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

[2021] AATA 1847

Hamood and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1847 (21 June 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2020/5316

Re:Hayder Abdul Hussein Abdul Razak Hamood

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member G Hallwood

Date:21 June 2021

Place:Adelaide

The decision under review is affirmed.

....................[Sgnd]..........................  

Member G Hallwood

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship– application for citizenship refused – multiple offences – whether Tribunal is satisfied Applicant is of good character – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

CASES

Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561

Beyan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256

Fang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3686

Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931

Mendoza and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 686

Zaya and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 366

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 27 November 2020.

Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member G Hallwood

21 June 2021

1. The Applicant seeks a review of the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the “Respondent”) dated 15 July 2020 refusing to grant Australian Citizenship by conferral under s.24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the “Act”) because the Respondent was not satisfied the Applicant was of good character and so did not satisfy s.21(2)(h).[1]

   [1] Exhibit A, p 93

2. At the hearing before the Tribunal on 3 June 2021, the Applicant appeared in person and was self-represented. Ms Natalia Milutinovic of Sparke Helmore appeared for the Respondent. The Applicant called three witnesses who each appeared before the Tribunal by telephone: Ms Wassan Alyasiri, his sister; Mr Abdul Hussien Hamood, his father; and Mr Ali Alyasiri, his brother.

3. Written evidence provided to the Tribunal consisted of: 132 pages of T Documents – Exhibit A; 113 pages of Tender Bundle – Exhibit B; four letters (each of one page) of support from the Applicant’s family members – Exhibit C; the Respondent’s two page list of authorities – Exhibit D; and, a ten page annexure from the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions – Exhibit E.

   BACKGROUND

4. The Applicant is a 30-year-old citizen of Iraq.[2] He arrived in Australia on 27 January 2011 at age 20 as the holder of a Refugee (Offshore) (Class XB) Subclass 200 permanent visa having spent the previous two years in a refugee camp in Indonesia.

   [2] Exhibit A, p 58

5. The Applicant currently holds a Resident Return: Five Year (Class BB) Subclass 155 visa granted on 13 September 2016.

6. On 17 February 2015 the Applicant lodged a citizenship application form which was refused by a delegate of the then Minister of Immigration and Border Protection on 21 October 2015 because the delegate was not satisfied the Applicant was of good character and so did not satisfy s.21(2)(h).[3]

   [3] Exhibit A, p 31

7. On 11 May 2017 the Applicant lodged a further application for citizenship by conferral which, on 27 August 2017, the Department informed the Applicant they would not consider because of missing documents. The Department’s letter to the Applicant also asked that he complete questions 39 and 40 of the form correctly and “sign and return”. On 11 September 2018 the Applicant provided some of the requested materials and the Department, on 14 September 2018, acknowledged that the date of this application was 11 September 2018. On 13 March 2019 the remaining information was provided to the Department by the Applicant.

8. On 4 June 2020 the Respondent wrote to the Applicant inviting him to comment on adverse information that he may not be of good character citing offences listed in his National Police History Check and various forms and passenger cards that did not declare offences.[4]

   [4] Exhibit A, pp 71-79

9. On 15 July 2020, in the absence of a response, the delegate refused the Applicant’s application for citizenship because they were not satisfied the Applicant was of good character as required in s.21(2)(h) of the Act.

10. On 2 September 2020 the Applicant sought a review of the delegate’s decision which is now before the Tribunal.

    ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL

11. The issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of s.21(2)(h) of the Act at the time of the Tribunal decision.

    LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

12. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. Section 24(1) of the Act provides that where the Minister receives such application the Minister must approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

13. Section 24(1A) provides that the Minister must not approve a person to become an Australian citizen unless that person is eligible under s.21(2) - (8) of the Act. Relevantly in this matter, s.21(2)(h) provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person is of good character at the time of the decision on the application.

14. The term “good character” is not defined in the Act. Guidance for decision makers making character assessments exists in the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement[5] and the Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs).[6]

    [5] Exhibit E

    [6] CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act at: Exhibit A, pp 110-132

15. CPI 15 at 4.1 states that: “Good character refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person. A person who is of good character is likely to uphold is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia and other commitments made when making the Pledge of commitment should they be approved to become an Australian citizen.” […] “In most cases, it would not be appropriate to automatically conclude that a person is not of good character based on the fact that the person has been convicted of an offence. A full assessment is required”.[7] While not bound by policy, as decision maker, the Tribunal will generally apply policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[8]

    16.The phrase “enduring moral qualities” is described at 4.2 in CPI 15 as encompassing 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.[9]

    [7] Exhibit A, p 113

    [8] Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 640 (per Brennan J)

    [9] Exhibit A, p 114

16. The CPI also relevantly states at 4.4: “As a general proposition, a person who is of good character would: “…not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations…”.[10]

    [10] Exhibit A, p 115

17. In determining factors to consider, the CPI also states:

    “It is also necessary to consider any other information that is relevant to a person’s character such as information provided by an applicant about his/her family life; for example, raising children, being in a stable home environment, being responsibly employed, paying taxes, any community work undertaken, and any other matter that is relevant to an assessment of character in the circumstances of a particular case. This would include expressions of genuine remorse for past wrong-doing and the time that has elapsed since the wrong-doing”.[11]

    [11] Exhibit A, p 115

    CONSIDERATIONS

18. Mr Hamood arrived in Australia at 20 years of age in 2011 and has been found guilty of, or convicted of, several offences since he has lived in Australia. He is seeking citizenship by conferral.

19. The Respondent contends that the primary factor weighing against a finding that the Applicant is of good character are his criminal convictions. A National Police History Check Results Report of 22 May 2020 lists the following disclosable history in relation to the Applicant which includes six convictions and two offences which resulted in a finding of guilt without a conviction:

Date	Offence	Result
14/12/2017	Drive a motor vehicle with cannabis in oral fluid or blood	Convicted Fined $2000 Drivers licence disqualification 12 months
06/07/2017	Drive under disqualification or suspension	Convicted Fined $350
04/08/2016	Drive with drug type unknown in fluid or blood	Convicted Fined $1100 Drivers licence disqualification 6 months from 5/8/16
07/07/2016	Drive a motor vehicle with cannabis in oral fluid or blood	Convicted Fined $1100 Drivers licence disqualification 6 months
03/06/2016	Possess a housebreaking implement Carry an article of disguise	Convicted Fined $50
16/09/2014	Resist police Unlawfully on premises	Without conviction Fined $500
09/08/2013	Drive with excess blood alcohol	Convicted Fined $900 Drivers licence disqualification 1 day
28/11/2012	Common assault (DV) – T2	Bond s.10: 2 years to comply with apprehended violence order. Costs Court: $83 [12]

[12] Exhibit A, p 79

1. The Respondent put to the Tribunal that these offences were of a serious nature and that the pattern and frequency of offences showed a continued disregard for the law. The Respondent also pointed to various police apprehension reports and Court records that recorded that the Applicant was uncooperative with police and / or denied having committed the offence for which he was later convicted.[13]

   [13] Exhibit B, pp 81,90,91,96,101,106,109, and 110

2. The Respondent identified a number of other offences where the Applicant has lost demerit points for which the Respondent describes as “on the lower end of the seriousness scale”. These offences listed below are recorded in a Department for Infrastructure and Transport SA “Summary of Offences and Disqualifications Recorded in the Register of Drivers’ Licences” dated 2 November 2020:

Date	Offence	Demerit Points
03/02/2020	Exceed default speed in built up area by 10kph or more but less than 20kph	3
14/10/2015	Drive contrary to defect notice	3
18/07/2015	Use head lights on high beam when not permitted to do so	1
19/08/2011	Fail to signal sufficient warning of left change of direction	2[14]

[14] Exhibit B, p 73

1. The Respondent also put to the Tribunal that the Applicant had provided false information on two citizenship application forms as well as on incoming passenger cards.

   Traffic Offences

2. Mr Hamood put to the Tribunal that he felt guilt about his past, that he was immature, that he was 23 years old when these things were happening.

3. The Applicant said that he had married in 2016 and his wife had arrived in Australia in 2018. He now has two children aged 2 months and 2 years. Since 2019 he has had a job as a truck driver working over eight hours a day, and he had started studying, although not currently because of looking after his family and work, but that he was sure he would come back to it. Mr Hamood said that he was now helping a lot in the community volunteering – helping new migrants to assimilate through the Migrant Resource Centre.

4. Mr Hamood provided letters of support (undated) from Mr Firas Habib of the Migrant Resource Centre[15] and Mr Tarik Beden of the Iraqi Community Cultural Association.[16] Both stated that the Applicant was helping in the community and was regretful of his previous behaviours. Further (undated) letters attesting to the Applicant being a changed person have been received from: his wife, Ms Nour Al-Shaikhli;[17] two of his sisters, Ms Ayat Hamood and Ms Wassan Alyasiri;[18] his mother and father, Ms Siham Hamood and Mr Abdul Hussein Hamood;[19] and four brothers, Mr Ali Alyasiri, Mr Mohammad Alyasiri, Mr Ahmed Alyasiri, and Mr Almontadar Hamood.[20] Ms Wasan Alvasari, Mr Abdul Hussein Hamood, and Mr Ali Alyasiri all provided oral statements under affirmation that were in accord with their written statements of support.

   [15] Exhibit A, p 8

   [16] Exhibit A, p 9

   [17] Exhibit C, p 1

   [18] Exhibit C, p 2

   [19] Exhibit C, p 3

   [20] Exhibit C, p 4

5. I am heartened by the support the Applicant has received from his family and others, as well as the consistent evidence that he is a changed person unlikely to commit further offences. This support of the Applicant having changed his ways for the better weighs in favour of his character as it is now, however, given the frequency and seriousness of offending and that the latest speeding offence was in February 2020, the Applicant’s demonstration of good character has had relatively little time to be demonstrated.

6. An active and ongoing approach to adhering to road rules is an important component of protecting the safety and welfare of others in the community. Disobeying road rules should not be treated lightly. A significant number of Australians are killed or injured, often seriously, as a result of speed, alcohol and prohibited drug impairment, and indifference to road rules. Many people’s lives are affected by road deaths and injuries and there is a significant impost on the Australian community for the provision of policing, courts, medical and emergency services to deal with the actions and consequences of those that break road traffic rules.

7. The CPI 15 at 4.4 specifically identifies “multiple and / or repeated instances of recklessness exhibited by drink driving, excessive speeding, or driving without a licence” as examples of behaviour that is contrary to the demonstration of good character.[21]

   [21] Exhibit A, p 115

8. The Tribunal has previously found that a theme of recklessness and indifference to the laws and rules governing the operation of a motor vehicle is significant. Senior Member Tavoularis of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Bartlett stated:

   There is, to my mind, nothing to be said in mitigation for serious irresponsibility in the management and control of a motor vehicle. His offences of drink driving and unlicensed driving clearly point to an incapacity to distinguish right from wrong and to otherwise conform to the rules of Australian society insofar as operation of a motor vehicle on a public road is concerned. The catastrophic potential of losing control of a motor vehicle as a result of being affected by alcohol and/or prohibited substances is the subject of constant campaigns by governments at all levels. [22]

   [22] Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561 at [43]

9. The CPI 15 at 4.7 provides guidance in relation to what is a serious offence. The guidance provides that negligent or reckless driving occasioning injury or death is an example of a serious offence. It goes on to offer, relevantly, that minor offences include “Some traffic offences that have been included in a criminal record. An ‘on the spot fine’ would usually have little weight in a character assessment, unless the applicant has a history of such fines. This disregard for the law may be relevant to the assessment of character”.[23]

   [23] Exhibit A, pp 121-122

10. Deputy President Dr Kendall in Zaya quoted the Tribunal in Apire and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, stating[24]:

    Even though each offence is not properly classed as a ‘serious offence’ under 10.5.2 of the Instructions, rather meeting the description of a ‘minor offence’, to my mind driving a motor vehicle without a license while under the influence of alcohol is a serious matter that should not be trivialised or passed off too lightly. In this regard, I respectfully agree with what the Tribunal said in re Wang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection at [7] – laws to protect users of the road go to the essential safety of the community. Behaviours of this kind is not consistent with Australian community values.

    [24] Zaya and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 366 at [53].

11. Deputy President Dr Kendall further stated[25]:

    The Tribunal agrees with this assessment. There is an unfortunate tendency socially to dismiss laws that penalise drivers who drive under the influence as unnecessary or unfair. This arguably results from a view in some circles that driving while under the influence is less serious than other offences. This is not a view that is shared by persons who lose their loved ones to drivers who drive when they clearly should not do so or indeed to persons who lose loved ones who themselves died because they drove while intoxicated. The Tribunal takes these offences quite seriously because the consequence of not adhering to safe driving laws are themselves quite serious.

    [25] Ibid at [54].

12. The Tribunal agrees with Deputy President Kendall that not adhering to safe driving laws, as is the case here on multiple occasions, constitutes serious offending. In this matter the Applicant has recorded nine traffic offences over less than nine years, with five of those offences recorded as convictions. The Applicant has been disqualified from driving on four occasions for a total of over two years. The Tribunal finds this to be serious offending that does not demonstrate respect for, or willingness to abide by, Australian law. The most recent traffic offence was only 16 months ago leaving little time for the Applicant to have demonstrated the changes of behaviour his family and other supporters have assured the Tribunal has occurred.

13. The Applicant’s past behaviour, in particular the frequency of his offending, the seriousness of some of his offending, and the recency of his latest offence, albeit of a comparatively minor nature, militates strongly against a finding that the Applicant is of good character.

    Common Assault Offence

14. On 28 November 2012 the Applicant was found guilty of common assault (domestic violence) without proceeding to conviction under Table 2 of the Section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), for assaulting his then girlfriend on 4 August 2012. He was directed to enter into a good behaviour bond for two years pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The Applicant was also required to comply with an Apprehended Violence Order and pay Court costs.[26]

    [26] Exhibit B, p 30

15. In considering the seriousness of an offence CPI 15 at 4.7 provides some examples of cases that are normally considered serious. These include crimes of violence such as, relevantly, assault and domestic violence.[27] This section goes on to describe what may be considered minor offences and includes: “offences that lead to a finding of guilt but no conviction or sentence”.[28] In this instance the offence falls into this second category and may be considered a minor offence to the extent that an assault or domestic violence may be so considered.

    [27] Exhibit A, p 121

    [28] Exhibit A, p 122

16. In Mendoza and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 686, Senior Member Puplick stated at [48]:

    The Australian community, rightly, professes zero tolerance for violence against women. There is zero tolerance for domestic violence perpetrated against any woman, man or child. Such forms of violence are unacceptable at any time – in any place – in any circumstances – and whether manifest physically, emotionally or psychologically.

17. The Applicant’s oral evidence was that he did not touch his then girlfriend but that he had thrown water at her when she swore at him. He indicated that this was captured on CCTV and that was the reason the Magistrate did not proceed to conviction. He said: “Someone assaulted me, and I assaulted them back.” The Tribunal found this evidence to represent the Applicant seeking to justify violent behaviour as a normal reaction to being sworn at.

1. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant, by justifying his retaliation, understands the degree to which assault and domestic violence diminishes the Australian community and increases fear, apprehension and distress in members of the community.  

2. Although at the lower end of this type of offence, and with more than eight and a half years passing since the offending, the Tribunal finds that because of the Applicant’s apparent lack of contrition, the common assault offence still weighs against a finding of good character for the Applicant.

   Other Offences

3. On 16 September 2014 the Applicant was fined $500 without conviction for being unlawfully on premises and resisting arrest. On 3 June 2016 the Applicant was convicted of possessing a housebreaking implement and carrying an article of disguise for which he was fined $50.

4. The Applicant contends that he was involved with a number of people that were not of good character at the time and that he has now changed. Mr Hamood identified his use of marijuana and association with people that were a bad influence on him as the reason behind his offending on these occasions and for some of his traffic offences. The CPI 15 at 4.4 states that a person of good character would not associate with persons who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour.[29]

   [29] Exhibit A, p 115

5. The CPI 15 at 4.7 includes in the examples of minor offences “offences that lead to a finding of guilt but no conviction or sentence”.[30] Both of the Applicant’s  other offences listed above fit with the examples of minor offences as set out in the Department’s guidelines. 

   [30] Exhibit A, p 122

6. The Tribunal is satisfied that although these are at the lower end of offences, when combined with the Applicant’s statements that he was associated with others that were involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour; these other offences add to the pattern of negative characteristics displayed by the Applicant over the last decade and weigh against a finding that the Applicant is of good character.

   False and Misleading Information

7. The Department relies on the information provided by people on their Application for Australian Citizenship form (the “Form”) and incoming passenger cards in order to assess whether the person is of good character. It is expected that people will answer honestly.

8. Dishonesty when completing migration and citizenship applications is generally held as indicative that a person is not of good character.[31] It is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure the information in their application is truthful.[32]

   [31] Beyan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256

   [32] Fang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3686 at [97]

9. In his Form of February 2015 the Applicant answered “No” to the question at 31: “Have you ever been convicted of, or found guilty of, ANY offences overseas or in Australia (include all traffic offences which went to court, including offences declared in your permanent residence application, and any ‘spent’ convictions)?”. The consent including acknowledgement of understanding at question 32 is signed by the Applicant and dated 12 February 2015.[33] The Declaration contained at Part L of the Form is headed: “WARNING It is an offence under section 50 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to deliberately make or cause to make, a false or misleading statement, or conceal circumstances in relation to an application”. At 44 in the Declaration the Applicant is instructed: “Please read the following before signing”, and then relevantly includes: “I declare that the information I have supplied in this form is complete, truthful and correct in every detail”. The Applicant signed the Declaration and dated it 13 February 2015.[34]

   [33] Exhibit A, p 18

   [34] Exhibit A, p 20

10. The Applicant had not included: the common assault or the resist police / unlawfully on premises offences he had been found guilty of; nor did he disclose the drive with excess blood alcohol offence he was convicted of.

11. Similarly, in his Application Form of May 2017 the Applicant answered “No” to the question at 39 which was expressed in the same way as question 31 in the earlier form.[35] The Applicant also signed this section of the Form on 11 May 2017.[36] By this stage the Applicant had two further traffic convictions that should have been declared and that were not declared.

    [35] Exhibit A, p 51

    [36] Exhibit A, p 54

12. Incoming passenger cards (the “Cards”) of 3 March 2017 and 10 October 2017 record the Applicant’s answer to the question: “Do you have any criminal convictions?” as “No”. The Cards contain a declaration which states: “The information I have given is true, correct and complete. I understand failure to answer any questions may have serious consequences”. The Applicant signed the declaration on each occasion. 

13. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he was not good at English and couldn’t get help because his family had the same level of English as he did. He said that the incorrect information on the passenger cards was a result of mistakes due to lack of understanding. He said that he could communicate in English but needs help with forms and that he did not intend to hide his convictions.

14. On 13 March 2019 the Applicant provided the Department with a recompleted answer to question 39 of the Form with the answer “Yes” as the response to the question in relation to the question about convictions or guilt. The form requires: “If you answered ‘Yes’ to any of the questions at Question 39, you must give ALL relevant details. If the matter relates to criminal conviction, please give the nature of the offence, full details of sentence and dates of any period of imprisonment or other detention”. The Applicant responded: “all I have [are] fines and red-light traffic fines”.[37]

    [37] Exhibit A, p70

15. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s information supplied in the citizenship application forms was not complete, truthful, and correct in every detail as he had signed to confirm. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the information provided on his incoming passenger cards was not true, correct, and complete as he had signed to confirm.

16. The Applicant told the Tribunal he had some help in answering the questions on this occasion from the Migrant Resource Centre. This response was clearly inaccurate and is also, given the Applicant was assisted, less likely to be subject to the reasoning that he did not understand the question. As he does not appear to have had any red-light traffic fines, it is possible that he may not have understood his answer.

17. The Respondent put to the Tribunal that the Applicant concealed his convictions knowingly and that he had clear responsibility to give full and accurate information, and regardless of any reason he failed to do so.

18. The letters of support provided by Mr Habib[38] and Mr Beden[39] both stated that they were “satisfied the he [the Applicant] has not misled the Department in any way”. The Applicant’s letters of support from his parents[40], brothers[41] and sisters[42] also state that he has not misled the Department.

    [38] Exhibit A, p 8

    [39] Exhibit A, p 9

    [40] Exhibit C, p 3

    [41] Exhibit C, p 4

    [42] Exhibit C, p 2

19. The Tribunal is not satisfied it has been made out that Mr Hamood knowingly concealed his convictions. The Tribunal finds, however, that it was Mr Hamood’s responsibility to give full and accurate information to the Department. Even if Mr Hamood did not intend to deceive the Department when he incorrectly completed his citizenship application forms and incoming passenger cards, he should have sought assistance to ensure he was correctly completing these important documents.

20. By not providing full and accurate information the Applicant has demonstrated a level of indifference to his responsibility which is dissonant with the expectation of someone seeking the privilege of Australian citizenship. This also weighs against a finding that the Applicant is of good character as expected in an application for citizenship.

    CONCLUSION

21. Mr Hamood has lived in Australia since 2011 and he is now 30 years old. He is married and has two children who he assists in raising. He works as a truck driver with his brothers when work is available, and he volunteers to assist migrant families to assimilate into their communities. He has a supportive family, most of whom have become Australian citizens. He also appears to have a supportive and responsible community behind him. All of these things weigh in favour of his character and his ability to sustain good character.

22. In Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 Deputy President Breen stated 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.

23. Unfortunately, the Applicant has had a troubled past with criminal convictions and other offences some of which are serious.

24. The frequency of the Applicant’s traffic law offending, the seriousness of some of his offending, and the recency of his latest offence all militate strongly against a finding that the Applicant is of good character.

25. In relation to the common assault offence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant, by justifying his retaliation, understands the significance of his action. The Tribunal finds that because of the Applicant’s apparent lack of contrition, the common assault offence still adds some weight against a finding that the Applicant is of good character.

26. The Applicant’s association with people involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour together with his other offences add to the pattern of negative characteristics displayed by the Applicant over the last decade and weigh against a finding that the Applicant is of good character.

27. The Applicant’s information supplied in the citizenship application forms was not ‘complete, truthful, and correct in every detail’ as he had signed to confirm. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the information provided on his incoming passenger cards was not ‘true, correct, and complete’ as he had signed to confirm. Not providing full and accurate information also weighs against a finding that the Applicant is of good character as expected in an application for citizenship.

28. As outlined, the Applicant has not demonstrated the required enduring moral qualities over a sufficient period of time. For this reason, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is of good character pursuant to s.21(2)(h) of the Act and at this time should not be granted Australian citizenship.

29. The Applicant and his family will be disappointed in this conclusion. His appearance before the Tribunal, the oral and written evidence from his family, and the evidence provided by people from community organisations all indicate the Applicant is striving to change his life for the better in support of his own wife and children. It is also clear that he has a strong desire to become an Australian citizen.

30. The Applicant may well be successful in the future in applying for his Australian citizenship after a sufficient period of time has passed to enable him to demonstrate those enduring moral qualities that are required for the finding of good character.

    DECISION

31. For the reasons outlined above, the decision under review is affirmed.

    I certify that the preceding seventy (70) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member G Hallwood

    
    .............................[Sgnd].......................................

    Legal Administrative Assistant

    Dated:   21 June 2021

Date of hearing:

3 June 2021

Applicant:

Self-Represented

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Natalia Milutinovic

Sparke Helmore