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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, specifically whether the applicant satisfied the "good character" requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The applicant, born in Afghanistan in 1983, had arrived in Australia as an illegal maritime arrival in 2009 and was subsequently granted a protection visa. The dispute arose from the Minister's refusal to approve the citizenship application, which the applicant sought to have reviewed by the Tribunal.

The core legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant possessed the requisite "good character" as defined by the Act and relevant case law. This required the Tribunal to form an evaluative judgment and an affirmative belief that the applicant was a person of good character, considering their behaviour over time to ascertain enduring moral qualities, distinguishing right from wrong, and behaving ethically in accordance with Australian societal rules and values. The applicant acknowledged providing false or misleading information regarding his deceased brothers and his mother's status in various immigration and citizenship applications over a period of approximately ten years, attributing these discrepancies to limited English proficiency, the assistance of others, and difficult family circumstances. The respondent argued that these repeated instances of false information, some only recently rectified, meant insufficient time had passed to demonstrate the necessary enduring moral qualities.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's submissions, which highlighted that courts recognise that pressure of circumstances can lead to false statements in refugee applications. While acknowledging the applicant's admitted failures to declare certain family members and falsely stating his mother was deceased, the Tribunal ultimately found itself satisfied as to the applicant's good character. The Tribunal set aside the decision of 17 November 2020 and remitted the matter to the respondent for reconsideration.