BVML and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by BVML, with the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection as the respondent. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant possessed the requisite good character for citizenship, as mandated by section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with reviewing the Minister's decision to refuse citizenship on these grounds.

The AAT was required to determine if the applicant was of good character at the time of the Minister's decision. This involved assessing the applicant's criminal history, which included convictions for common assault, contravening domestic violence orders, and driving offences, as well as a term of imprisonment. The Tribunal also had to consider whether any mitigating factors or explanations provided by the applicant, such as character references and the passage of time since the offending, outweighed his past behaviour.

In its reasoning, the AAT applied the ordinary meaning of "good character" as referring to enduring moral qualities, rather than mere reputation, as established in *Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs*. The Tribunal noted that domestic violence is considered conduct fundamentally inconsistent with the standards of behaviour expected by the Australian community. The applicant's failure to disclose his criminal convictions and imprisonment in his application, his downplaying of the seriousness of his offences, and his limited remorse were significant factors. Furthermore, recent domestic disputes and traffic offences indicated a continuing disregard for the law. The AAT found that the character references provided did not sufficiently outweigh the evidence of the applicant's offending behaviour, particularly as some did not acknowledge his convictions.

Consequently, the AAT was not satisfied that the applicant demonstrated good character and affirmed the decision to refuse his application for Australian citizenship. The Tribunal noted that this decision did not preclude the applicant from making a future application if he could demonstrate, over time, that he met the required standards.