraq prior to coming to Australia.
Mr Humaidi had met the applicant’s wife, and at least some of his children although he did not know the applicant’s wife’s name, which he explained by saying was normal in Iraqi culture, and that it would have been considered impolite to ask questions about her name. I give weight to this evidence, which corroborates the applicant’s evidence regarding his marriage and the fact that he lived with his wife and children in Iraq.
CONCLUSION
I found this a very difficult case to weigh. The applicant had a number of documents, the authenticity of which were not disputed namely his 2009 Iraqi passport, his military service record and his marriage certificate, although I note there was an issue with his name on the latter document. Other important documents, such as his Iraqi identity card, were said by the respondent to be fraudulent and this claim was supported by evidence from the DEU, the Australian Embassy in Jordan and the DFAT country information.
Details of his early life in Iraq, including his education, were limited although not entirely absent, and largely unsupported by any documentation. I accept the evidence, supported by Mr Humaidi, as to the applicant’s family in Iraq with his family. Mr Humaidi appeared to me as honest and straightforward in his evidence, and I accept the evidence that he had known the applicant for many years and that he had known the applicant in Iraq as they were from the same area.
Ultimately, the question the Tribunal must ask itself is whether, in light of the evidence overall, it can be satisfied as to the applicant’s identity. It is unlikely that, treated separately, either the applicant’s documentary evidence or his life story would be sufficient to allow the Tribunal to be satisfied as to the applicant’s identity. Further, the Tribunal must give weight to the findings of the DEU, the inquiries made by the Australian Embassy in Jordan that the applicant’s Iraqi identity document is fraudulent, and the DFAT country report.
I have also had regard to the letter from the Iraqi Consulate on 29 October 2020 which, on its face, results from the Consulate undertaking inquiries with the relevant Iraqi government authorities.
I am also of the opinion, based on the evidence, that the applicant has tried very hard to produce documentary evidence to the Tribunal in support of his application. In some respects, it is difficult to see what else the applicant could do without again returning to Iraq in the hope that he might obtain unequivocal evidence as to his identity such as an official letter from the Iraqi Ministry of Interior. This may not even be possible.
Based on the evidence, I do not find that the applicant is of bad character – to the extent his Iraqi identity document in particular may not be genuine, there is no evidence that the applicant deliberately procured such a document, or has deliberately lied to the Tribunal or the Department. He may in fact be a victim of circumstances beyond his control.
Having determined that the applicant is not of bad character, there remains only the question of his identity. I have already accepted the evidence from the applicant regarding his name changes and the discrepancy regarding his date of birth.
As to the authenticity of documents, there is competing evidence. On the one hand, we have the evidence of the DEU and the Australian Embassy in Jordan, and on the other hand we have a number of documents which are clearly consistent with the applicant’s life story and are not contested. There is also the evidence of Mr Humaidi, who has known the applicant for many years both in Australia and in Iraq, and who also knows the applicant’s family. The primary document in dispute is the applicant’s Iraqi identity card, which may not be authentic. There is conflicting evidence, none of it in, my opinion, conclusive. There is, however, no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant did not believe that the document was genuine.

I also take into account the fact that the applicant has apparently used the documents in issue, namely his Iraqi identity document, to gain other Iraqi identity documents such as his 2016 passport and his Iraqi driver’s licence, and that the Iraqi authorities when issuing these documents, on the evidence before the Tribunal, appeared to have considered his 2012 identity document to be genuine.
In conclusion, I am of the opinion that taken overall, the applicant’s life story coupled with the documents that are not in dispute allow me to be satisfied that on the evidence presented, the applicant’s identity is established for the purposes of s 24(3). I also find that I am satisfied as to the applicant’s good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h).
DECISION
The correct or preferable decision is to set aside the reviewable decision dated 3 September 2021, and remit the application to the Respondent for consideration with a direction that:
(a)the applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act; and
(b)the applicant’s identity is established for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act.

I certify that the preceding 105 (one hundred and five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President.

...............................[sgd].........................................
Associate
Dated: 30 June 2022

Date(s) of hearing: 9 June 2022

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms K. Wrigley, Legal Aid NSW

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms K. Pieri, MinterEllison

[2022] AATA 2434

30 June 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Date(s) of hearing:	9 June 2022
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Ms K. Wrigley, Legal Aid NSW
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms K. Pieri, MinterEllison