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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by FGRD, which was refused by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant, who is Shia Muslim, stateless, and a refugee, contended that the prohibition under subsection 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth) did not apply to him. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant's identity could be sufficiently established, given inconsistencies in his familial background and evidence.

The central legal issue before the AAT was whether the applicant had satisfied the identity requirements for citizenship by conferral, particularly in light of significant inconsistencies in the evidence provided regarding his background. This involved assessing whether the applicant's claimed identity was consistent and verifiable from birth to the present, as required by the Australian Citizenship Policy and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 (CPI16). The AAT needed to consider the guidance provided in the National Identity Proofing Guidelines, which outline various methods for establishing identity, including alternative processes when minimum requirements cannot be met.

The AAT's reasoning focused on the principles of longitudinal consistency and the assessment of an applicant's "life story" as outlined in CPI16. The Tribunal noted that establishing an applicant's identity requires a complete picture from birth, with consistency and logic throughout their chronological life events. The assessment of documentary evidence also requires consideration of the "story" it tells and whether it supports or refutes the claimed identity. In this case, the applicant's evidence was found to be incoherent, unreliable, and implausible, particularly concerning his assumption of the identity of a deceased person to commence his studies. The Tribunal concluded that these inconsistencies were critical to the question of identity and that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to overcome the concerns raised. Consequently, the AAT affirmed the decision to refuse the application for citizenship.