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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by Mr Haidari, an Afghan national and permanent resident of Australia. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs had determined that Mr Haidari was not of good character, and this decision was affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on review. The AAT was required to consider several disputed matters, including the provision of a bogus taskera, the whereabouts and fate of Mr Haidari's father, Mr Haidari's partner, and his religious beliefs, in assessing whether he met the good character requirement under the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Haidari satisfied the requirement of being of good character for the purposes of acquiring Australian citizenship. This involved an assessment of his past conduct and the truthfulness of information provided to the Department. The Tribunal considered evidence from supporting witnesses, including a community leader and Mr Haidari's employer, who spoke highly of his work ethic, integrity, and community involvement. However, the Tribunal also had to weigh this positive evidence against specific instances where Mr Haidari had provided information to the Department that he knew to be untruthful.

The Tribunal reasoned that while there were many positive aspects to Mr Haidari's character and contributions to Australia, the critical factor was his lack of candour and the provision of false information to the government. Although the Tribunal accepted that Mr Haidari may not have knowingly intended to provide a fraudulent document with the bogus taskera, and that the significance of this was lessened by a subsequently accepted document, it found that his admissions of providing false information were determinative. The Tribunal distinguished between repute and character, concluding that despite his positive reputation, his failure to be truthful meant he could not be satisfied as being of good character under section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse citizenship. However, the Tribunal noted that Mr Haidari's immigration status as a permanent resident remained unaffected and that he was free to lodge a fresh application for citizenship, provided he was completely honest and disclosive in all information submitted.