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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, where the applicant's eligibility was challenged on character grounds. The applicant, who arrived in Australia as a student at age 17, had been convicted of common assault in 2016 after biting her then-partner during an altercation. She was sentenced to an 18-month good behaviour bond. Subsequently, she was granted a permanent visa and later applied for citizenship. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs opposed the application, arguing the applicant was not of good character due to the assault conviction and her failure to disclose it on incoming passenger cards in 2017 and 2018. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining whether the applicant possessed the requisite good character at the time of the citizenship decision.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the "good character" requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). This required an assessment of the applicant's enduring moral qualities, considering her past conduct, including the common assault conviction and the subsequent non-disclosure on passenger cards, in light of her overall behaviour and circumstances. The Tribunal had to weigh the seriousness of the offence and the dishonesty in failing to declare it against any mitigating factors and evidence of rehabilitation and good conduct since the event.

The Tribunal reasoned that an assessment of good character requires a holistic view of an applicant's behaviour over time. While acknowledging the common assault conviction and the failure to declare it on incoming passenger cards, the Tribunal found that these events were out of character for the applicant. It noted that the assault occurred during a difficult period in a "toxic" relationship and that the applicant had expressed remorse and provided explanations for her actions and omissions. Crucially, the Tribunal considered the four years that had passed since the offence, during which the applicant had demonstrated positive behaviour and had not re-offended. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had demonstrated the enduring moral qualities of a person of good character, finding that the period since the offence was sufficient to establish this.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the reviewable decision. It substituted a decision that the applicant is a person of good character for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The matter was then remitted for reconsideration in accordance with this finding.