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

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse the Applicant Australian citizenship by conferral. The Applicant, a 21-year-old man, had been convicted of three child sex offences when he was 14 years old and subsequently convicted of failing to comply with sex offender reporting obligations when he was 17. He remained a registered sex offender until August 2023. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant was of good character at the time of its decision.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's submissions that he was of good character, supported by evidence of his financial contributions to his family, his care for his siblings, and positive character references from his employer, sporting club, and church pastor. However, the Tribunal noted that none of the character referees were aware of the Applicant's criminal convictions, limiting the weight that could be given to their testimonials. The Tribunal applied the guidance in the Citizenship Policy Instruction (CPI) 15, which mandates that decision-makers must accept Australian court verdicts and their supporting factual findings as correct, regardless of an applicant's denial of the offending.

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant's convictions for serious offences against children, coupled with his subsequent failure to comply with reporting obligations, were significant factors in assessing his character. While acknowledging the Applicant's positive behaviour since his convictions, including his family support and community involvement, the Tribunal concluded that these mitigating factors did not outweigh the gravity of his past offending. The Tribunal found that it could only give limited weight to the character references as they were provided without knowledge of the Applicant's criminal history.

The Tribunal affirmed the Reviewable Decision, finding that the Applicant had not satisfied the requirement of being of good character at the time of the Tribunal's decision.