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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for Australian citizenship made by Mr Cho Zah, who was seeking to challenge the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs' decision to affirm the refusal of his application. The core of the dispute revolved around the Tribunal's satisfaction with the applicant's identity, a crucial precondition for the conferral of Australian citizenship.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it was satisfied of the applicant's identity, particularly in light of a lack of documentary evidence from his country of origin, Myanmar, and whether the applicant had made sufficient efforts to obtain such documents. The Tribunal also had to consider inconsistencies in the applicant's life story as presented to the Department.

The Tribunal applied an evidence-based approach to assessing identity, as outlined in CPI16, which requires establishing identity from birth through an identity timeline. This involves corroborating information across three pillars: biometrics, documents, and life story. The Tribunal found that the applicant's provided documents were of little probative value for establishing his identity from birth in Myanmar, as they primarily related to his time in Malaysia or after his arrival in Australia. Furthermore, the applicant's explanations regarding the loss or unavailability of documents from Myanmar were inconsistent and lacked corroboration, including claims of robbery and differing accounts of what documents were taken. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the applicant's family details provided in relation to other visa applications.

Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied of the applicant's identity for the purposes of section 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). Consequently, the prohibition under that section applied, meaning the citizenship application could not be approved. The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision.