Halm and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)
[2025] ARTA 687
•3 June 2025
Halm and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 687 (3 June 2025)
Applicant/s: Nicol Jacqueline Halm
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2024/0840
Tribunal:General Member Gallagher
Place:Perth
Date of Decision: 3 June 2025
Date of Written Reasons: 4 June 2025
Decision:The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated 1 February 2024, to refuse the Applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral, is affirmed.
Statement made on 04 June 2025 at 2:20pm
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – eligibility – refusal of citizenship –Australian Citizenship Act 2007 s 24(2)(h) – whether Tribunal satisfied sufficient evidence to establish Australian citizen parent at time of birth – Tribunal cannot satisfactorily ascertain Applicant is of good character – reviewable decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australia Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Statement of Reasons
An oral decision was issued at the conclusion of the hearing held in the Perth Registry on 3 June 2025 with a note that written reasons would be provided in a reasonable time. These are those written reasons.
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
The Applicant seeks review of the decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated
1 February 2024 (the Reviewable Decision) to refuse the Applicant’s application for citizenship by descent under s 17 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).The basis for this refusal was that the delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant did not have a parent who was an Australian citizen at the time of her birth, as required under
s 16(2)(a) of the Act.
The application for review was made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal)[1] on 3 February 2024 in accordance with s 52(1)(b) which allows applications to be made to the Tribunal under s 24 of the Act.
[1] As it was then known. On 14 October 2024, a new federal administrative body called the Administrative Review Tribunal commenced, replacing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has ceased operations, with all current matters now transferred to the Administrative Review Tribunal. References to ‘the Tribunal’ in this decision refer to whichever of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Administrative Review Tribunal was in operation at the relevant time.
The background to this matter is set out comprehensively in the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC) at [4]-[14], and is sufficient for the purposes of the decision. Similarly, the legislative and policy framework is set out sufficiently and comprehensively in the RSFIC at [16]-[29].
The sole issue for review by the Tribunal is whether the Tribunal is satisfied that, at the time of her birth, the Applicant had a parent who was an Australian citizen, as required by
s 16(2)(a) of the Act. This is the only eligibility criterion in issue in these proceedings.
Therefore, if the Tribunal is not positively persuaded that the Applicant did have a parent who was an Australian citizen at the time of her birth, the Tribunal should affirm the decision under review on the basis that the Applicant is not eligible to become an Australian citizen.
THE HEARING AND EVIDENCE
The hearing was held on 3 June 2025 and was conducted by video. The Applicant was represented by Mr Philip Benjamin Amoo-Gottfried. The Respondent was represented by Ms Caitlin White of Sparke Helmore. The parties appeared by Microsoft Teams.
The Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. No other witnesses were called.
The following documents, all lodged by the Respondent, were tendered as an exhibit:
(a)Cover email to additional evidence sent by the Applicant to the Respondent on 6 July 2024, and forwarded by the Respondent to the Tribunal on 9 July 2024 (A1).
(b)Letter and attachments from Archbishop Porter Girls’ Secondary School (A2);
(c)Family photos comprising 4 pages (A3);
(d)Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, including Annexures A and B, dated and filed 16 December 2024 (R1);
(e)T-Documents filed 7 March 2024 (R2); and
(f)Supplementary T-Documents 20 December 2024 (R3).
The Tribunal is satisfied that all evidence was before it and both parties were given the opportunity to address all the evidence orally and in writing.
Applicant submissions and evidence
The Tribunal heard evidence from the Applicant that:
(a)She applied for citizenship as she had three siblings living in Australia.
(b)She maintains that Mr Venables is her biological father and Ms Kwofie is her biological mother.
(c)She maintains she shares the same mother and father as her brother Faisal in spite of DNA evidence of their likelihood as being related as second degree relatives.
(d)She strongly believes the DNA results are inaccurate, would like to obtain a second opinion, and for the retesting to be done in the same laboratory and with the same sample type. She is yet to take steps to do so, as she wished to await the outcome of the present proceedings.
(e)She and her close relatives were surprised by the DNA results.
(f)It did not occur to her in December 2024, when the DNA results were provided, to obtain further evidence of her parents’ relationship at the time of her birth, even though these results created doubt to her claim.
(g)At one point she had a copy of her birth certificate issued by the hospital but does not know where it is and has not attempted to recover it because biometric birth certificates are recognised in Ghana as being valid, and hence she did not see the need.
(h)She would have provided the hospital birth certificate to the registry (in Ghana) at the time she applied for her biometric birth certificate in 2011. It was a government requirement to obtain a biometric birth certificate and she did not need to provide any other documents to the registry in order to obtain it.
(i)The reference to her father’s name as WHITARER in her biometric birth certificate is a typographical error. She accepts Mr Venables’ name is spelled correctly on her brother Faisal’s birth certificate.
(j)Growing up, her parents, siblings, and her always lived together as a family, although they moved between rented apartments from time to time. She has not sought to recover any documentation regarding the related tenancy arrangements.
(k)She did not ask her sister Nita to provide evidence as she did not understand this to be a requirement, nor was she expressly asked to do so or did it occur to her to do so. This is the case even though Nita was in a position to address some of the outstanding issues in the Respondent’s requests for information following her citizenship application. Her response regarding failing to take these same measures in relation to her brother Faisal were in the same vein.
(l)She does not know what documents her parents would have been required to provide in order to apply for their marriage certificate in May 2008.
(m)She accepts that going by the date of marriage on this certificate, there are notable discrepancies between the date of marriage and her parents’ dates of birth compared to how these dates appear on her parents’ passports. She was unable to provide an explanation for this.
(n)She does not know if Mr Venables ever applied for British citizenship on her behalf as he did for her brother Faisal.
(o)She is in contact with her mother’s three siblings in Ghana, however did not see the need to involve them in her application.
(p)She attended the Archbishop Porter Girls’ School in Takoradi from around 14 years of age, having completed her primary education at Chapel Hill school, which has since closed down and is no longer there.
(q)She obtained her secondary school records from the school. It did not occur to her to seek to obtain evidence of her education at a point earlier in time.
(r)Her parents collected records before they died, however many of them were lost along the way.
(s)When asked, she said she had some baby photos, but none were with her father. She said while some were with her mother, photos were lost in the flood.
(t)She has no wedding photos of her parents.
(u)Her father was a Muslim, her mother a Christian and she is not affiliated to a faith, her parents leaving her with the choice as an adult.
Respondent’s submissions and evidence
The Respondent provided detailed written submissions in the RSFIC at [30]-[39].
The Respondent indicated that they continued to rely on those written submissions and further elaborated on them at hearing in light of the Applicant’s evidence.
There are two discrete issues for the Tribunal to consider:
(a)Whether there is a demonstrated biological relationship between the Applicant and Mr Venables; and
(b)Whether there is a demonstrated parental relationship between the Applicant and Mr Venables at the time of her birth.
For the reasons that follow, and noting the Respondent’s submissions at [30]-[39] of the RSFIC with agreement, the Tribunal finds that neither relationship has been demonstrated:
(a)Mr Venables passed away on 23 January 2002.[2]
(b)The sole piece of corroborating evidence provided by the Applicant as evidence that Mr Venables was the Applicant’s biological father at the time of her birth is a document that purports to be the Applicant’s birth certificate from the Republic of Ghana, registered on 1 June 2011 some 27 years after the Applicant’s claimed date of birth, and nearly ten years after Mr Venables’ death.[3]
(c)This birth certificate[4] alone cannot conclusively establish that Mr Venables was the Applicant’s biological parent.
(d)It is unclear whether the shared DNA between the Applicant and Faisal is a result of them having the same father, namely Mr Venables. However, the DNA results do confirm that the Applicant and Faisal do not have the same parents.
(e)Despite the DNA evidence, the Applicant continues to maintain the biological link with Mr Venables when there is no credible basis on which to do so.
(f)The Applicant took no steps to undergo further testing, it being up to her to prove her own case.
[2] R2, T61.
[3] R2, T44.
[4] R2, T44.
Whether there is a demonstrated parental relationship
In the absence of a biological relationship, clear and cogent evidence should be expected to establish a parental relationship at the time of birth.[5] This evidence must relate to the time the baby is born in the sense described by the Full Court in Su.[6]
[5] H v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 11, [130].
[6] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Su [2024] FCAFC 68.
While a parental relationship can exist outside of a biological connection (for example, by way of adoption) the main indicator of parentage is a biological link in the first instance, and that is lacking in this case. As is contemporaneous evidence demonstrating a parental relationship.
The earliest record provided is Faisal’s birth certificate, registered in 1995, 11 years after the Applicant was born. Followed only by the Applicant’s high school records obtained in 2024.
As noted by the Minister at the hearing, the Department wrote to the Applicant on two occasions seeking the required evidence. This, plus the refusal of her application for citizenship, plus the contents of the RSFIC on this matter serves to put the Applicant on notice of what she was required to provide. The Applicant did not provide this evidence and has had no engagement with the Tribunal from when the DNA results were provided in December 2024 and the hearing in June 2025.
Finally, the Applicant has not herself provided a statement detailing her relationship with Mr Venables, the relationship between Mr Venables and Ms Kwofie, or the family relationship more generally. She also had the opportunity to provide statements from siblings and other family members present during her upbringing, evidence of domestic and financial arrangements, and to obtain a hospital issued birth certificate. The Applicant did not avail herself of these opportunities.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal that:
(a)Mr Venables was the Applicant’s ‘parent’ at the time of her birth, for the purposes of 16(2)(a) of the Act; and
(b)There existed such a relationship at the time of the Applicant’s birth to support a finding that Mr Venables was the Applicant’s ‘parent’ at that time.
That is, when considered cumulatively, the weight of the evidence does not positively establish, that more likely or not, the Applicant had an Australian citizen parent at the time of her birth, as required by s 16(2)(a) of the Act.
This is the sole issue and, that being so, the Reviewable Decision is affirmed.
DECISION
The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated
1 February 2024, to refuse the Applicant’s application for citizenship by descent, is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 24 (twenty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member Gallagher
..........[SGD].................
Associate
Dated: 4 June 2025
Date of hearing: 3 June 2025 Applicant: Philip Benjamin Amoo-Gottfried Solicitors for the Respondent: Caitlin White, Sparke Helmore
0
2
0