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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by Mr Dulalia, which was rejected by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs on the grounds that Mr Dulalia did not satisfy the good character requirement. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the Minister's decision, and Mr Dulalia sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal erred in finding that Mr Dulalia did not satisfy the good character requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth). This required the court to consider the nature and extent of Mr Dulalia's criminal history, including convictions for domestic violence, contravening apprehended violence orders, and various traffic offences, and to determine if these offences were inconsistent with the standard of behaviour expected of an Australian citizen.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the significant criminal history of Mr Dulalia, which spanned several years and included serious offences such as domestic violence and breaches of apprehended violence orders. While acknowledging Mr Dulalia's submission that a car accident in 2011 contributed to his offending, the Tribunal found no medical evidence to support this assertion and noted that some of the most serious offending occurred both before and after the accident. The Tribunal emphasised that domestic violence offences, particularly those involving weapons and minors, are fundamentally inconsistent with the expected standard of behaviour. Furthermore, the repetitive nature of Mr Dulalia's offending, including numerous driving offences, indicated a pattern of behaviour that weighed heavily against him satisfying the good character test. Although nearly eight years had passed since his last non-driving offence, and he appeared to have found stability in his current relationship, the Tribunal concluded that his overall criminal history demonstrated a lack of enduring moral qualities consistent with good character.

For these reasons, the Tribunal found that Mr Dulalia did not satisfy the good character requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the Act, and the decision under review was affirmed.