CHU and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

[2018] AATA 462

CHU and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 462 (12 March 2018)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2017/4790

Re:CHU

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Deputy President B W Rayment

Date:12 March 2018

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.

......................[sgd]..............................................

Deputy President B W Rayment

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – citizenship by conferral – eligibility – whether applicant of good character – significant criminal offences – consideration of applicant’s character, circumstances and conduct – insufficient time has passed for Tribunal to be satisfied applicant of good character – decision affirmed

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) ss 21(2)(h)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President B W Rayment

12 March 2018

BACKGROUND

1. The applicant is given a pseudonym in these reasons to protect his name and accordingly I have referred to his circumstances in general terms in order to protect his identity.

2. He has applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.  He is aged 25 years, and arrived here in 2004 as a refugee following attacks made in Jakarta upon persons of Chinese descent.  He attended school at first in Melbourne and then from year 8 onwards at a Sydney high school. He completed the higher school certificate and in the year after he left school he associated with several other persons who had also attended the same school.

3. In June 2011, when he was aged 18, he committed an offence after drinking a lot of alcohol, together with three school friends, and two other young persons. The six young men, all drunk, attacked and robbed three separate persons over some two hours in the early hours of the morning. The three separate attacks took place in a Sydney suburb. The victims required treatment in hospital. The proceeds of the robbery were shared among the young men, including the applicant.

4. After some weeks passed, he told me that he went to a police station near his home, to turn himself in. The police officer to whom he gave a statement told him that he could find no record of the offences on the computer and that he was free to go and would be contacted later if the offence was reported.

5. I had no direct corroboration of the fact that he went to the police station, but one of the witnesses called by him on this application did corroborate an important part of his evidence. He is a man who was also at school with Mr Chu, who now works for the Department of Defence in Canberra. Under cross-examination on behalf of the Minister, he said that he was present when the applicant discussed with him and others what had happened and that he proposed to go to the police and turn himself in. I detected no reason to reject Mr Chu’s evidence and I accept it generally.

6. Some time after he had been to the police station near his home, he was arrested, as were the others involved in the incident and he told me that he gave a full statement to the arresting officers and in due course pleaded guilty to three charges of aggravated robbery and inflict actual bodily harm, all on the night in question. He was sentenced to three terms of imprisonment of two years, most of each of which were to be served concurrently, with a combined non-parole period of nine months spread over the three offences.

7. He was released from prison on parole after serving the nine month period, and has had no other criminal convictions. His misconduct was now seven years ago.  In that time he has obtained the degree of Bachelor of Business from a well-known university in Sydney and has formed a relationship with a lady who gave evidence on his behalf. He is now in employment and disclosed his conviction to his employer when he obtained the job. It is not a job which makes full use of his university qualification which he has obtained, and he desires to obtain better employment.  The former manager from his employer, to whom he reported for some five months last year, gave evidence of his good character before me.

8. He expressed remorse for what he did in 2011, and he said that his use of alcohol is now slight, limited to one drink over a meal once or twice a month. The witnesses whom he called are all familiar with his drinking habits and, separately, confirmed the evidence which he gave.  Those witnesses are all Australian citizens in good standing and I accept that they believe he has been rehabilitated since his imprisonment. Those who knew him before the offence described his conduct before the offences of June 2011 as good, and expressed shock that Mr Chu had engaged in the conduct which led to his conviction.

   DECISION

9. Section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) requires that applicants for citizenship by conferral be of good character at the time of the decision on their application.  As I foreshadowed during the hearing, I believe that more time should elapse before one can be satisfied that Mr Chu is of good character.  The offences of June 2011 should not permanently bar him from being found to be of good character, and there are indications at this time that if he continues to be of good behaviour, and to be a responsible member of the community, he may in the future be able to satisfy the Minister or this Tribunal that he is of good character, so as to enable him to obtain citizenship. I cannot be so satisfied at this time.

10. The reviewable decision will therefore be affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 10 (ten) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President B W Rayment

.........................[sgd]...........................................

Associate

Dated: 12 March 2018

Date(s) of hearing:	8 March 2018
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	J Hutton, Australian Government Solicitor