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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by Mr Halim, a 51-year-old stateless Rohingya man born in Burma. Mr Halim arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival in December 2009 and was subsequently granted a protection visa. His application for citizenship was refused by a delegate of the Minister on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied of Mr Halim's identity under paragraph 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). Mr Halim sought review of this decision before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Halim had satisfied the identity requirement under paragraph 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). This involved considering Mr Halim's "life story" in circumstances where documentary evidence of his identity was limited due to his stateless Rohingya background and flight from persecution. The Tribunal also had to consider the weight to be given to Mr Halim's oral evidence and any corroborating evidence provided.

The Tribunal reasoned that while it acknowledged the difficulties faced by applicants like Mr Halim in establishing identity due to persecution and lack of documentation, the onus remained on the applicant to establish their identity to the Tribunal's positive satisfaction. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's life story must be consistent from birth to the present. In this case, the Tribunal found significant inconsistencies in Mr Halim's provided documentation and oral evidence regarding his name, date of birth, and family composition. Furthermore, there was a lack of independent corroborating evidence to support his life story, and the documents obtained from Burma were of questionable reliability and did not refer to his claimed place of origin. The Tribunal also found the evidence regarding his time in Malaysia to be unsubstantiated.

Consequently, the Tribunal was unable to be satisfied as to Mr Halim's identity for the purposes of section 24(3) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, noting that Mr Halim was not precluded from making a future application if he could provide a clear and consistent life story supported by objective evidence.