Gulamy and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

Gulamy and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2022] AATA 3099 (23 September 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2020/5925
Re:Ayoob Gulamy
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

Decision
Tribunal:Senior Member Dr M Evans-Bonner
Date:23 September 2022
Place:Perth

The Reviewable Decision is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration with the direction that:
(a) I am satisfied of the Applicant's identity; and
(b) based on the material before me, I am satisfied that the Applicant is of good character (subject to the Department obtaining and assessing any overseas penal clearances that are required to complete the Applicant’s character assessment).

.............[Sgd]...........................................................
Senior Member Dr M Evans-Bonner
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – eligibility – refusal of citizenship – whether Tribunal satisfied of Applicant’s identity – whether Tribunal satisfied of good character – where Minister made incomplete assessment of character due to identity not being satisfied – three pillars of identity – inconsistencies in Applicant’s life story and in documentation submitted to the Department – Respondent sought to rely upon heavily redacted IDBS Identity Analysis Report – Applicant found to be an honest and credible witness – Applicant’s evidence corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses – Tribunal is satisfied of Applicant’s identity and good character based on the material before it subject to the Department obtaining and assessing any overseas penal clearances – Reviewable Decision set aside and remitted
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) ss 10(1), 21(1), 21(2), 21(2)(h), 24, 24(3), 40
CASES
Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256
Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 148 ALD 162
Fang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 3686
Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Nguyen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 1082
Shafari and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 808
YMPL and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1458
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Department of Home Affairs, Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions – CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character Under the Citizenship Act
Department of Home Affairs, Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions – CPI 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Dr M Evans-Bonner
23 September 2022
OVERVIEW

The Applicant applied to this Tribunal seeking review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister made on 14 September 2020 (Reviewable Decision) (T19/142-151).
The Reviewable Decision refused the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied of the Applicant’s identity as required by s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (Citizenship Act). The delegate was also not satisfied that the Applicant was of good character, as required by s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act.
For the reasons I explain below, I am satisfied of the Applicant’s identity and, based on the evidence before me, that he is of good character.
The delegate’s concerns were that the Applicant may have provided information about his identity that was not genuine which in turn raised doubts about his character. Consequently, the delegate only partially assessed character. The delegate did not obtain a criminal history check from Australia, however, the Applicant did so and filed a satisfactory Australian police clearance in these proceedings. Nor did the delegate obtain an overseas penal clearance from Iran, or from Indonesia where the Applicant resided for approximately two months before coming to Australia. Therefore, as part of my direction I have considered that the Department of Home Affairs (Department) will need to complete their assessment of the Applicant’s character which will require them to obtain any required overseas penal clearances.
Given that the Applicant first applied for Australian citizenship by conferral in 2016, I request that the Department expedite these clearances. I suggest that the expiry of 60 days from the date of this decision would be a reasonable time by which these clearances could be obtained, and for a complete assessment to be made by the Department regarding the Applicant’s character.
issues
The issues for determination at the hearing of this application before me were the same as those identified by the delegate. They are whether I am satisfied:
(a)that the Applicant is of good character; and
(b)as to his identity.
In my reasons below I consider the issue of identity first, before turning to character, given that the Minister’s concerns about character derive from concerns about his identity.
Background
The Applicant arrived at Christmas Island in Australia on 2 December 2010 as an irregular maritime arrival without a visa (T19/142; A2).
Upon arrival, on 2 December 2010, he completed a Biodata (Persian) form which was translated by an interpreter (ST1/1-9).
On 27 December 2010, he participated in an unauthorised arrival interview where the interviewer made notes about the Applicant’s date and place of birth, most recent address, where he had lived (which included Iran), his religion (“Shia – Muslim”), his ethnic group (“Kurd – Faeli”) and details of his family members who continue to reside in a village in Iran called Bujan (T4/13-34).
The Applicant applied for a Humanitarian Stay visa (UJ 449) which was granted on 6 March 2012 (T19/142). He was kept in immigration detention until this visa was granted (T7/39).
On 16 May 2012, he applied for a protection visa. In the affidavit accompanying his protection visa application the Applicant set out his claims for protection. These were that he was a “Faili Kurd” of the “Muslim Shia” religion, and that he was stateless because his parents were deported from Iraq and settled in Iran as stateless persons. The Applicant therefore claimed to be an undocumented person who did not have any rights or entitlements (T6/37-38). His protection visa was granted on 4 June 2012 (ST3/24-54; T19/142).
The Applicant married Ms C on 19 June 2015. The relationship ended and the Applicant has been in a relationship with Ms F since July 2019. Ms F has written a letter of support dated 30 June 2021 for these proceedings (A11).
On 22 August 2016, the Applicant made an application to the Department for Australian citizenship by conferral (T7/39).
The Department emailed the Applicant to request that he provide further information about his identity on 30 December 2016. In response, the Applicant provided a personal particulars form (Form 80) and a declaration of service form (Form 1399) (T10/63-90).
In a letter dated 13 January 2020, the Department wrote to the Applicant again asking for original overseas identity documents and translations (T11/91). In February 2020 he provided translated documents and a statutory declaration dated 16 February 2020 explaining how he obtained these documents (T15/124). The documents he provided included a (T15/98-102; 104):
(a)“Certificate of Completion of Literary Course – Primary School Programme”;
(b)Certification from the Islamic Council of Boujan confirming the Applicant’s parents and his date of birth;
(c)“Local Affidavit” certifying the Applicant lived in Boujan and paid monthly rent to a named person;
(d)Hospital discharge document stating that the Applicant was admitted to the emergency ward from 10 May 2009 to 17 May 2009;
(e)Document certifying that the Applicant’s grandfather died of cancer on 23 May 2014; and
(f)Ilam Province Blood transfusion Department Continuous Donor’s Membership Card for the Applicant issued on 30 December 2008.
The Applicant also submitted another Form 80 on 20 February 2020 which attached a photo of the Applicant holding a ball with some local boys in his village in Iran (T15/105 and 123).
The provision of this information led to the Department sending the Applicant a letter dated 26 February 2020 inviting him to comment on adverse information (T16/125-129). The adverse information included:
(a)concerns that the Applicant had maintained he did not have any identity documents yet was able to produce the literary certificate and a blood donor card;
(b)that country information suggested that he should have been issued with a refugee identification card (known as a “white card”);
(c)that his birth should have been registered with Iranian authorities and that he should therefore have a birth registration document;
(d)that since arriving in Australia he had transferred money to his family in Iran which would mean that his family members there would need to have identity documents to receive the money; and
(e)doubts about his account of how he left Iran. The Applicant’s account was that he engaged with a people smuggler who provided him with a fake Iranian passport to exit Iran by plane through the airport. The Department instead suggested that he was more likely to have left Iran on a genuine passport bearing his own name, or via a land border where border controls could be evaded more easily. The Department also queried how he could afford to pay the sum that the Applicant said he paid to the people smuggler who facilitated his exit.
In summary, the Department was concerned that the Applicant was not an undocumented, stateless person, and that he had tried to conceal his real identity.
In response, the Applicant provided a character reference from his employer in Western Australia dated 11 March 2020 (T17/134). He also provided a statutory declaration dated 23 March 2020 where he explained how he obtained the identity documents he provided to the Department (T18/136-137). He also explained that he and his family members did not have white cards, that he had transferred the money to his father’s neighbour who gave it to his father and confirmed how he had engaged with and paid the people smuggler.
During the application process, the Applicant also provided the following Australian identity documents to the Department:
(a)Australian Titre de Voyage (Convention Travel Document) for the Applicant (T15/103);
(b)Marriage certificate from the wedding ceremony and corresponding marriage certificate from the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (in relation to his marriage to Ms C) (T7/57-58);
(c)Bank statement (T7/59); and
(d)The Applicant’s Australian visa and immigration stamps (T8/60-61).
However, as I explained above, on 14 September 2020, the Department made the Reviewable Decision refusing the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral.
On 28 September 2020, the Applicant filed an application seeking review of the Reviewable Decision in this Tribunal (T2).
The hearing
I heard this application on 25 March 2022 at the Perth Registry of the Tribunal. The hearing was conducted by MS Teams.
The Applicant was represented by Mr D Blades of Chisholm Law, and the Respondent by Mr C West of Sparke Helmore Lawyers. I thank Mr Blades for representing the Applicant for a low fee as this was a complicated application that would have been difficult for the Applicant to navigate without legal assistance.
The Applicant gave evidence with the assistance of a Southern Kurdish interpreter.
The Applicant’s father gave evidence by telephone from Iran with the assistance of the interpreter. So did two of the Applicant’s father’s neighbours from his village in Bujan, AG, and RM.
Prior to the hearing, the Applicant filed a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) on 26 September 2021, and the Respondent filed a SFIC on 20 October 2021.
There was a significant amount of material before me, which I admitted into evidence as follows:
(a)National Police Certificate of the Applicant dated 13 February 2021 (Exhibit A1);
(b)Statutory declaration of the Applicant signed 20 September 2021 with five attachments labelled AG1 to AG5 (AG1, AG3 and AG4 have been replaced in Exhibit A13) (Exhibit A2);
(c)Wikipedia extract titled “Lumar” last edited 24 March 2021 (Exhibit A3);
(d)Report by Dr Jason Tucker about “Exploring Statelessness in Iran – Gaps in the nationality law, populations of concern and areas for future research” (Exhibit A4);
(e)Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report for Iran dated 14 April 2020 (DFAT Report) (Exhibit A5);
(f)“Faili Kurds” published by Minority Rights Group, concerning Faili Kurds in Iraq, updated November 2017 (Exhibit A6);
(g)Untranslated Certificate of Completion of Literacy Course (Exhibit A7);
(h)Untranslated copy of the Applicant's blood donor card (Exhibit A8);
(i)Article dated August 2015 “Iranian Internet Infrastructure and Policy Report” by smallmedia.org.uk (Exhibit A9);
(j)Letter dated 15 July 2021 from Senior Operations Manager, AUS Logistics Solutions, concerning the Applicant (Exhibit A10);
(k)Letter from the Applicant's partner, Ms F, dated 30 June 2021 (Exhibit A11);
(l)Journal Article by Golnar Mehran called “Social Implications of Literacy in Iran”, Comparative Education Review, dated May 1992, part of a database of The Universality of Chicago Press Journals (Exhibit A12);
(m)Further statutory declaration of the Applicant signed 24 January 2022 with attachments AG6 to AG11 (replacing the attachments AG1, AG3 and AG4 from Exhibit A2) (Exhibit A13);
(n)Translation of the answer given to the question “Occupation” in ST1, page 6, translated on 31 December 2021 (Exhibit A14);
(o)Translated statement from the Applicant’s father’s neighbour in Iran, AG, dated 21 November 2021 (Exhibit A15);
(p)Section 37 T-Documents, labelled T1-T22, comprising pages 1-225 (Exhibit R1); and
(q)Supplementary T-Documents, labelled ST1-ST5, comprising pages 1-207 (Exhibit R2).
An IDBS Identity Analysis Report: Feyli Kurd Cohort Report (Redacted IDBS Report) contained in Exhibit R2 relied upon by the Respondent was heavily redacted. I directed that the Respondent advise whether an unredacted copy could be filed subject to a confidentiality order. The Respondent sought to rely upon the redacted version but referred to comparable country information. The Applicant made submissions about this country information on 21 April 2022.
Although I note the Respondent’s submission that the Tribunal, differently constituted, has relied upon the redacted version of this report, I find the Respondent’s suggestion that I should do the same to be unsatisfactory. There may be relevant information, or information that qualifies or further expands upon the unredacted portions of the document contained in the redacted parts of the document. I am concerned that not having the complete document could lead to a selective or misleading reading of the Report. I therefore find that other country information that is complete and that is available to both parties, particularly the DFAT Report (A5) is likely to be more reliable, and I give little weight to the Redacted IDBS Report unless the information in the unredacted parts is corroborated by this other country information.
submissions
The Minister’s representative, Mr West, submitted that there were two critical issues which raised doubts about the Applicant’s identity. These were: firstly, a paucity and lack of quality of the identity documents the Applicant has produced; and secondly, that the Applicant’s life story is both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with country information. Mr West submitted that my findings on identity would in turn inform my findings on character. However, if I was satisfied of the Applicant’s identity and the character concerns flowing from the identity issue, the matter should be remitted to the Department so that they could conclude their investigations about the Applicant’s character by obtaining any required overseas penal clearances.
The Applicant’s representative, Mr Blades, submitted that I should be satisfied of the Applicant’s identity. Mr Blades submitted that the Applicant had given cogent evidence upon which I can be satisfied of the three pillars of identity. He submitted that the Applicant gave an internally consistent account of his life story that was also consistent with country information, and further, that his evidence was corroborated by the evidence of his father and neighbours in Iran, and the biometrics and documentation provided by the Applicant regarding his identity. Further, Mr Blades submitted that I could make a finding that the Applicant was of good character. As well as the Department having had ample time to investigate the Applicant’s character, Mr Blades submitted that the Applicant has a history of employment in the Australian community and good character references. Further, there is no evidence that the Applicant is not of good character.
Before I address these submissions, I will briefly outline the relevant legislation and policy.
Legislative and policy Framework
Section 21(1) of the Citizenship Act provides that “[a] person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen”.
Section 21(2) of the Citizenship Act is the general eligibility provision. The relevant part provides:
(2)A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
…
(h) is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.
Further, s 24 of the Citizenship Act provides:
(1)If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must,
by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen. …
(1A)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
(Notes omitted.)
Section 24(3) of the Citizenship Act states that “[t]he Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person”.
Character and identity are not defined in the Act. Some guidance with respect to these concepts can be found in the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions which have been produced by the Department to help guide decision makers.
Identity
The Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 (Cth) (which became the Citizenship Act) provides that there is no discretion available to either the Minister, or any other decision-maker, to grant citizenship unless that decision-maker is satisfied of the identity of the applicant. In the absence of that satisfaction, the application must be refused:
There may be cases where identity is unclear or cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. In these circumstances the Minister cannot approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
The importance of establishing a person’s identity in applications for citizenship by conferral has been discussed by the Tribunal in decisions such as Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256 (Beyan) and Shafari and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 808 (Shafari).
In Beyan, Senior Member Walsh stated at [38]:
... a Certificate of Australian Citizenship is a legal document of considerable significance and the Tribunal should not countenance an outcome which could lead to such a certificate being issued in circumstances where, as is the case here, the identity of the Applicant is far from clear.

Relevantly to the Applicant who has been granted a protection visa, in Shafari Senior Member Morris stated at [55]:
The steps taken to establish identity under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for visas are not the same as those under the Act and set out in the Citizenship Policy. This is necessarily a ‘higher bar’ to meet because of the privileges and responsibilities that flow from the grant of Australian citizenship.
“CPI 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act” (CPI 16) explains, at [4], that, “[a] person’s identity is defined by a certain combination of characteristics or attributes that allow that person to be uniquely distinguished from others within a specific context”.
CPI 16 provides at [11]:
It is not sufficient to be satisfied of a person's identity at one point in time, as a person's identity is not a point in time concept; it must be verified incrementally throughout a person's life and considered holistically.
CPI 16, at [5], identifies three pillars of identity to be used when assessing identity. They are biometrics, documents and life story:
When assessing a person's identity, the Department relies on a combination of three elements, referred to as the three pillars of identity. Each pillar is made up of individual characteristics.
·     Biometrics – a measurable characteristic that is unique to a person such as fingerprints or face.
·     Documents – reliable and secure identity documents as defined by the Security Standards for Proof-of-Identity Documents. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features.
·     Life Story – an account of the events that happened to a person during their lifetime.
CPI 16 at [5] continues to state:
Combining and fact checking the Three Pillars of Identity against each other provides a strong evidence‑base to establish an identity.
The level of risk associated with the service being applied for determines the type of evidence required to assess a person's life story. For example, a citizenship application is likely to require more evidence than a visitor visa. In some cases, officers may determine that not all of the pillars of identity are necessary to establish a person's identity.
In other words, it may be inadequate to rely on a single pillar to establish a person’s identity and a decision maker should consider each pillar of identity to comprehensively test and evaluate a person’s claims about their identity. Indeed, CPI 16 states at [11] that, “[w]hen assessing a person’s identity, the objective is to determine whether the information pursuant to the three pillars is consistent.” However, as the excerpt from CPI 16 at [5] above indicates, it may be possible for the decision-maker to be satisfied of a person’s identity based on less than three pillars being satisfied. For example, two pillars may be satisfactory to establish identity depending on the strength of the evidence before the decision-maker.
Documentation alone is generally not enough to establish identity, although an applicant will be expected to make efforts to obtain relevant identity documents which might reasonably exist. In Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 148 ALD 162 at 175 [117] (Dhayakpa), Deputy President the Hon R Nicholson stated:
Neither the Act nor the common law requires that identity can only be established by the production of documents appropriate to an established or undisturbed society. The decision in Confidential is not an authority that documentation is a requisite for the Minister to be satisfied as to identity. I accept the submission for the applicant that the case merely stands for the proposition that where an applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist and which he has been advised to secure, the application ought to be rejected. The question here is whether the identity can be established to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.
Dhayakpa was followed in YMPL and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1458, where Member Warner said at [34]-[35]:
Relevantly, the test for establishing identity is outlined in [Dhayakpa] and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310 where the Honourable R Nicholson, Deputy President was satisfied that the applicant in that matter had established his identity to the best of his ability. The Deputy President stated at [117]: “Neither the Act nor the common law requires that identity can only be established by the production of documents appropriate to an established or undisturbed society”.
Having carefully considered the evidence and the relevant circumstances, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that YMPL’s identity is that which he claims it to be.
These decisions reinforce the importance of decision-makers having regard to each pillar of identity to comprehensively evaluate their identity claims.
Good Character
The Citizenship Act does not include a definition of “good character”. However, CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15) provides guidance on the application of the “good character” requirement with reference to Tribunal decisions and judicial authority.
The CPI 15, at [3.3], observes that “good character” is not defined in the Citizenship Act, and that the Federal Court and the Tribunal have “used the ordinary meaning of the words, and made reference to dictionary definitions” to define the term. It observes that most cases have adopted the following definition from Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422, 431–432 (Irving):
Unless the terms of the Act and Regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words “good character” should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact whilst the latter is a review of subjective public opinion… A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character… Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.
After citing the above passage from Irving, the CPI 15 explains:
The phrase ‘enduring moral qualities’ encompasses the following concepts:
·     characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;
·     distinguishing right from wrong; and
·     behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
The good character requirement necessitates consideration of an applicant viewed in a holistic way; that is, all aspects of his/her life may be relevant to consideration of character.
A decision-maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout the time the applicant held a visa, and during the time their citizenship application was lodged and processed.
Given the significance of the grant of Australian citizenship, the assessment of the applicant’s character is an important component in the Minister’s decision to approve or refuse the applicant’s citizenship application.
The CPI 15 then refers to the decision of Deputy President Breen in Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, at [8]:
The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home… The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few year’s [sic] time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.
The CPI 15, at [4], provides a non-exhaustive list of characteristics that an applicant of good character would have. These characteristics are to be considered against the facts of the individual case and are not to be applied rigidly or inflexibly. The CPI 15 states:
As a general proposition, a person who is of good character would:
·     respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;
…
·     not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example:
o   intentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications;
…
In a section titled “[w]eighing up the evidence” (at [14.2]), the CPI 15 states:
The question for decision-makers is whether or not the decision-maker is satisfied that the person is of good character at the time of decision on the citizenship application. This requires the decision-maker to weigh up all of the relevant evidence.
Decision-makers should consider the following matters:
·     Would a person of good character behave the way the applicant did?
·     What evidence is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law?
·     Has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia's community standards, such as obeying the law?
·     Does the applicant share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect the rights and liberties of its people?
·     Has the applicant taken steps to rehabilitate or change their lifestyle and become a person of good character?
·     Are there any other factors that are relevant to an assessment of the applicant’s character?
In Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ([1994] AATA 326 at [7]), the AAT said:
“a decision about whether a person is of good character requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. It is true to say, however, that, despite the many good qualities possessed by a person, those qualities can be outweighed by a single adverse incident if it is of sufficient weight and seriousness.”
A decision-maker needs to look holistically at an applicant’s behaviour over time. The amount of time depends on the merits of each case, but in most cases will go back prior to any visa application if the person is applying for citizenship by conferral.
…
In Nguyen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 1082 at [82]–[83], Senior Member Puplick emphasised the importance of applicants being truthful:
Citizenship of Australia is regarded as a special privilege when extended to those not automatically qualified. Earning it requires adherence not only to statutory requirements but also to the set of moral values and qualities related to honesty in dealings with the Government. These values and qualities are themselves a hallmark of good citizenship.
Citizenship cannot be awarded on the basis of false statements. There are no excuses for making false statements in this regard.
Equally, it is a hallmark of citizenship to take personal responsibility for one’s own actions and not cast them off onto the shoulders of others. Even persons who are not able to manage well in the English language can do this without resort to placing themselves in the hands of deceitful third parties.
(Footnotes omitted.)
Further, in Fang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 3686 at [97], Senior Member Puplick made the following comment about the need for an applicant to be truthful about their identity:
… those, who are not citizens and who are seeking to do so, must be absolutely truthful as to who they are and absolutely truthful about their identity. Truthfulness in the completion of government documents, such as passenger arrival cards, applications for visas or citizenship, licences or identity documents is an absolute requirement – applicable indeed, equally to citizens and non-citizens alike.
the applicant’s identity
Biometrics
Section 40 of the Citizenship Act provides that the Minister may request the person provide one or more “specified personal identifiers” for the purpose of the Minister being satisfied of the identity of a person. Section 10(1) of the Citizenship Act defines a “personal identifier” to include, fingerprints, a measurement of a person’s height and weight, a photograph or other image of a person’s face and shoulders, an iris scan and a person’s signature.
CPI 16, at [5.1] states that biometrics include facial images and fingerprints. That is, they are “personal identifiers” or in other words, a recorded measurement of a person’s unique, physical, identifiable attributes that can be used for identification.
The Respondent’s SFIC did not identify any issues with his biometrics. Instead, the Respondent’s concerns were with the Applicant’s documents and his life story.
I do note, however, that the Applicant has provided several documents containing his photograph. Some of these are Australian identity documents such as his application for citizenship form, heavy vehicle drivers’ licence, Australian visa, and his Titre de Voyage document for travel to Australia (T7/39 and 56; T8/60; T15/103). These documents are evidence of the Applicant’s identity from the time he came to Australia. However, they do not assist in ascertaining the Applicant’s identity prior to his arrival in Australia.
The Applicant has, however, submitted documents containing his photograph from prior to his coming to Australia. The earliest biometric record for the Applicant is the untranslated Certificate of Completion of Literacy Course registered in 1998 from when he was nearly 12 years old (literacy course certificate). This is the untranslated literacy course certificate (A7), with the translated copy showing the date of registration as 31 May 1998 (T15/98).
The untranslated copy of the Applicant's blood donor card (A8) also contains his photograph, with the translated copy showing a date of issue of 30 December 2008 (T15/104). The Applicant also submitted a photo to the Department where he was holding a ball with some local boys (T15/123).
I am satisfied that these biometrics support a finding that the Applicant is the person in those biometric documents.
Documents
With respect to the “documents” pillar of identity, CPI 16 explains, at paragraph [11.1], that:
Documents are an important element of the process in establishing a person’s identity. … While they do not establish or verify a person’s identity in and of themselves, they contribute to a person’s identity timeline by providing an anchor to corroborate information pursuant to pillar one (biometrics) and pillar three (life story).
When assessing pillar two, delegates must consider and assess whether the documents and information they contain is consistent and support a person’s claimed identity.
The crucial element of a document, whether genuine or not, is the story the document tells. Documents need not be identity documents to tell a story. For instance, a hotel invoice may demonstrate a person’s presence in a particular place at a point in time.
…
The Respondent submitted that there is a “paucity” and “lack of quality” of the documents produced by the Applicant in support of his identity. More specifically, the Respondent’s submissions included that the Applicant has not been able to produce any documents from his birth until 1998 (literary course certificate), and then from 1998 until 2008 (blood donor card). There is no link between the identity documents that the Applicant has produced and a primary identity document, such as a birth certificate.
Whilst this may be the case, there is some corroborating evidence concerning the Applicant’s identity from birth. Firstly, the Applicant’s translated literacy course certificate states “[blank]” next to his birth certificate number (T15/98). This is consistent with the Applicant not having a birth certificate, although it is by no means definitive because that section could have been left blank for other reasons.
The Applicant has also produced two documents signed and stamped by the Islamic Council of Boujan. The first certifies the year that the Applicant was born, his parents’ names and that he lived in a village in Boujan from birth until March 2003/ March 2004 in the Gregorian calendar (T15/99). The second is a local affidavit signed and stamped by the Islamic Council of Boujan stating the Applicant’s parents’ names, his date of birth, that he lived in the village in Boujan from birth until March 2006/ March 2007 and that he paid a monthly rent to a Mr MH (T15/100). The translated documents are undated and so it is unclear why there is a discrepancy in the dates the Applicant lived in his village (that is, March 2003/March 2004 or March 2006/ March 2007). More recently, the Applicant filed a document titled “Local Documentary Evidence” dated 20 November 2021, signed and sealed by the Islamic Council of Boujan Village, the Board of Trustees of a mosque and three additional witnesses (A13/AG8). That document states the Applicant’s name and date of birth. It states that, “Since his family were Feily Kurdich, no Iranian official document has been issued for him.” The Applicant’s evidence in his statutory declaration dated 23 March 2020, which I accept, was that the local council is not a government organisation, but rather three local people who are not paid by the government and who help local people when they have an issue or dispute (T18/136).
The Applicant also produced a hospital discharge document stating that he was admitted to the emergency ward from 10 May 2009 to 17 May 2009 in the city of Shirvan, Iran (T15/101) which shows he was in Iran at that time.
The Respondent submitted that there is no evidence as to how the documents were obtained and the Applicant’s attempts to source further identity documents. However, the Applicant gave evidence about this in a statutory declaration dated 16 February 2020. He stated that in 2016 when he made his citizenship application, he submitted all the documents he had. His father then found his blood donor card “after conducting a thorough search among our old stuff in the old house in Iran”. He stated that his father had obtained his medical record from the hospital admission for him, as well as the literacy course certificate. He also stated that his father had obtained a letter from the Department of Public Records regarding his grandfather’s death (T15/124). In another statutory declaration dated 23 March 2020 (T18/136, para [2.3]), the Applicant explained:
When I received the email from department of immigration and citizenship about providing some different type of document such as rental agreement and many more, I realised that I could provide some document which are only local and have no formal values in Iran, but could be useful for the department, then contacted my friend and family to search for any sort of document that they could possibly find, they could also get some letters from locals and local council.
He continued to explain that he received the blood donation card from the Red Cross when he started donating blood, which he did not need any primary identity document to obtain. With respect to renting a house, the Applicant explained that they (which I take to mean the Applicant and his family) rented from local people, that they only paid cash and never needed a formal agreement. The Applicant explained in the same statutory declaration that he and his family have never had insurance or bank accounts and that they would be paid in cash (T18/136, paras [2.4], [2.6] and [2.7]). I accept the Applicant’s evidence. It is entirely plausible based on the country information, and the evidence of his family members and neighbours.
There was some conflicting evidence about how the Applicant’s grandfather’s death certificate was obtained. In his statutory declaration of 20 September 2021, the Applicant stated that his father had gone to the records office and the staff helped him to obtain the death certificate, but that it was not an official document (A2, para [16]). In a statutory declaration dated 24 January 2022, the Applicant stated, “My father got a death certificate … by paying someone to get it” (A13, para [10]). When the discrepancy was put to the Applicant at the hearing, his evidence was that he explained the issue in his 2022 statutory declaration. When it was put to him that he had not stated in that declaration that his previous declaration was wrong, the Applicant stated, “I always - you know, consistently I will always say the truth, and when my lawyer asked me any questions I explained to my lawyer was going on, you know, truthfully and honestly” (transcript/28).

My impression was that the Applicant was a truthful witness. As he gave evidence through an interpreter at the hearing, my impression was that there could have been language issues when the Applicant’s lawyers interpreted what he had said and recorded it in his statutory declarations. The Applicant’s 2022 evidence, and his evidence at the hearing was consistent with that of his father. At the hearing, the Applicant’s father stated that he tried to pay someone to obtain the death certificate from the coroner’s office, but that the person did not accept the money because they wanted to help (transcript/53-54). I do not think that this document is particularly reliable, given the way it was obtained, and the fact that it was not an official document. It does show the Applicant’s attempts, through his father, to obtain identity documents. It does not show, in my view, that the Applicant was being untruthful about his identity.
The Respondent submitted that the fact that the Applicant was able to produce the identity documents he did was inconsistent with his earlier claims that he was an undocumented Faili Kurd and did not have any identity documents. Further, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant obtaining his grandfather’s death certificate, a letter from the local Islamic council, being able to rent a house, being able to access healthcare, and being able to transfer money to his family, is inconsistent with the country information. This country information, the Respondent submits, suggests that if the Applicant was a refugee, he would have been registered with the Iranian authorities and issued a “white card” (“Amayesh”). Further, the Respondent submitted, that the Applicant, his father, and siblings being able to work in Iran is also inconsistent with his being undocumented, because if they were undocumented, they would not be able to work.
The Respondent referred to the heavily Redacted IDBS Report (R2/ST5/70) which stated that:
In October 2011, DFAT advised that the vast majority of Faili Kurd refugees in Iran had valid Amayesh refugee registration cards. The high rate of documentation amongst the Iraqi refugee population in Iran is perhaps unsurprising considering the considerable benefits attached to the possession of these documents and the Iranian government’s understandable enthusiasm for documenting people within its borders.
(footnotes omitted).
The Redacted IDBS Report continues to describe what is on the back part of the card. One of the statements is: “This card is for identity purposes and is valid in the issuing province for opening savings accounts, issuing health insurance booklets, issuing rental contracts and power of attorneys” (R2/ST5/70).
The Redacted IDBS Report further states that (R2/ST5/70):
Being a registered, documented refugee in Iran bestows the following benefits:
-    Access to schooling
-    Access to rental properties
-    Access to medical insurance
-    Ability to register births, deaths and marriages with the Bureau of Alien and Foreign Immigrant Affairs (BAFIA).
The DFAT Report explains that there are twice as many unregistered than registered refugees (A5/57, para [3.165]-[3.166]):
Iran has one of the largest refugee populations in the world, primarily from Afghanistan. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Iran hosts nearly 1 million registered Afghan refugees, plus up to 2 million undocumented ones (see paragraph 3.167). Approximately 97 per cent of registered Afghan refugees live among host communities in urban areas. …
Registered refugees are granted legal recognition under a system known as Amayesh. An Amayesh card proves legal right of residence and entitles the cardholder access to government services, including healthcare and education. However, no new Amayesh card registrations have taken place since 2007, meaning there is no way for post-2007 arrivals to become registered refugees.
The DFAT Report is also less conclusive than the Redacted IDBS Report about the majority of Faili Kurds in Iran being registered. It states (A5/28, para [3.25]):
Iran recognises many (but not all) Faili Kurds as refugees. Those Faili Kurds registered as refugees, like all other registered refugees, are entitled to government services and other rights under the Amayesh system. In contrast, undocumented Faili Kurds are not legally entitled to work, access government services or obtain birth, death and marriage certificates.
Further information is provided about the experiences of undocumented refugees, including that they experience significant disadvantage, have to work illegally, rely on informal support, and that undocumented children were only able to register in public schools since 2015. The DFAT Report (A5/57, para [3.168]) states:
According to government estimates, Iran hosts between 1.5 million and 2 million undocumented Afghans (i.e. who reside in the country illegally, without an Amayesh card or valid visa). This includes an unknown number of undocumented Afghans who regularly move back and forth between Afghanistan and Iran for seasonal employment, trade and other purposes. Undocumented Afghans experience significant disadvantage, and most have to rely on their ability to work illegally to generate income, or have to rely on NGOs and informal support (as they are not registered refugees, undocumented Afghans are ineligible for UNHCR assistance). Undocumented Afghan children have been able to register in national public schools since May 2015, following a decree from the Supreme Leader that all children in Iran, regardless of their legal status, be allowed access to formal education.
For the reasons I outlined in the section on “The Hearing” above, I find the DFAT Report to be a more reliable source of country information than the Redacted IDBS Report. The information in the DFAT Report is also consistent with the evidence of the Applicant’s mother, father, siblings and two neighbours about his status as an undocumented Faili Kurd. The information in the DFAT Report is also consistent with another report, “Exploring Statelessness in Iran” (A4). This report explains the history of the Faili Kurds coming to Iran from Iraq. It states that there remains a large stateless population of Faili Kurds in Iran. They are well integrated into Iranian society, but “face restrictions accessing education, healthcare and employment” (A4/11-12).
In various statements the Applicant has maintained that he was an undocumented Faili Kurd and that he has provided all the documents that he can in support of his citizenship application (T5/35-36; T6/37-38; T15/124). His evidence is supported by the country information I have referred to above, as well as the evidence of his family members and neighbours.
In a document called “Local Testimony” dated 15 December 2021 (A13/AG6), the Applicant’s father stated that he was a “Feily Kurd, having no specified nationality and country”. He stated that he married in 1976 and that he and his wife have his six children, including the Applicant, who also have “no specified nationality and country too”. He further stated:
We were moved to Iran by the Iraqi government of the time in 1978. As my children had no nationality, they were all deprived from studying in school and enjoying other public governmental services. I asked the immigration affairs department in 1979 for receiving a nationality; however, the immigration affairs department has not given us a nationality till now. I work as a laborer for farms here. They pay my wages in cash as I have no nationality and bank account.
In another “Local Testimony” dated 20 November 2021 (A13/AG9), the Applicant’s mother stated that her six children, including the Applicant:
have no Iranian citizenship, and, consequently, they are deprived from going to school, having bank account, and enjoying other governmental services. We asked the Iranian government several times to grant us Iranian nationality but to no avail we failed to get Iranian nationality.
The Applicant’s siblings stated in a “Local Testimony” dated 20 November 2021 (A13/AG7):
He [the Applicant’s father] was previously working as a laborer in Iraq and belongs to Feyli ethnic group. He was subsequently forced to leave Iraq and reside in a village in Ilam province, called Boujan. He was working as a labourer there.
Currently, we are all jobless and don’t have any National ID card, healthcare card, or even bank account and/or other welfare amenities and none of us is married. We are in a dire economic situation, and in order to survive, we work as laborers on different farms.
Our brother, Ayoob, who knew that he would have no future in Iran, received some money from our father, who in turn had borrowed money from our neighbours, in order to migrate to Australia. Ayoob is currently working as a laborer there. It should be mentioned that none of our family members have citizenship of Iran or Iraq.
The evidence of the Applicant’s two neighbours also corroborates the Applicant’s evidence about being undocumented and consequently not being able to have a bank account. The Applicant was asked about transferring money back to his father in Iran (T20/152-153; transcript/30-31). He estimated making three transfers in total. The Applicant transferred the money into his neighbour’s bank account because his father did not have a bank account, and the neighbour passed the money onto the Applicant’s father. This is consistent with the evidence the Applicant’s father gave at the hearing (transcript/51-53), as well as the evidence of the Applicant’s neighbour, AG, who received the money (transcript/58-60; A15). The name of the Applicant’s neighbour, AG, is like that of the Applicant’s father, but with slightly different spelling. However, I am satisfied, based on this evidence, that the money was transferred to AG because the Applicant’s father did not have a bank account due to his undocumented status.
The Applicant also gave evidence about the mobile phone number on one of the transfers. His evidence was that another of his father’s neighbours, RM, had purchased the mobile phone and a sim card for his father, which was in the neighbour’s name (transcript/37-39). This evidence was further supported and clarified by that of the Applicant’s father who confirmed that RM purchased two mobile phones and two sim cards, and that he was paying RM for them in instalments (transcript/51 and 55). In a “Local Testimony”, RM, stated that he purchased two sim cards for the Applicant’s father who paid him back on an instalment basis (A13/AG10). However, in his evidence at the hearing, RM confirmed that he purchased two mobile phones and two sim cards for the Applicant’s father to help him because “they are … migrants … They are vulnerable people … They don’t have any … Iran documents” (transcript/62). I also accept the evidence of the witnesses (the Applicant at transcript/38; RM at transcript/64) that RM assists to purchase credit for the mobile phones when required, and that it is easy to go into a mobile phone shop and purchase credit for the phone with cash. That is, it is not necessary for the mobile phone to be in a person’s name to enable them to purchase credit for it.
The Respondent was concerned that the literacy course certificate demonstrated that the Applicant had, in fact, gone to school. In his statutory declaration dated 20 September 2021, the Applicant stated that (A2, paras [8], [13]-[14]):
I have only done five years of informal primary education called Nehzat Sawad Amoozi in Iran, as stated in my statutory declaration of 23 March 2020. I completed this primary education in Boujan Village, Ithar, Shirvan. The Nehzat was not a real school, it was run by volunteers who provided a basic literacy course. I didn’t go full-time there. I learned how to read and write in Farsi there. It was not a proper primary school education.
…
The statement that I have made in the Form 80 (T10, page 68): “A stateless person can not go to school in Iran. So I don’t have any education” is correct. The Nehzat course was a basic literacy course run by volunteers. It was not a primary school education.
Instead of going to school in Iran I worked as a labourer on the farm where my family lived and worked.
Although the name of the school stated at the hearing and in his Form 80 (ST2/22) by the Applicant was different to that stated on his literacy course certificate, I accept his evidence that the name of the school had changed (transcript/40). The Applicant’s evidence about not having a formal school education is consistent with the statement from the Applicant’s mother, which I referred to above, where she stated that her six children “were all deprived from studying in school”. It is also consistent with country information. A journal article submitted by the Applicant (A12) explains that the literacy course was instituted around 1979 by the Ayatollah and the aim of the course was to give everyone in Iran, including refugees and non-citizens of Iran, a basic literacy education regardless of their status. The Redacted IDBS Report also refers to a non-formal Literacy Movement Organisation, a state supervised body, which carried out literacy programs in the 1990s at four basic levels, and that the program did not distinguish between people residing in rural or urban areas (ST5/182-183). This information shows that there was such a course established in Iran around the time the Applicant was a child and supports his claim of only having done the literacy course in Iran, and no other education.
However, in forms submitted to the Department in 2010 and 2011 (ST1/3; ST4/43), the Applicant stated that he went to Shorab Secondary School. In his statutory declaration dated 20 September 2021, the Applicant explained (A2, paras [10]-[11]):
I did not attend secondary school in Iran. In the biodata form (ST1, page 3), I did write at Question 13 in Persian the name of the Shurab school. I wrote Shurab in Persian there because I copied the answer from the person next to me, who was also from Iran. At the time of completing the form, no-one explained how to fill in the form. There were many people in the room and we were hurrying to complete the form.
On my protection visa application form (ST4, page 43, paragraph b.) it is stated that I attended Shorab Secondary School. That is incorrect. I did not attend any secondary school. The protection visa application form was completed for me by a migration agent. The reference to Shorab Secondary School was included by mistake. It may have been picked up from the Biodata form.
The Biodata form was completed on 2 December 2010 on the day that the Applicant arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival. His explanation for providing this incorrect information is understandable in those circumstances. The Applicant has been otherwise consistent with his evidence that he has not had a formal school education. I accept that evidence. I also accept that his literacy course certificate is evidence of his informal education and it is consistent with the Applicant’s evidence that he was not entitled to a formal education due to his undocumented status.
The above evidence supports a finding that the Applicant is an undocumented Faili Kurd. He has done his best to obtain any documents he can despite being undocumented. Although the documents he has been able to produce do not establish an unbroken link to his identity since birth, the documents are themselves consistent (in terms of the spelling of names, the location they are from and the Applicant’s date of birth), the Applicant is a credible witness, and his evidence is supported by country information, the evidence of the witnesses who gave evidence at the hearing and the evidence contained in the local testimony documents from his mother, siblings and the local Islamic council.
Life story
With respect to the “Life story” pillar of identity, the CPI 16 states, at [11.2]:
When assessing a person’s life story in the context of a citizenship application, delegates should seek to create a complete identity ‘picture’ of the person from birth. This is not done by asking the person to recite their life story in interview. Instead, a practical way in which to begin an assessment of a person’s identity, while at the same time considering their life story, is to consider their identity timeline.
The objective is to link the applicant’s identity at birth to the identity provided in their application for Australian citizenship. This can be done by considering key chronological events in the person’s life, and using pillar one (biometrics) and pillar two (documents), to piece together and corroborate information.
In most cases, by the time a person applies for Australian citizenship, they will have interacted with the Department and previously provided aspects of their life story. Where necessary, delegates must locate the information provided during these interactions, plot it on the person’s identity timeline, and compare it with information provided at the time of applying for Australian citizenship.
Much of the Applicant’s life story was elucidated above under the discussion of the “Documents” pillar of identity. In summary, his parents are Faili Kurds who lived in Iraq and who married in 1976. They were deported to Iran by the Iraqi government in 1978 and are stateless and undocumented. The Applicant was born in Iran and he and his siblings have the same undocumented status as their parents. The Applicant has five siblings who are still living in Iran. Being undocumented, the Applicant, did not have a formal education. He undertook the Nhzat literacy course but did not undertake any formal schooling. He worked as a farm labourer on the same farm where his father and siblings worked, starting from when he was six or seven years old until seven to eight years before coming to Australia. He then worked in a furniture warehouse in Tehran before he came to Australia (transcript/22). His employer put him in contact with a people smuggler, whom the Applicant paid through his employer several thousand dollars that he had borrowed from his family and friends. The people smuggler organised his departure from Imam Khomeini airport on 22 October 2010 under a fake passport (T5/35). The Applicant arrived in Indonesia, where he spent one month before coming to Australia by boat on an illegal vessel (ST2/23).
With respect to his working in Tehran, the Respondent was concerned that he did not disclose his work and address in Tehran in his Form 80 completed in 2017 (T10/66-67) and in his Form 80 completed in 2020 (T15/108-109). The Applicant’s evidence was that he had always been truthful, that he had assistance filling out the forms and that he worked in Tehran but that when he was not working, he would return to the village to see his family (transcript/23-24). I accept the Applicant’s evidence and I do not think that he deliberately omitted this information. Indeed, as soon as he came off the boat and was interviewed, the interviewer recorded that he had worked in Tehran from 2004 to 2010 (T4/15-16). Shortly after arriving in Australia, in an attachment to a Form 80 dated 24 January 2011, and in his protection visa application of the same date, the Applicant stated that he worked as a porter in a furniture warehouse in Tehran from 2004 to October 2010 before his departure from Iran was facilitated by a people smuggler (ST2/21; ST4/45).
As I mentioned above, the Respondent has queried the veracity of the Applicant’s evidence that he departed Iran under a fake passport organised by a people smuggler. The Respondent suggested that the Applicant left Iran on his own passport and that he was now being untruthful about his identity (transcript/29-30). The Applicant has consistently maintained that his passage out of Iran was via a fake passport organised by a people smuggler, including in the forms submitted for his protection visa (ST2/23). At the hearing, the Applicant was asked about some discrepancies in his statements regarding how he engaged with the people smuggler. When he was first interviewed upon arrival in Australia, the interviewer recorded that his employer in Tehran knew a people smuggler, that he spoke to the people smuggler twice but never met him, and that he paid approximately $5,400 US for his travel to Australia (T4/26-27).

In a statutory declaration dated 23 March 2020, (T18/136, para [2.8]), the Applicant stated:
… I was introduced to someone (people smuggler) who organised my departure with someone from the airport and also teaching me what to say and what to do in respons [sic] I had to pay few thousand US dollars … Iran is a very corrupted country and people can do many things and get way by bribing the authorities.
In a statutory declaration dated 20 September 2021 (A2, para [17]), the Applicant stated:
My exit from Iran was entirely arranged by the people smuggler. He did everything for me, arranging the passport, plane ticket, and rent for the house in Indonesia. Before I went to the airport in Tehran, the people smuggler gave me the passport and ticket, he told me the date and time of the flight. On the day of the flight, I presented my ticket and passport to the security and walked through there to board the plane. That was all I had to do.
At the hearing, the Applicant was asked about why he had stated that he never met the people smuggler, then had apparently stated that he met him at the airport. The Applicant initially agreed that he spoke to the people smuggler on the phone and met him at the airport. He then clarified that he spoke to the people smuggler on the phone and met someone else at the airport who assisted him. Whilst at first glance these inconsistencies appear unsatisfactory, my impression was that they were more likely the result of language translation issues when the Applicant described what had happened to his lawyers, who in turn put his evidence in statutory interpretation form. I thought that the Applicant was honest in his answers at the hearing. He readily made admissions and I do not think he was being evasive, or that he was trying to portray a more flattering version of events.
The Respondent also referred to the DFAT Report in support of the submission that the Applicant’s version of events does not accord with the available country information. I note the following passages of the DFAT Report, (A5/72, paras [5.41]-[5.42]), which highlights that document fraud is extremely difficult for documents such as passports, and even if a person could impersonate another using a genuine document, they may have difficulty leaving Iran due to sophisticated border control procedures:
Iranian identity documents include sophisticated security features and are difficult to manufacture for fraudulent use. While it may be possible to obtain a genuine identification document with the intention of impersonating another person, DFAT assesses that sophisticated border control procedures would make it difficult to use such a document in order to leave Iran.
Local sources told DFAT that document fraud is ‘extremely difficult’ for primary forms of documentation like passports, national identity cards, shenasnameh and driver’s licences. Obtaining these documents is considered beyond the technical and financial means of most Iranians. Passports and national identity cards have advanced security features, including chips with the bearer’s biometric data, making them difficult to forge. These features also make fraudulent passports and national identity documents easy to detect. …
The DFAT Report continues to state that whilst there is corruption, the chances of obtaining a fraudulent passport, or a genuine one through fraudulent means are low (A5/72, para [5.43]),
… While DFAT cannot discount the existence of corruption in relation to official documentation, it does not assess it to be prevalent, particularly in relation to primary and secondary forms of documentation. DFAT assesses that the chances of obtaining a fraudulent Iranian passport or a genuine passport through fraudulent means are low.
However, elsewhere, the DFAT Report highlights “that corruption remains endemic” and that (A5/14, para [2.21]):
Local sources told DFAT that some law enforcement officials accept bribes, including in instances where an individual has breached moral codes of behaviour like consuming alcohol or attending mixed-gender parties. The GAN Business Anti-Corruption Portal claims that a powerful system of political patronage, nepotism and cronyism pervades all sectors of the economy; irregular payments, bribes and the trading of favours are often required to obtain services, permits or public contracts; authorities do not effectively enforce anti-corruption laws in practice; and impunity is pervasive.
The country information makes it clear that, although difficult, given the amount of money paid by the Applicant and the involvement of his employer in Tehran, it was entirely possible that he could obtain a fake passport and that his departure through the airport could have been facilitated by a people smuggler. The Applicant has consistently maintained he left Iran under a fake passport facilitated by a people smuggler, even though the fact of his departure in this manner reflects negatively on him. I found him to be a credible witness and I accept his evidence about his departure from Iran under a fake passport.
I find that the Applicant’s life story is consistent with his biometrics and documents, and in totality, when the three pillars of identity are considered together, I am satisfied of the Applicant’s identity.
Whether the applicant is of good character
I found above that I am satisfied of the Applicant’s identity, and that the Applicant has been honest and truthful in the provision of identity documents to the Department and in his evidence to this Tribunal. There is therefore no evidence that he is not of good character due to the information and documents he has provided to the Department.
Other information before me suggests that the Applicant is of good character. The Applicant has filed a National Police Certificate (A1) which shows he has no convictions in Australia. His partner, Ms F, has filed a letter dated 30 June 2021 stating that she has been his de facto partner since July 2019 and that he is a “sincere, honest and trustworthy person”. She also referred to his giving food to homeless people from time to time (A11).
His employer, who wrote a letter dated 15 July 2021, stated that he had only known the Applicant for the past few months, but that he had “found [the Applicant] to be of good character, a reliable hard worker who has proved to be trustworthy, respectful, and reliable with good work ethics” (A10). His previous employer wrote a letter dated 11 March 2020 in support of his citizenship application. This employer stated that he had known the Applicant for 18 months, that he was a “reliable and a likeable character with a placid nature”. This reference further stated (T17/134):
I believe this reference is to support his application for Australian citizenship and from what I know of [the Applicant] I know of no reason why, from a character perspective, that he would not be a valued member of society and model citizen.
On the information before me, I am satisfied that the Applicant is of good character.
As I noted above, the Respondent did not completely assess the Applicant’s character due their concerns about his identity. They therefore did not complete overseas penal clearances for the Applicant from Iran and Indonesia (where he spent approximately two months on his way to Australia). I therefore find that the Applicant is of good character, subject to these clearances being obtained and assessed by the Department. Given the time that has passed since the Applicant initially made his citizenship application, I have suggested that a 60-day timeframe is a reasonable timeframe within which these checks should be obtained.
Conclusion
Based on the evidence discussed above and following my analysis of the three pillars of identity, I am satisfied of the Applicant’s identity for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act and, of his good character (subject to any required overseas penal clearances) as required by s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act.
Decision
The Reviewable Decision is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration with the direction that:
(a) I am satisfied of the Applicant's identity; and
(b) based on the material before me, I am satisfied that the Applicant is of good character (subject to the Department obtaining and assessing any overseas penal clearances that are required to complete the Applicant’s character assessment).

I certify that the preceding 113 (one hundred and thirteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Dr M Evans-Bonner

...........[Sgd]............................................................
Associate
Dated: 23 September 2022

Date of hearing:

Date final submissions received:

25 March 2022

21 April 2022

Representative for the Applicant:
Mr D Blades, Chisholm Law

Representative for the Respondent: Mr C West, Sparke Helmore Lawyers

[2022] AATA 3099

23 September 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Standing

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction