BHQD and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

The applicant, BHQD, sought review of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to cancel the approval of his Australian citizenship by conferral. The Minister's delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was of good character at the time the cancellation decision was proposed, leading to the cancellation under paragraph 25(2)(b)(iii) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). The matter came before the Tribunal for determination.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the approval for Australian citizenship could be cancelled if the applicant was not of good character at the time the Minister proposed to cancel the approval. This required the Tribunal to interpret the provisions of section 25 of the Act, specifically paragraph 25(2)(b)(iii), which permits cancellation if the Minister is satisfied that the person is not of good character. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "good character" as established in case law, noting it refers to enduring moral qualities rather than community standing.

The Tribunal reasoned that section 25(2)(b)(iii) requires an assessment of the applicant's character at the time the Minister proposes to cancel the approval. The applicant's evidence revealed a pattern of dishonesty, including making false statements in his citizenship application and in relation to family members' visa applications. Despite opportunities to correct these statements, the applicant had not done so for an extended period. The Tribunal found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate he possessed good and enduring moral qualities, and therefore affirmed the Minister's decision to cancel the approval of his citizenship.