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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr Ghalib for Australian citizenship, which had been refused by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The refusal was based on the delegate's dissatisfaction with the applicant's identity, a prerequisite for approving citizenship under section 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). The applicant claimed to have been born in Somalia, and the Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's identity could be established to its satisfaction, notwithstanding the lack of primary source biometric documents.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant's identity could be sufficiently established to satisfy the requirements of section 24(3) of the Act, given the absence of traditional primary identity documents. The Tribunal was guided by government policy, including the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, Procedural Instruction 16 (CPI 16), and the National Identity Proofing Guidelines. These policies outline a framework for assessing identity based on three pillars: biometrics, documents, and life story. The Tribunal had to consider whether the evidence presented, including alternative documentation and the applicant's life story, was sufficient to overcome the lack of primary identity documents.

The Tribunal reasoned that identity does not solely depend on documentary evidence, referencing the principle that an application may be refused if an applicant has failed to pursue reasonably available opportunities to secure evidence. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged that exceptional cases, such as those where a person cannot obtain necessary identity documents, may require alternative proofing processes. These can include accepting secondary evidence, verifying identity with trusted referees, or conducting detailed interviews about the applicant's life story to assess consistency. The Tribunal considered the applicant's life story, including potential UNHCR documentation, and the evidence provided by the applicant and his daughter.

The Tribunal found that the Minister's contention that the applicant's evidence was insufficient was not made out. The Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration, indicating that it was satisfied of the applicant's identity based on the evidence presented and the application of the relevant policies.