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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by Mr Dargahi, and the review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The central dispute revolved around whether Mr Dargahi was of good character, as required by the relevant provisions of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The decision was made by A Poljak SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Dargahi met the good character requirement for citizenship by conferral, specifically considering his criminal history, including offences of detain for advantage and cause injury to victim, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Tribunal also had to assess whether the passage of time, Mr Dargahi's claimed rehabilitation efforts, and character references provided sufficient mitigation against the seriousness of his past conduct.

The Tribunal found that the seriousness of Mr Dargahi's criminal conduct, particularly the offences of detain for advantage and cause injury to victim, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, weighed heavily against a finding of good character. While acknowledging the significant time elapsed since the offences and the applicant's subsequent driving record, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Dargahi demonstrated sufficient remorse or insight into his criminal acts. The character references provided were given little weight as they did not refer to the applicant's criminal history in detail. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the limited evidence of positive contribution to the Australian community, with Mr Dargahi being unemployed and receiving government benefits. Consequently, the Tribunal was not positively satisfied that Mr Dargahi had sufficiently rehabilitated to demonstrate the moral qualities associated with good character, and therefore did not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act. The decision under review was affirmed.