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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by the Applicant, who is a citizen of South Sudan. The delegate of the Minister refused to grant the application, being unsatisfied of the Applicant's identity and finding that the Applicant was not of good character. The Applicant, who arrived in Australia at the age of 14, submitted that the decision was wrong, relying on documents such as his passport, birth certificate, Medicare card, school ID, and driver's license to demonstrate his identity and good character. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to review this decision.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's identity could be established to the satisfaction of the decision-maker, and whether the Applicant was of good character at the time of the decision. These issues were to be determined in light of the requirements of the *Citizenship Act*, specifically section 24(3) which mandates that the Minister must be satisfied of the identity of the person before approving citizenship, and section 21(2)(h) which requires the applicant to be of good character. The Tribunal also considered the Australian Citizenship Policy and relevant guidelines concerning identity verification.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's explanation for discrepancies in his documentation, particularly regarding the use of a name not listed on his primary identity documents. It noted that while the *Citizenship Act* does not mandate specific documentation, the decision-maker must be satisfied of the applicant's identity. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including *Beyan*, *Al-Hussaini*, and *Confidential*, which highlighted the importance of establishing identity through reliable evidence and the potential consequences of failing to provide sufficient documentation or opportunities to secure it. The Tribunal also considered *Dhayakpa*, which suggested that identity can be established to the best of one's ability in unusual circumstances, but also noted that inconsistencies and the nature of provided documentation could lead to adverse findings regarding good character, as seen in *Sinnathamby*.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the Applicant's identity was not sufficiently established. The Applicant's explanation for the use of an additional name in his passport signature, despite stating he had not been known by any other names on his application, was not accepted as sufficient to resolve the doubts regarding his identity. Consequently, the prohibition under section 24(3) of the *Citizenship Act* applied, preventing the approval of his citizenship application.