Alsaad and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

[2019] AATA 114

Alsaad and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 114 (8 February 2019)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:           2018/0742

Re:Saja Alsaad

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member C Edwardes

Date:8 February 2019

Place:Perth

The decision under review is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that the applicant is a person "of good character" within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

....[Sgd].............................................................

Member C Edwardes

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – good character test – bogus documents – visa - inconsistency in information provided to department – false and misleading information – decision under review – character test satisfied

LEGISLATION

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – ss 21 – 21(2)(h) – 52(1)(b)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – s97

CASES

Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2015] AATA 256).
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634).
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Kakar and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 13
Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 27 at [49],
Nguyen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018]  AATA 1082

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Australian Citizenship Policy – Chapter 11

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member C Edwardes

8 February 2019

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an application for the review of a decision made on 23 January 2018 (T2, 9-16) to refuse the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship under s 24(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Citizenship Act).  The decision was made on the basis that the Applicant was not of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision.

2. The Application for review is made in accordance with s 52(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, which allows applications to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a decision to refuse to approve a person becoming an Australian citizen under s 24 of the Citizenship Act.

   BACKGROUND

3. The Applicant is a 29 year old citizen of Iraq who arrived in Australia on 10 May 2011 on a Partner (subclass 309) visa (T2, 11).

4. She was granted a Partner Migrant (subclass 100) visa on 12 July 2013.  The Applicant is an Australian permanent resident (T2, 11).

5. Previously, on 21 December 2008 the Applicant applied for a Prospective Marriage (subclass 300) visa which was refused on 31 January 2010 (T2, 11).

6. On 17 January 2016 the Applicant lodged an application for conferral of Australian citizenship (T4, 18-29).

7. The Delegate wrote to the Applicant on 23 January 2018 advising her that her citizenship application had been refused on the basis that she had failed to satisfy section 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act. In other words, she failed to satisfy the character test (T2, 11-16).

8. The Delegate stated (T2, 13):

   In assessing whether you are of good character I have taken into consideration the following information.

   •          Prospective Marriage visa decision record of 31 January 2010

   •National Police Checking Service (NPSC) national police check results

   The Citizenship Policy (CP) provides guidance on factors which I may take into consideration when assessing whether a person is of good character.  These guidelines are in chapter 11 of the CP.

   While I am not satisfied of your identity, I am satisfied that the information taken into consideration when assessing whether you are of good character are related to you.

   On 2 August 2016 you attended a test appointment interview at the Department’s Perth office. You were advised to rebook for a test appointment interview as you did not bring sufficient identity documents to your appointment, in order to proceed to attempt the Australian citizenship test.

   On 19 October 2016 you attended a test appointment interview at the Department’s Perth office. At this appointment you were requested to provide a NAATI translation of your husband’s National Identity card. On 7 November 2016 the Department received the requested document.

   On 21 August 2017 the Department wrote to you by email to give you the opportunity to comment on, or provide an explanation about, adverse information that may lead to a decision to refuse to approve you becoming an Australian citizen. Specifically, you were requested to provide any additional comment or explanation concerning why you:

   •          provided non-genuine documents previously to the Department

   •why your husband’s name is different on your ID card and Marriage contract to that of his identity documents

   •the circumstances surrounding your actions of providing
   non-genuine documents previously to the Department and whether you have taken steps to avoid any repetition of this behaviour.

   You were also invited to provide any additional evidence that may assist your claim to be of good character. In this invitation you were requested to provide your response in writing, within 28 working days after the date of this letter sent by email. The letter also explained that if you have any questions regarding this letter or you require more time to provide your response you may contact the Department.

   On 30 August 2017 the Department received your response to the invitation to comment on the adverse information which may lead to a decision to refuse to approve your application.

   Your explanation as to why you previously provided bogus documents to the Department was that due to imposts of travel, you relied on others to obtain your primary identity documents, such as your National ID card. In your response, you stated that it was only subsequent to the refusal of your visa application, that your husband became aware that his uncle’s friend may have forged your National ID card. Your explanation states your husband and you now take careful measures to stop such repeated behaviours, such as obtaining your ID documents personally. However, you are aware that under section 50 of the Act it is an offence to provide false or misleading information to the Department.

   I give little weight to your response as I cannot be satisfied that you are now of good character, from your explanation of why you provided fraudulent document to the Department in the past, in order to obtain a benefit. You did not provide any other evidence nor was your response made on a statutory declaration.

   On 31 October 2017 the NPCS’ national police check of your personal identifiers found that you have nil convictions recorded in Australia. While this evidence places some weight in your favour, it does not outweigh the absence of other supporting evidence that may have assisted you in your claim to be of good character, particularly any character references.

   Therefore, in the absence of any other current information or references in your favour other than your email response, which does not mitigate your past practices of providing false information to the Department, I am currently unable to be satisfied that you are of good character.

9. On 15 February 2018, the Applicant applied to the General Division of the Tribunal for a review of the Delegate’s decision.  The Applicant stated in response to the question as to why she claimed the delegate’s decision was wrong: “My citizenship was refused” (T2, 6).

   LEGISLATION

10. Section 21(1) of the Citizenship Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. Section 24(1) of the Citizenship Act provides that the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

11. Section 24(1A) of the Citizenship Act provides that the Minister must not approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under ss 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8) of the Citizenship Act.

12. Section 21(2) of the Citizenship Act sets out the general eligibility criteria to become an Australian citizen. Relevantly, s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision.

13. The term “good character” is not defined in the Citizenship Act. There is, however, guidance on the application of the “good character” requirement in the Citizenship Policy (“the Policy”).  The Tribunal will apply Departmental policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634).

    The meaning of good character

14. Chapter 11 of the Policy provides guidance for assessing an applicant under the “good character” test prescribed by s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act. Chapter 11 of the Policy cites Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 at 431-432, in which the Federal Court noted:

    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 whilst 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.

15. Chapter 11 of the Policy further states that “enduring moral qualities” encompasses the following concepts (T16, 109):

    ·characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time;

    ·distinguishing right from wrong; and

    ·behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of the Australian society.

16. Chapter 11 of the Policy states that the broad definition of “good character” means that (T16, 110):

    … 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…

17. Chapter 11 of the Policy further provides that an applicant of good character would, amongst other things (T16, 111):

    ·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries

    ·…

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

    oconcealment of convictions that could lead to the cancellation or refusal of a visa or citizenship

    ·…

    ·…not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without licence or insurance)…

18. Chapter 11 of the Policy also provides that in weighing up whether an applicant is of good character, decision makers are required to apply community standards, not their own personal standards, and question whether any mitigating circumstances and/or explanations provided by the Applicant outweigh the Applicant’s behaviour in question.  Decision makers are to consider factors including (T5, 72-73):

    ·would a person of good character have behaved the way the Applicant did;

    ·what is there to demonstrate that the Applicant has upheld and obeyed the law;

    ·has the Applicant behaved in accordance with Australia’s community standards; and

    ·does the Applicant share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties.

19. Chapter 11 of the Policy states (T16, 114):

    a decision maker needs to look holistically at an applicant’s behaviour over a lasting and enduring period of time.  The amount of time considered to be ‘lasting’ or ‘enduring’ depends on the merits of each case, but in most cases will go back prior to any visa application.

20. The Policy states that (T16, 119):

    [r]eferee reports can shed light upon an applicant’s character and should acknowledge, where applicable, any offence or other incident and explain why the applicant is nonetheless considered to be of good character.  Decision makers should give very little weight to references which do not acknowledge the offence or incident.  However, decision makers should note the inherent bias in any reference which is submitted by an applicant in support of their citizenship application.” 

21. When considering whether an applicant who has had previous criminal convictions is a person of good character, Deputy President Wright in Kakar and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 132 stated [at 14]:

    When criminal offences have been committed by an applicant they will obviously be taken into account.  The extent to which the existence of criminal conduct will weigh in the scales against a finding of good character will depend upon many things including the seriousness of the crime, the length of time since its commission and the degree of rehabilitation of the offender.

22. The definition of bogus documents is provided in s 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958.  It states:

    bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

    (a)Purports to have been, but was not issued in respect of the person; or

    (b)Is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do son; or

    (c)Was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not knowingly;

    (Original Emphasis)

    ISSUE

23. The issue for review by this Tribunal is whether the Applicant was, as at 23 January 2018 (the time the Minister decided to refuse the Applicant’s citizenship application) of good character for the purpose of satisfying s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act.

    EVIDENCE

24. The matter was to be heard in Perth on 10 January 2019, however due to an administrative error, the Tribunal adjourned the matter to be listed for a further date.  The matter was heard on the 29 January 2019.  The Applicant appeared in person and was assisted by Mr Hanna as an accredited interpreter.  The Respondent was represented by Ms Tattersall from Sparke Helmore.

25. The Tribunal received the following evidence:

    ·Statement by Saja Alsaad and Mohammad Al Wadaah (undated) (Exhibit A1)

    ·Further statement by Saja Alsaad received by email on 12 September 2018 (Exhibit A2)

    ·T documents (T1-16, 1-120) (Exhibit R1)

    ·Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SOFIC) dated 23 July 2018 (Exhibit R2)

    oAnnexure A: Applicant’s personal Identification Card and a translation (PIC00232773)

    oAnnexure B: Alternate Personal Identification Card on 21 July 2009 (PIC00472242)

    oAnnexure C: Document examination statement.

    oAnnexure D: Further information request.

    oAnnexure E: Confirmation from Qarna Nationality and Trans Directorate confirmation that PIC00472242 was counterfeit.

    oAnnexure F: Applicant’s Personal Identification Card and a translation (PIC00235382).

    oAnnexure G: Partner visa application.

    ·Interpreted Document (Exhibit R3)

    ·Hearing Certificate (Exhibit R4)

    ·Interview record (handed up during hearing) (Exhibit R5)

26. The Tribunal has reviewed all of the material before it.  The Tribunal is satisfied that all relevant evidence was before it and that both parties were provided an opportunity to address the evidence, either orally or in writing.  Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the Tribunal will be analysed and referred to below.

    HEARING

    Evidence at the hearing

27. The Respondent’s opening statements at the hearing reflected the content of the SOFIC, and outlined the assessment of the character of the Applicant at the time by the Minister’s delegate, in particular noting the use of fraudulent documents for the purposes of her first visa application.

    Applicant’s evidence under cross-examination

28. Under cross examination, the Applicant stated the following:

    ·She was a citizen of Iraq.

    ·She taught mathematics in Iraq.

    ·She could speak Arabic and English.

    ·She met her now husband at a party.  He and she at the time were 19 years old.

    ·She married on 4 May 2008.  Her husband was an Australian citizen who arrived in Australia in 1995.

    ·She accepts that the documents used for her first visa application were falsified, however she said she was merely doing what her husband and her husband’s uncle asked her to do.

    ·She signed documents and did not read them, nor did she check them.  She was told this first visa application was the quickest pathway to getting to Australia.

    ·She was asked by both the Respondent and the Tribunal why she used fraudulent documents at the time and she said she was merely following the wishes of her husband and her husband’s uncle.

    ·She stated ultimately she was responsible for the failure of her first application because she signed documents without checking their accuracy.

    ·She stated for her second visa application she took responsibility for all documents produced.

    CONSIDERATION

29. The issue is whether the Applicant was of good character at the time of the decision to refuse her citizenship application (23 January 2018).

    Was the Applicant of good character at the relevant time 

30. The Respondent in its’ SOFIC (R2) contends:

    20It is not in contention that two non-genuine identity documents were submitted in support of the first visa application (namely PIC00232773 and PIC00472242).

    21The basis upon which the document PIC00472242 was determined to not be genuine was set out in the department’s Document Examination Statement dated 5 August 2009 (Annexure C). The Examination Statement’s conclusion was that PIC00472242 was counterfeit.

    22The applicant claims that the counterfeit document was provided by mistake and she had no knowledge that it was forged (T12/87). The applicant’s evidence is inconsistent and implausible.

    23First, the applicant claims she applied for PIC00472242 in 2009 when her husband began the visa application, however:

    23.1she held the genuine PIC00235382 at that time;

    23.2PIC00232773, submitted with the first visa application, was issued on 7 June 2008;

    23.3the first visa application was lodged in December 2008.

    24Second, both PIC00232773 and PIC00472242 were purportedly issued after the applicant’s marriage on 4 May 2008 however state that the applicant had never been married. Accordingly, it would have been readily apparent to the applicant that the information in the documents was not correct.

    25Third, the applicant submitted the first visa application on the basis that she intended to marry (Annexure G) when she was already married at the time of lodgement.

    26Fourth, the applicant’s claim that her and her husband visited “the department” to get the ID after the first visa application was refused is inconsistent with PIC00235382 having been issued in June 2008.

    27The Minister submits that it is improbable that the applicant’s identity documents were innocently obtained and that she was unaware that they were not genuine. A willingness to provide false information (let alone fraudulent identity documents) to the Australian government is an indication that a person is not of good character.

    28The Minister notes further that the applicant’s statements contain information which is inconsistent. The applicant’s willingness to present false information to the department and/or Tribunal further weighs against her character.

    29The Minister submits that the applicant has knowingly mislead the department, and consistent with the Policy, the tribunal should find that the applicant is not of good character, and that she does not meet the criterion for the grant of citizenship at s 24(3) of the Act.

1. The Tribunal notes the Applicant did not file a submission in support of the application, however she and her husband did respond to a number of written questions put to her by the Respondent relating to steps she took which led to the issuing of the false identity document (A1):

   1.Who you talked to?

   I was told by my husband , that his uncle Alla could get the I.D card for me. His name is Alaa Jaber.

   2.Who advised you to submit the document?

   My husband advised me to submit the document.

   3.What information was provided by you to obtain the documents?

   I was told by my husband to provide him with three photos and a copy of my original identity card.

   4.What information was given to you about submitting the document?

   The information I received stated that I should give my I.D card.

   5.When were the above steps taken?

   These steps were taken when my husband began the application in 2009.

   6.Where were the above steps taken?

   These steps were taken in Basra Iraq.

   7.When did you first receive the false I.D document?

   I first received the false I.D document in 2009. The document was sent by Alaa, by a taxi driver who worked between Mesin and Basra.  Unlike Australia, there are no postal addresses in Iraq.  Therefore this is a common form of delivering anything from one place to another.

   I have started a new life in Perth Australia and have been here for the last 8 years.  I would like to apologise again for the actions that have been taken in submitting the application, I was only 19 years old and living in a third world country, where I have never completed an application of any sorts before this one.

   This statement was written by me and my husband

2. The Tribunal also notes the reasons the Applicant’s prospective Marriage (Temporary) Visa Class (Class TO) Subclass 300 was refused.  The assessment stated (T10, 71-74):

   On 08 July 2009 the applicant was called and requested to to provide her original Iraqi Identity Card, Iraqi Nationality Certificate and passport.

   …

   A trained document examiner from the Australian Embassy examined the documents and found several irregularities with the original Iraqi Identity card which was not consistent with genuinely issued documents.  The original Iraqi Identity card was subsequently assessed as non-genuine…

   On 25 August 2009, the applicant and her sponsor provided through our panel Dr Eman Elgeboury in Iraq a new original Iraqi Identity card for the applicant (number 00472242) original Family Identity Card and a Certificate issuesd from an education institute.  On 21 January 2009 these documents were examined by a trained document examiner from the Australian Embassy (folios 180) and were found to be non-genuine.

   Further integrity checks were conducted on the original Iraqi Identity Card in Iraq.  These in-country checks confirmed the assessment that the presented document is non-genuine.

   …

   The Iraqi Identification Card has been examined and assessed as non-genuine by a trained document examiner.  Therefore, I find that the Iraqi passport provided by the applicant (G2436577) is a bogus document, as the document was obtained because of a false or misleading statement – in particular the provision of a non-genuine Iraqi Identification Card.  Whilst I accept that it is also a genuine passport, I find that it is not a validly issued passport on the basis that it has been issued pursuant to non-genuine documentation and false information.

   I therefore find that passport does not meet the requirements of subclauses 300.228.

   I have also assessed the applicant’s ability to meet Regulation 3000.221A to determine that the applicant and sponsor are free to marry, and the intended marriage must be able to be recognised under Australian law as valid of the Act.  My below assessment has determined that Ms. Saja Abdullah Naser ALSAAD does not meet this requirement.

   The further in-country integrity checks that were conducted on the applicant’s original Iraqi Identity Card in Iraq confirmed that the marital status of the applicant is listed as married and not single

   As the applicant is not free to marry, I therefore find that the applicant does not meet the requirements of subclauses 300.221A.

   (Original Emphasis.)

3. The Tribunal notes the Applicant was written to in the following terms on 5 August 2009 (R2 Annexure D), however there is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate a response:

   …

   The Visa and citizenship Section of the Australian Embassy, Amman has identified a fraudulent document submitted in support of your application for a Partner (Subclass 300) visa.  The document in question is the Iraqi Identification Card. Our document examiner has found several very serious irregularities in this card.  As this document is used to obtain an Iraqi passport, we are also concerned that this document may have been fraudently obtained on the basis of a fraudulent ID card.

   As such we are not satisfied with the identity documentation presented and the issue of identity is of upmost importance with any migration application to Australia.

   It is important that we now establish your identity and date of birth to our satisfaction.  Therefore you are requested to outline in detail how you obtained this identity documentation and submit any additional identity documentation that you currently possess.  Please note we are not requesting that you travel to Iraq to obtain any additional documents. We do not expect applicants to travel to Iraq due to the current security situation and advise strongly against such action.

   However, there are a number of other kinds of documents that could assist us in establishing your identity and date of birth, these include:

   •          family census

   •          school records

   •          birth certificate

   •          original Iraqi ID card

   •          any previous passports, ID cards or citizenship certificates held

   Please note that it is important that you submit the original documents and not photocopies.

   It is your responsibility to provide satisfactory and genuine documentation.  May I also remind you that in lodging your application you and your sponsor both signed a declaration stating that you understood if you provided false or misleading information the application may be refused. We are keen to move this case forward as quickly as possible but we require your assistance to do this.

   I look forward to hearing from you and ask that you respond to this request for further Information within 49 days of the date of this email. If information is not presented by this date, a decision will be made with the information currently on file.

4. Whilst the Tribunal notes that the Applicant has attempted to explain the circumstances surrounding the use of fraudulent documentation (at T12, 87) as a genuine mistake, which occurred when she was only 19 years of age, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Applicant really understands the ramifications for her and the system that governs Citizenship.  Ultimately this system is based on the provision of documentation of the highest integrity to government officials in order for such applications to be properly assessed.

5. The Applicant states in her written evidence before the Tribunal and at the hearing that she relied on the advice of her husband and husband’s uncle in order to obtain the necessary documentation to immigrate to Australia.

6. The Tribunal has before it a Document Verification Report (R2 Annexure C), compiled by a Compliance Assistant stating that in light of his observations, training, qualifications and experience, the Republic of Iraq Identity card in the name of the Applicant (ID number 00472242) is counterfeit.

7. The Tribunal notes (at R2 Annexure E) the term counterfeit is described as “meaning the document is not genuine; the listed event did not take place and has not been accurately recorded.”

8. The primary contention before this Tribunal in summary is; does the evidence before it imply that the Applicant, by procuring and providing a bogus document and the provision of discrepancies in respect to her marital status, evidence deceptive and fraudulent conduct which is not in line with community standards.

9. The Tribunal equally has to determine whether there are any mitigating circumstances, or explanation provided by the Applicant which might address those concerns.

10. There is no doubt on the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds the documents in question (PIC00232773 and PIC00472242) for the purpose of the first visa application to be bogus documents.  The Tribunal notes in respect to her first visa application, the Applicant produced two non-genuine Iraqi Identity cards.

11. Consequently the Department deemed the Applicant’s passport to be non-genuine on the basis that it may have been obtained through the use of non-genuine documents.  The Tribunal also notes as a result of further investigations, the Department discovered that the marital status of the Applicant was recorded as married and not single as stated in PIC 00232773 (R2 Annexure E).

12. The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent, that this discrepancy should have raised alarm bells for the Applicant as to the authenticity of the documents she was submitting.

13. The Tribunal however also considers the Applicant at the time of the first visa appllication was a young 19 year old in Iraq, who relied on the advice of her husband and her husband’s uncle to progress a visa application to come to Australia.  It is not unusual given the cultural context of middle eastern society for young women to follow the advice of their husband and senior male members of their family.

14. The Tribunal notes the case of Nguyen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 1082:

    82Citizenship 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.

    83Citizenship cannot be awarded on the basis of false statements.  There are no excuses for making false statements in this regard.

    84Equally, 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.

15. The Tribunal accepts the principles of the above case, however in mitigation it is equally mindful the first visa application was made nearly 10 years ago.  Since then the Applicant has lived in Australia for almost 9 years without any negative interactions with the law or criminal justice system which might convince the Tribunal that she had a pattern of behaviour of using deception or fraud.

16. She is the mother of 2 children, she attends TAFE to improve her English and lives with her husband who is fully employed.

17. The Tribunal is equally guided by the comments of Deputy President McMahon in Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 27 at [35], which are appropriate here:

    ...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 ... Australia can have no confidence that he would not again transgress in matters where truth and good faith could be deceptively withheld.

18. When the Applicant was asked by the Tribunal why she believed she would make a good Australian citizen, her answer was she wanted to be a citizen for her children and husband.

19. Whilst recognising the seriousness of the consequences of providing bogus documents to Australian authorities, the Tribunal has no evidence before it to suggest that the Applicant in Australia has continued a pattern of deceptive or fraudulent behavior.

20. In fact the opposite appears the case in terms of her responsibilities as a parent and her desire and commitment to Australia.  Her contribution to Australian society has been to conduct herself as a law abiding community member since arriving in Australia.

21. The Tribunal is pursuaded on the evidence before it that the Applicant filed her earlier documents for her first Visa Application without doing the proper due dilligence.  The Tribunal does not find she failed to do her due dilligence in the belief that she might have proceeded through the system undetected.

22. Having considered all the evidence before it Tribunal finds the Applicant to be a truthful person.

23. The Tribunal found there were some inconsistencies in the evidence she gave, however after 10 years this is not surprising.

    CONCLUSION

24. The Tribunal accepts that a certificate of Australian Citizenship is a legal document of considerable significance (Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2015] AATA 256).

25. The Tribunal also notes it must be cognisant of not only the law relating to this issue, but also the policy framework which provides for the administration of the law and in this case it is that a person should be a person of good character.

26. Having considered all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act.

    DECISION

27. In view of the reasons outlined above, the decision under review is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that the applicant is a person "of good character" within the meaning, and for the purposes, of section 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act.

I certify that the preceding 57 (fifty seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member C Edwardes

........[Sgd]..........................................................

Associate

Dated: 8 February 2019

Date of hearing:	29 January 2019
Applicant:	In person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Tattersal, Sparke Helmore