Chaaban and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) - [2023] AATA 1773

Chaaban and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 1773 (22 June 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/3435
Re:Chaaban Chaaban
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S Evans, Member
Date: 22 June 2023
Place:Sydney

The reviewable decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse the Applicant’s application for citizenship is set aside. The matter is remitted for reconsideration with a finding that the Applicant is of good character within the meaning of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act.
.................[Sgd].......................................................
Mr S Evans, Member
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP — Application for Australian citizenship by conferral — Refusal of citizenship application — Whether Applicant has satisfied section 21(2)(h) — Good character requirement — Citizenship Policy — Meaning of ‘good character’ — Enduring moral qualities — Common assault — Alleged domestic violence — No pattern of behaviour established — Decision under review set aside and remitted.
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
Irving and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 139 ALR 84
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Gray (1994) 33 ALD 13
Minster for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 153 ALR 463
Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1506
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration, and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Sharma v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 608
Secondary Materials
Australian Citizenship Policy Statement
CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act
REASONS FOR DECISION
22 June 2023
INTRODUCTION

Chaaban Chaaban (the Applicant) is a 33 year old citizen of Lebanon who immigrated to Australia in 2014 and currently holds a Partner (Subclass 100) visa. On 11 May 2021 he made an application for Australian citizenship by conferral.[1] His application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent) on 6 April 2022 who found he was not of ‘good character’,[2] which is one of the requirements for Australian citizenship.[3]
[1] T3/24
[2] T2/23
[3] T2/18-21
The Applicant, who contends he meets the character requirements for the conferral of Australian citizenship, seeks review of the delegate’s decision at the by the Tribunal.[4]
[4] T1/1
For the reasons that follow, the decision of the delegate will be set aside.
Issue to be determined
The issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether, at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, the Applicant is of ‘good character’ such that he meets the requirements of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).
Legislative and policy framework
Subsection 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
Subsection 24(1) of the Act provides that if a person makes an application under section 21 of the Act, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Subsection 21(2) of the Act sets out the general eligibility requirements for Australian citizenship. Relevant to this application, paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act stipulates that the Minister must be satisfied that a person is of good character to be eligible to become an Australian citizen.
Determining questions of character
The term ‘good character’ is not defined or qualified by the Act. Its meaning was considered by the Full Federal Court in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Irving) in the context of the power of the Minister to refuse to issue a visa. Lee J said:
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 to 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.[5]
[5] (1996) 139 ALR 84, 94
The Department’s official guides to decision makers include both the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, which details the overarching legislative requirements for becoming an Australian citizen, and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (the Instructions).
The relevant policy to this application is found in Citizen Procedural Instruction 15 Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15). CPI 15 provides guidance for decision makers, including the Tribunal, in determining whether an applicant is of good character.
Informed by the discussion in Irving, subsection 3.3 of the Instruction state that:
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.[6]
[6] T13/140
The Instructions specifically call for decision makers to ‘look holistically at [an] applicant's behaviour over time and reach a conclusion about the person’s enduring moral qualities.’[7] A person’s enduring moral qualities encompass:
- characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;
- distinguishing right from wrong; and
- behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
It is well established that the Tribunal will apply government policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[8] The Tribunal is guided by the considerations outlined above when determining whether the Applicant meets the good character requirement for Australian citizenship.
[8] See Re Drake and Minister for Immigration, and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645 per Brennan J, which was cited with approval in Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Gray (1994) 33 ALD 13, 30 per French and Drummond JJ
EVIDENCE
The Applicant met his wife, Malal Naji, in Lebanon in 2014[9] and they married the same year.[10] The couple now reside together along with their son and Ms Naji’s child from a previous relationship.
The Applicant’s conduct
[9] Respondent’s Tender Bundle (RTB), 12
[10] T3/30
Common assault conviction
The Applicant was convicted of one count of common assault (DV-T2) at Sutherland Local Court and sentenced to an 18-month Conditional Release Order (CRO) without conviction on 9 January 2019.[11] An Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) was also made against the Applicant on the same day.[12]
[11] RTB/2
[12] RTB/5
The details of the common assault offence are set out in a Police Facts Sheet which is in evidence.[13] In summary, Ms Naji had been receiving phone calls and text messages from an unknown person for a period of time. The Applicant had asked Ms Naji about the calls and text messages but she refused to tell him who she was speaking to. This angered the Applicant who suspected she may be speaking to another man.
[13] RTB/11-14
Ms Naji received a call from a private number on 25 December 2018. She took the call. When the Applicant asked who the caller was she refused to say. The Applicant then asked to see her phone so he could see who she was speaking to. Ms Naji refused to give him her phone and an argument ensued. Ms Naji attempted to remove herself from the argument by going to the bathroom. The Applicant followed her and the argument continued as Ms Naji entered the bedroom.
Ms Naji lay down on the bed on her back and the Applicant climbed on top of her attempting to grab her phone. Afraid she would be assaulted, Ms Naji put her knee to the Applicant’s groin area and pushed him away. The Applicant was forced to take a step backwards. As Ms Naji attempted to get up from the bed, the Applicant pushed her back onto the bed, forcefully slapping the side of her back above the armpit. The slap caused Ms Naji pain and left a clear red handprint on her back, which Ms Naji took a photo of.
The following day Ms Naji told a friend what had happened and showed him the photographs she had taken of her injury. Ms Naji’s friend informed the police who attended the Applicant’s home and spoke to Ms Naji, who confirmed what had happened on 25 December. Police were shown the photo and inspected the injury. The handprint was no longer visible on her back, but police believe the injury as shown in the photograph would have required ‘some force’ and have been painful. Ms Naji was observed to be upset, but declined to provide a statement to police.
When police questioned the Applicant about the incident, he admitted hitting Ms Naji on the back in an act of self-defence.
Other conduct
In addition to the common assault conviction, NSW Police case notes record a number of other interactions involving the Applicant.
At midnight on 24 January 2020 police attended the Applicant’s home following a report of yelling made by ‘an anonymous informant who did not want to see police’ and did not provide any contact details. Police knocked on the door which was answered by the Applicant who invited them inside. Police notes state that the Applicant’s child was sleeping at the time. Both the Applicant and Ms Naji informed police that there had been no arguing. Nonetheless, police considered that ‘an argument had likely occurred but was not disclosed’, though acknowledged no neighbours reported hearing any screaming or yelling.[14]
[14] RTB/25
On 9 January 2020 officers attended the Applicant’s home following a report from an informant of a male and female ‘arguing in Arabic’. The informant told police they thought an AVO was in place. When police arrived, Ms Naji told them there had not been an argument and that the Applicant had left to visit a friend. Police were of the opinion that an argument had likely occurred, but also noted there was no damage to the property, no injuries sighted and no offences disclosed. According to the police notes, Ms Naji told the officers she was ‘not happy with the marriage and was in the first steps of separating’ from the Applicant.[15]
[15] RTB/26-27
On 19 November 2019 police attended the Applicant’s home after receiving reports of loud noise and yelling coming from the house. Both the Applicant and Ms Naji denied any loud noise or yelling. Police observed that when they attended, the Applicant, Ms Naji and their child were either asleep or had just woken up.[16]
[16] RTB/27
On 8 April 2019 police received a report of fighting at the Applicant’s house during the evening. The informant, who refused to identify themselves, also reported having seen blood running down Ms Naji’s neck. When police spoke to Ms Naji she denied that the Applicant had been at the house. She also denied there had been an argument. Police sighted her shoulder, neck and head area for injuries and reported no signs of injuries or cuts.[17]
[17] RTB/29
Police followed up the report of 8 April on 10 April 2019. Officers spoke to Ms Naji, who was observed to be nervous but denied having been assaulted. Police again checked for injuries and asked her to remove her hijab, which Ms Naji ‘reluctantly agreed’. The police notes state in part:
Whilst speaking with [Ms Naji] it was obvious to police that her demeanour was timid and nervous [Ms Naji’s] behaviour appeared to be that of a person withholding information verbally, however her body language indicated that of a person who was struggling to relay, uneasy and withholding something.
…
Police asked [Ms Naji] for permission to check her head for injuries [Ms Naji] reluctantly agreed, before removing her hooded covering… [18]
[18] RTB/30
When police checked Ms Naji’s left ear they ‘located bruising directly behind the ear where the ear adjoins the scalp along with a tiny cut to the rear of the outside edge behind the left ear which appeared to have a tiny spot of dry blood.’[19] When police asked about the injury. Ms Naji denied knowledge of it, could not explain how it happened and refused to allow police to photograph the injury. The officer wrote in part:
Police are strongly of the opinion that her husband Chaaban Chaaban has assaulted her, however given the fact [Ms Naji] denies her husband ever being at the location, denies being assaulted by her husband and declines to provide a statement or allow police to photograph her injury, police are unable to take action against Chaaban Chabaan for Domestic Assault.[20]
[19] RTB/30
[20] RTB/30
Following his conviction, police attended Ms Naji’s home on three occasions to ensure compliance with the conditions of the AVO.[21] When police visited Ms Naji on 19 January 2019, she advised them that the Applicant had visited the premises earlier. On 6 February 2019 police spoke to Ms Naji and asked if they could inspect the premises. Police were unable to locate the Applicant, but found a pair of black jeans hanging over a chair and record Ms Naji being vague in her response as to who they belonged to. She also confirmed that she and the Applicant spoke and that he had dropped their child off at the house earlier.[22] When they visited on 6 March Ms Naji reported not having seen the Applicant at all.[23]
[21] RTB/32-33
[22] RTB/33
[23] RTB/31
On 2 October 2018 - before the common assault conviction - police attended the Applicant’s home having been called by Ms Naji following an argument with the Applicant. Both the Applicant and Ms Naji admitted to police they had been arguing as the Applicant had become suspicious of Ms Naji’s behaviour in relation to receiving text messages and calls from a male unknown to the Applicant. The police notes record Ms Naji told officers that the Applicant had previously made small threats against her and there had been some ‘pushing and shoving’, but that she did not wish to take any further action. The police notes conclude that they did not have any fears and that no offence was detected.[24]
[24] RTB/36-37
Failure to declare conviction
Applicants for citizenship are asked if they have ‘been convicted of, or found guilty of, any offences overseas or in Australia’. The Applicant answered ‘no’ to this question in his application, which was made after he had been found guilty but not convicted of the assault offence.[25]
[25] T3/38
In his 29 April 2022 statutory declaration the Applicant writes that the offence was in 2019 and he did not declare his criminal conviction because it took place two years prior and ‘the case has been closed’ without further ‘problems or disputes’. He also states that the ‘misunderstanding’ may have arisen due to his ‘limited English skills’.
Ms Naji’s evidence
Ms Naji provided a statement and gave oral evidence in support of the Applicant at the hearing.
Taken to the Police Facts Sheet detailing the circumstances of the assault, Ms Naji confirmed it was an accurate account of what happened.[26] In her affidavit of 29 April 2022, Ms Naji states she did not intend for the Applicant to be charged following the assault. Whilst police told her the Applicant was to be charged for her safety, Ms Naji ‘did not in any way feel threatened’ and had no fears for her safety as the offending was out of character for the Applicant.
[26] Transcript of the proceedings dated 16 March 2023 (Transcript), 3
Ms Naji was questioned about the AVO that had been issued against the Applicant at the time of conviction. She confirmed it was her understanding the Applicant was prohibited from going to their home and could not come within 50 meters of her.[27] Asked if the Applicant had complied with the conditions of the AVO it was her evidence that he had. She also gave evidence that she did not seek an AVO as she was not fearful of the Applicant, but that it was an initiative of the police who told her it was something they needed to do in order ‘to cover’ themselves.[28]
[27] Transcript, 5
[28] Transcript, 4
Ms Naji was taken to a police note from 11 April 2019 where it is recorded that she had attended court to have the AVO varied, but that the Applicant was still restricted from entering her home or any place that she works.[29] She confirmed it was her understanding that following the variation of the AVO the Applicant was able to come within 50 meters of her so long as there was no arguing or touching.[30]
[29] RTB/30
[30] Transcript, 3
Ms Naji acknowledged police often attended her home in response to reports of arguing at the house. She was adamant that she had not called the police but confirmed their frequent attendance having received a report of ‘noise and whatnot’.[31] She gave evidence that there were other noisy people in the apartment building yet police were never called on them. She believes that a friend of hers was making reports to the police ‘to try and cause conflict’ between her and the Applicant.[32] It was Ms Naji’s evidence that the calls to police ended after she ceased contact with her friend.
[31] Transcript, 5
[32] Transcript, 5
Ms Naji was taken to the police notes where it is recorded that on 25 December 2018 she had told police that she and the Applicant had been having relationship problems ‘for the past year’.[33] She was taken to police notes stating that she had reported being fearful the Applicant would ‘continue to harass and control her’ and that unless police got involved, ‘she will be further assaulted.’ Ms Naji denied having ever reported this to police and was emphatic that she had never been fearful of the Applicant. She told the Tribunal:
Respondent’s representative: You never thought that [the Applicant] would continue to assault you?
Ms Naji: I didn’t. And I never - I never, ever once told police that I’m scared that he’ll do this, or I’m scared that he’ll do that. To be honest, I’ve been through hardships before. I’ve been through divorce. Like, I can handle my own problems, you know what I mean? [34]
[33] RTB/35
[34] Transcript, 5-6
Ms Naji conceded that the police notes were quite specific, but maintained they had exaggerated ‘some of it quite a bit.’[35] When questioned about the police account of the injury they observed on 10 April 2019 behind her ear, Ms Naji gave evidence that the injures had nothing to do with the Applicant.[36]
[35] Transcript, 6
[36] Transcript, 7
Asked about the circumstances leading to the common assault, Ms Naji gave evidence that she had provoked the Applicant, telling the Tribunal:
It was provoked by me. I did have - there were messages in there [the phone] and I didn’t want to show them to him [the Applicant]. And that’s when we got into an argument. If you can’t see, you know, what it was because obviously I was hiding something. And then that’s when he got really angry about it because I wouldn’t show him. So that’s when - yes, that’s when we got into the argument. So I was wrong, and he was wrong in reacting the way he did, but I can understand the frustration at that point.
…
If, you know, if you really want to know about his character, he - I’m so glad that I had the chance to fix things, and I am really happy with where I am now with my life. And, to be honest, I depend on him a lot. He, like, he is just - yes, he has been with me through everything. Even, like, in spite of the problems I’ve had before, but - yes. I think there should be more people like him in this world.[37]
[37] Transcript, 9
Character references

The Applicant provided character references in response to a procedural fairness letter sent by the Respondent on 7 March 2022 and has tendered additional character references and letters of support of his application to the Tribunal.[38]
[38] T8/85-87
In a statutory declaration dated 22 April 2022, Lyna Saab writes that she is a close family friend of the Applicant and has known him for 5 years. She is aware of his conviction and considers him an honest and reliable friend. Ms Saab notes that he has built ‘patience, understanding and empathy’ since the ‘incident’ and has his family’s best interest at heart.
Kon Grilis has also known the Applicant for 5 years and is aware of his ‘charge’, which he considers out of character as he has never seen the Applicant show aggression towards others.
In a statutory declaration dated 12 April 2022, the Applicant’s neighbour Karlee Elarya confirms she is aware of his offending which she considers to be out of character. She claims to have witnessed the Applicant’s remorse and notes his hard work and dedication to family.
Ali Jaber is a close friend of the Applicant. In a statement dated 16 March 2022 he said the Applicant is a helpful and loyal friend who runs his own successful business. He states that he was aware of the ‘charges that were put against him in 2019’, and he understands that since being charged the Applicant has bettered himself for the sake of his family.
Charlie Makhlouf - who the Applicant works for as a subcontractor - provided an undated character reference in which he states the Applicant is ‘honest and trustworthy’.[39] Despite it not being mentioned, the Applicant’s evidence was that Mr Makhlouf was aware of his offending when he wrote the character reference.
[39] T9/97
The Applicant conceded at the hearing that whilst aware of his conviction, his referees were not familiar with the specific details of what of what he regards as a ‘private matter.’
Consideration
My task is to weigh the relevant factors to determine if I can be positively satisfied the Applicant meets the good character requirement at this time. In doing so, I am to consider the evidence as a whole, including the Applicant’s behaviour over time, guided by the considerations in CPI 15.
The Applicant does not deny the offending for which he was sentenced on 9 January 2019, but contends it was an isolated incident for which he is remorseful. Nonetheless, common assault is a serious offence and I accept the Respondent’s contention that while the Applicant received a CRO without a conviction, the fact that a conviction is not recorded should not dilute or downgrade the signification of the CRO itself.[40] I note also in addition to the CRO, an AVO was issued against the Applicant.
[40] RSFIC, [18]
CPI 15 identifies domestic violence as a serious offence that cannot be treated lightly. In Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[41] Deputy President Constance stated at [32]:
Domestic violence, in any form and in any circumstances, is fundamentally inconsistent with the standard of behaviour expected by the Australian community.
[41] [2017] AATA 1506
The sentence the Applicant received indicates his offence was at the lower end of seriousness. Nonetheless, the Applicant’s offending conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with the standard of behaviour expected in the Australian community and consequentially weighs heavily against a finding of good character.[42]
[42] Sharma and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Re [2015] AATA 608, [37]
The Applicant acknowledges the seriousness of his conduct and has expressed remorse and regret for his actions. The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s claims of remorse are diminished by his claim to have acted in self-defence.
The Applicant’s oral evidence in relation to the offending was frank and consistent with the police facts. I am satisfied that the Applicant’s written submissions and guilty plea demonstrate an understanding of the seriousness of his offending for which he is genuinely remorseful.
Outside the common assault, it is a matter of fact that the Applicant has neither been convicted nor charged with an offence. However, the summonsed police records detail a series of interactions with police following domestic disputes over an extended period. The police notes indicate there were numerous other occasions in which the Applicant was violent or verbally aggressive towards Ms Naji and that he had breached the terms of the AVO.
The Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, but where police records relate to a matter which has not proceeded to court, decision makers need to be cautious as “in the absence of a prosecution and conviction, satisfaction that criminal conduct has occurred will not be attained on slight material”.[43]
[43] Minster for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 153 ALR 463, 469 per Burchett, Branson and Tamberlin JJ
It is appropriate to observe that I found Ms Naji’s evidence to be compelling and genuine. She acknowledged the difficulties that she and the Applicant had experienced in their relationship but her support for the Applicant was heartfelt and her recall of events was credible. However, contrary to her recollection I accept that in October 2018 she told officers that previous arguments had included ‘pushing and shoving.’
Careful consideration of the police notes reveals that with few exceptions the interactions between police and the Applicant were instigated by an anonymous tip-off. The police notes across multiple incidents refer to an ‘anonymous informant’, an ‘anonymous neighbour’, ‘a male who refused to be identified’ and an informant ‘who refused to give’ their name.[44] Ms Naji’s evidence was that the anonymous source was the same individual on each occasion and that she knew his identity. She claimed that since ceasing contact with the individual, the reports to police have stopped. Consistent with her evidence, it appears the last time police were called to the Applicant’s home was on 24 January 2020 following a report made by an ‘anonymous informant.’
[44] RTB/25-30
On balance, I do not consider the police notes establish the Applicant engaged in further acts of domestic violence beyond that for which he was charged and convicted.
Accounts in the police notes strongly suggest the Applicant breached the terms of the AVO by visiting the matrimonial home and speaking to Ms Naji. For her part, Ms Naji gave evidence that she was not in need of protection and required assistance caring for her son which is why she successfully applied for the terms of the AVO to be varied.[45]
[45] RTB/32; Transcript, 4
Though he was never charged or convicted for breaching the AVO, the evidence strongly supports him having done so, albeit with Ms Naji’s cooperation. Breaching an AVO is serious, and I accept the Respondent’s contention that doing so demonstrates a disregard for Australian law by the Applicant.
Regarding rehabilitation, the Applicant claims he was prepared to attend a domestic violence course and contacted a men’s referral service to do so. In his April 2022 statement the Applicant writes the service told him he was ineligible for the course as his ‘situation was under control.’ He was, however, provided a contact if he needed to talk.
CPI 15 provides that the length of time since an offence may be a mitigating factor. The Applicant’s offending occurred on 25 December 2018 and he applied for citizenship on 11 May 2021. The CRO ended just 10 months prior to lodging the application.[46] The Respondent contends that insufficient time has passed for the Applicant to demonstrate he has rehabilitated given the violent nature of the offence.
[46] RSFIC, [30]
Having arrived in Australia in 2014, the Applicant has a single conviction for an offence committed over 5 years ago. In my view these facts do not indicate a pressing need for rehabilitation or anger management on the part of the Applicant. I am persuaded that sufficient time has passed for the Applicant to have demonstrated he is reformed.
The Applicant has provided character references from employers and friends in which they acknowledge his offending. The Applicant concedes his referees were unaware of the specific nature of his offending. I accept that the character references are evidence that the Applicant have formed meaningful connections in the community and is generally well regarded.
When making his application the Applicant failed to declare his offending. CPI 15 states that an applicant of good character would not deceive the Australian government or conceal criminal convictions.[47] I note that the Applicant was ‘found guilty, without proceeding to conviction’ by the Sutherland Local Court.[48] In the circumstances it is plausible, but unlikely, he believed he had not been convicted of a crime. However, I do not accept the Applicant was unaware he had been found guilty of an offence and his failure to truthful counts against a finding of good character.
[47] T13/141
[48] T8/92
CONCLUSION
Despite his frequent interactions with police – for which a credible explanation was provided by Ms Naji – the Applicant’s offending was an isolated incident. Whilst his offending counts against a finding of good character, I am reassured by the time that has since passed since the offence.
A decision about whether a person is of good character requires the consideration of an applicant’s behaviour over time. Based on their evidence it appears the Applicant and Ms Naji have moved on from their earlier difficulties and have a supportive relationship. They now have two children together, have purchased a home and the Applicant has started a business.
On balance I am satisfied that the Applicant is a person of good character who meets the requirements of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act at this time.
DECISION
The reviewable decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse the Applicant’s application for citizenship is set aside. The matter is remitted for reconsideration with a finding that the Applicant is of good character withing the meaning of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act.

I certify that the preceding 68 (sixty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of

........................[Sgd]................................................
Associate
Dated: 22 June 2023

Date of hearing: 16 March 2023

Advocate for the Applicant: Ms M Naji

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms K Gawidziel, AGS

Date of hearing:	16 March 2023
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms M Naji
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms K Gawidziel, AGS