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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by the Applicant, who was born in Iran in 1976 and arrived in Australia in 2011. The Applicant had lodged multiple previous unsuccessful applications for citizenship. The most recent application was refused on 22 December 2020, on the basis that the Applicant did not meet the character requirements due to his criminal record. The Applicant sought review of this decision.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant met the good character requirement for Australian citizenship, as stipulated by paragraph 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). This involved considering the Applicant's criminal convictions for refusing or failing to submit to a breath analysis and common assault, and assessing whether these offences demonstrated a lack of good character in the ordinary sense of enduring moral qualities, as interpreted in *Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs*. The Tribunal also had to consider the Applicant's contentions regarding the accuracy of police facts sheets and the circumstances surrounding his guilty pleas.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the Applicant did not meet the good character requirement. While acknowledging that the Tribunal hears matters de novo and is not bound by the delegate's findings, the Tribunal gave substantial weight to the police facts sheets, particularly as the Applicant had pleaded guilty to the offences. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the Applicant's evidence regarding the common assault offence, specifically his assertion at the hearing that he had never hit the victim, which contradicted both the police account and his own statutory declaration. The Tribunal did not accept the Applicant's post-hearing explanation for this discrepancy, noting he was assisted by an interpreter. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant did not meet the high standard of character required for citizenship at that time, though it noted this did not preclude future applications.