Huang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

[2018] AATA 3659

Huang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3659 (28 September 2018)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2017/6752

Re:Fa Ming Huang

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member K Raif

Date:28 September 2018

Place:Sydney

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..........................[SGD]..............................................

Senior Member K Raif

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – permanent resident – refusal of citizenship – application of Citizenship Policy – good character – providing false or misleading information to the Department – false identity – breach of immigration laws – previous conviction – decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth)

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

Statutory Declarations Act 1959 (Cth)

CASES

Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422

Re Chen and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] AATA 1815

Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Citizenship Policy, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 1 June 2016

Australian Citizenship Instructions (Cth) issued 1 July 2014

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member K Raif

28 September 2018

BACKGROUND

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 23 October 2017 to refuse to confer Australian citizenship to the applicant under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Citizenship Act).

2. The applicant is a national of China, born on 21 May 1968. He first entered Australia on 13 August 1995 using a different identity and a false passport. The applicant made an application for a Partner visa in January 2010 on the basis of his de facto relationship and he was granted a permanent visa in June 2010.

3. In September 2011 the applicant was convicted of driving with a middle range prescribed concentration of alcohol.

4. The applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral in November 2014 and that application was refused in January 2015. The applicant sought review of that decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) but subsequently withdrew his application. His second application for conferral of Australian citizenship that is the subject of this review was made on 6 February 2016. On 23 October 2017 a decision was made to refuse that application because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was of good character as required by s. 21(2) of the Citizenship Act. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.

5. The issue before the Tribunal is whether the applicant meets the eligibility requirements for the conferral of the Australian citizenship, in particular, whether the applicant was of good character at the time of the decision, as required by s. 21(2)(h) of the Act. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has concluded that the applicant does not meet these requirements and that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   RELEVANT LAW

6. Subsection 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. Subsection 24(1) of that Act provides that if a person makes an application under s. 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen. Section 52 permits a person to make an application to the Tribunal for review of the decision under s. 24 to refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

7. The Act relevantly provides, at subsection 21(2)(h), 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 Minister's decision on the application”.

8. The term good character is not defined in the Act. Guidance can be found in Chapter 11 of the Citizenship Policy (“the Policy”) and the Australian Citizenship Instructions (“the ACIs”). The Tribunal is not bound to strictly apply the Citizenship Policy but such policy should be considered if it is consistent with the Act and unless there are cogent reasons not to do so: Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634.

9. With respect to the definition of ‘good character’, the Policy cites the decision of the Full Federal Court in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 at [431]-[432]:

   Unless the terms of the Act and Regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words “good character” should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact whilst the latter is a review of subjective public opinion.

10. The Policy states that the phrase “enduring moral qualities” encompasses characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time; distinguishing right from wrong; and behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society. Broadly speaking, the good character requirement looks at the essence of the applicant and their behaviour as being a manifestation of their essential characteristics.

11. In Re Chen and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] AATA 1815 the Tribunal articulated its approach to interpreting the language of the good character test, as it then appeared in s. 13(1)(f) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (at [18]):

    The wording of the test is important. It does not require that the Minister form an adverse view of the applicant's character. The Minister must be positively persuaded that the applicant is of good character.

12. The Policy sets out a 'non-exhaustive' list of characteristics of good character. Relevantly, a person of good character would, inter alia: respect and abide by the law in Australia and not cause harm to others through their conduct. The Policy states that the decision-maker is to weigh up certain factors, applying community standards. Mitigating factors relevant to this matter include whether a person of good character would have behaved the way the applicant has; the amount of time that has lapsed since offending; whether the applicant has demonstrated that he can uphold and obey the law; whether he has accepted responsibility and shown remorse for his conduct; and any extenuating circumstances relating to the offences.

    THE APPLICANT’S CONDUCT

13. The applicant first travelled to Australia in August 1995 as a holder of a Business visa. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that an agent arranged the visa for him and he did not intend to travel to Australia for business purposes. The Tribunal finds that the applicant provided false or misleading information to the Department of Immigration in his Business visa application.

14. The applicant entered Australia using a false passport and a false identity. He claims the passport was arranged by an agent and he followed the agent’s advice. The Tribunal finds that the use of a false identity for migration purposes is a serious offence.

15. The applicant made an application for a Visitor visa around September 1995. The applicant told the Tribunal in oral evidence that his intention was to stay and work in Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was a genuine visitor when making the application and finds that the applicant had given false or misleading information to the Department in relation to that application.

16. The applicant made an application for a substantive visa in November 1996. He concedes that the information he provided in that application was false and arranged by his then migration agent. The applicant provided a statutory declaration with that application dated 7 November 1996 containing false statements, contrary to the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 (Cth). The applicant subsequently lodged a request for Ministerial intervention and in that request the applicant repeated the claims he made in his substantive visa application, making false representations to the Minister.

17. The applicant remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen on multiple occasions. He lived in Australia unlawfully between 1999 and 2010 when he made a visa application, for a period exceeding ten years. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that during the last period of unlawful stay he consulted migration agents and sought advice about obtaining a visa. Despite to the applicant’s suggestion that his English was not sufficient to understand the Australian laws, the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant was aware that he needed a visa to stay in Australia and he was aware that he did not have one. The Tribunal finds that the applicant had deliberately breached the immigration laws and did so knowingly. The applicant made no effort to contact the Department and regularise his status during his periods of unlawful stay although various letters he received from the Department invited him to do so. The Tribunal considers unlawful stay in Australia, particularly for lengthy periods, to be a serious breach of the immigration laws.

18. The applicant confirmed in oral evidence to the Tribunal that he engaged in employment from the time of his entry to Australia and worked continuously with only brief periods of unemployment. It is a breach of the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) to work whilst being an unlawful non-citizen.

19. The applicant also concedes in his oral evidence to the Tribunal that until 2010 or 2011 he used a false identity in his dealings with other agencies. For example, the applicant stated that he held multiple Medicare cards in his false identity and a driver’s licence in his false identity. He obtained a driver’s licence in his true name in 2011. He also stated that he obtained a bank card in his false identity. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has been untruthful in his dealings with agencies other than the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

20. In August 2011 the applicant was charged with driving with mid-range prescribed concentration of alcohol. He pleaded guilty to the offence and in September 2011 was given a two year good behaviour bond. The applicant was disqualified from driving for 12 months.

    THE PARTIES’ CLAIMS

21. Below is the brief summary of the parties’ claims.

22. The applicant concedes that he used a false identity to enter Australia and made a number of visa applications in Australia in which he failed to disclose his correct identity and provided false information. The applicant admits to having breached the provisions of the Migration Act through periods of unlawful stay and work. The applicant concedes that he had been deceitful in his dealings with other agencies, such as the RMS and Medicare. The applicant argues, essentially, that by 2010 when he made the application for the Partner visa, he had fully disclosed his true identity and his use of the false identity, and that he had provided to the Department correct and truthful information from that time. The applicant argues that as he was granted a Partner visa in 2010, his character would have been assessed for the purpose of that application, as required by Item 4001 of Schedule 4 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Migration Regulations) and also s. 501 of the Migration Act. The applicant argues that the assessment that he is a person of good character for the purpose of the Partner visa application should be taken as strong evidence of his good character for the purpose of the conferral of Australian citizenship application. The applicant concedes that the earlier breaches relating to his immigration history were significant but claims these arose from a single breach relating to the use of the false passport. These cannot properly be characterised as multiple breaches, as opposed to a single, albeit continuous breach.

23. The applicant argues that the criminal conviction, while serious, was an isolated incident which resulted from the particular circumstances that affected him at that time. The applicant claims there is no evidence of any repeated offences or any other criminal conduct and the risk of reoffending is very low, as is established by the presented evidence. The applicant argues that he has already been penalised for the criminal offence and has been remorseful about it. Given the length of time that has passed and the circumstances that led to the offending, the applicant argues that the criminal offence does not indicate he is not of good character.

24. The applicant argues that subsequent ‘errors’ in his citizenship applications were mere typographical errors or misunderstandings and that he had no intention to mislead or withhold information from the Department, particularly given his full disclosure in 2010. The applicant refers to various statements from third parties which refer to him being of good character, and his community involvement and argues, ultimately, that he is of good character.

25. The respondent argues that the past breaches of immigration law are significant, whether these are characterised as a single breach or multiple breaches. The respondent notes that the applicant failed to disclose correct information in multiple applications made between 1994 and 2010 and that there were other breaches of immigration laws, including periods of unlawful stay, employment and the applicant’s untruthfulness in his dealings with other government agencies. The respondent submits that the applicant continued to provide false or misleading information subsequent to his application for the Partner visa in 2010, including in his citizenship applications, and that he failed to take steps to provide correct information, and engage with the Department, before 2010. The respondent submits that the criminal conviction was a serious one. The respondent submits that the applicant’s overall conduct shows that he is not a person of good character. 

    IS THE APPLICANT A PERSON OF GOOD CHARACTER?

26. Chapter 11 of the Policy states that an indication of whether an applicant is of good character is someone who respects and abides by the laws of Australia. In the Tribunal’s view, the information cited above indicates that the applicant does not.

27. The applicant concedes the multiple breaches of immigration law prior to his 2010 application. The applicant concedes his use of a false identity that he used to enter Australia and make visa applications with, and also his provision of false information in various visa applications. The applicant’s breaches of the law prior to 2010 are not in dispute.

28. The applicant’s claim, essentially, is that by disclosing all the information in his 2010 application, his conduct prior to that date should not be considered or should not be given much weight in assessing his character. This is because a character assessment was already undertaken as part of the Partner visa application and the applicant was assessed as being of good character at that time, with no concerns raised about his character before the Partner visa was granted. The Tribunal accepts that an assessment of a Partner visa application would have necessitated an assessment of the applicant’s character for the purpose of Item 4001 of the Migration Regulations and s. 501 of the Migration Act but the Tribunal is mindful that such an assessment would have been quite different to what is contemplated by s. 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act. The character provisions in the Migration Act and the Citizenship Act are not interchangeable and an assessment in relation to one cannot be taken as an assessment in relation to the other. The fact that the delegate, when considering the Partner visa application, formed the view that the applicant passed the character test for the purpose of that application need not necessarily lead to the finding that the applicant is presently a person of good character.

29. Further, it is not possible for this Tribunal to determine what evidence was available to the delegate in the Partner visa application in assessing the applicant’s character. Some documents that were included in that application are before the Tribunal, including the application form 47SP and the agent’s covering letter of 11 January 2010. These documents refer to some periods of unlawfulness but not specifically to all periods of unlawfulness. These do not state that the applicant had provided false information in his 1996 application or his subsequent request for Ministerial intervention. The form refers to the applicant being “currently unemployed” (which contradicts the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal that he had been working continuously since his arrival in Australia with only brief periods of unemployment) and does not refer to the applicant engaging in employment while an unlawful non-citizen. In 2010 when the Partner visa application was assessed, the applicant was not yet convicted of a criminal offence. There are also discrepancies in relation to the applicant’s citizenship application, which are discussed below, information about which was not available to the delegate in 2010. Thus, when assessing the applicant’s character in 2010 for the purpose of the Partner visa application, the delegate had not considered the entirety of the information that is presently available to the Tribunal. For that reason also, the Tribunal does not consider the delegate’s assessment to be very helpful for the purpose of the present application. Thus, while the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been assessed as being of good character in 2010 for the purpose of the grant of the Partner visa, the Tribunal does not consider that assessment exonerates the applicant’s conduct prior to 2010 or establishes his good character. The Tribunal must be independently satisfied that at the time of this decision, the applicant is a person of good character.

30. The applicant argues that his conduct prior to 2010 should not be considered and that his conduct since that date is not sufficiently serious to make a finding that he is not of good character. The applicant explained the circumstances of the 2011 conviction, and also his subsequent dealings with the Department, stating that he never had the intention to mislead. The Tribunal has formed the view that the preferred approach is to consider the totality of the applicant’s conduct rather than individual incidents in isolation. Each individual incident may or may not be serious but it is the totality of the applicant’s conduct over a number of years that best establishes his enduring moral qualities.

31. The Tribunal will now turn to consider the applicant’s conduct.

32. As noted above, the applicant concedes he has a poor immigration history and has been repeatedly untruthful in his various dealings with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and other government agencies such as Medicare and RMS between his entry to Australia in 1995 and up until at least 2010. The applicant claims he is remorseful about this conduct. The Tribunal is not satisfied that is the case.

33. In oral evidence the applicant claimed that the use of false identity documents and false claims in visa applications were common at the time of his entry to Australia. The applicant appears to suggest that because it was common, it was acceptable or permissible. The Tribunal does not consider that the commonality of bad behaviour makes it any more acceptable. The applicant was asked at the hearing about the responsibility for his various acts, such as the use of the false passport, false identity and false claims in various applications. The applicant said that it was his responsibility but also his agent’s. The applicant repeatedly told the Tribunal that because of his claimed poor English and lack of knowledge of the Australian laws, he relied on others for advice. The applicant appears to suggest that at least some of the responsibility for his poor conduct rests with the agents and those who advised him. The Tribunal does not consider this to be the case. While the applicant may have obtained, and relied, on the advice of others, ultimately it was the applicant who made the decision to engage in the conduct. The applicant would have been well aware that the use of a false passport and false identity was not permissible under the Australian law, or the law of any country, even if the applicant claims ignorance of the laws. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant was aware that he needed a visa and he did not take adequate steps to obtain one when he was living in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen until 2010. The applicant made the application for the Partner visa as soon as the law allowed him to, even though he claims he started thinking about regularising his status in 2005. It appears that the applicant’s stated concern about his unlawful status was not sufficiently strong enough for him to leave Australia and seek a Partner visa offshore.

1. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant made deliberate decisions throughout his residence in Australia to stay in the country by any means. His only motivation was to meet his own needs – including his residence and work in Australia – irrespective of his legal and ethical obligations. The applicant’s fulfilment of his needs appeared to be more important to him than his obligations. His repeated indication that the agents were responsible for his conduct, at least in part, does not suggest that the applicant has any appreciation of his own obligations or that he is genuinely remorseful about his conduct.

2. One of the issues that arose in the first citizenship application relates to the repayment of a debt to the Commonwealth. The applicant provided evidence of the debt being repaid in 2018, about twenty years after it arose. The applicant claims that he was unaware of the debt. The Tribunal does not accept that evidence. When the applicant’s substantive visa application was refused, he was informed about review rights and the possibility of the debt in the same correspondence from the Department. The applicant pursued the review rights and would have therefore been aware of the debt from that Departmental correspondence. In his 2010 application the applicant referred to the possibility of the debt, as he may have recognised at the time that it was never repaid. Yet at no time before 2018 did the applicant make any effort to contact the Department and repay the debt. He only did so when seeking the benefit of the Australian citizenship. In the Tribunal’s view, repayment of the debt twenty years after it was raised and only in the context of an ongoing citizenship application is not consistent with the applicant’s evidence that he was remorseful about his past misconduct.

3. The applicant has been convicted of a criminal offence. The applicant’s evidence, which is also reflected in the report from his psychologist, is that at the time of the incident, he was stressed about the financial difficulties caused by his partner’s gambling. The applicant states that he had a drink and drove the car and was stopped by the police. He pleaded guilty and had paid the fine and court costs.  The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant no longer has any ongoing obligation to the court and his good behaviour bond has been completed without any incidents. The Tribunal acknowledges that there is no evidence of any other offending.

4. The Tribunal considers the drink driving offence to be of some seriousness, as such offences may represent danger to others. The applicant pleaded guilty to the drink driving offence in September 2011 and considerable time has passed since the conviction. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that there is little risk of re-offending and that the incident was caused by the specific circumstances that affected the applicant at the time. However, the applicant’s decision to drink and drive is another example of his disregard for the law.

5. The Tribunal accepts that the criminal conviction occurred a number of years ago and there is no evidence of any repeated criminal or anti-social behaviour. A conviction for an offence is not fatal to the determination of good character. However, in this case, it is the totality of the applicant’s conduct, including his repeated non-compliance with the Migration Act and persistent untruthful dealings with the Department, as well as the criminal offence, that are of concern to the Tribunal.

6. With respect to the applicant’s rehabilitation, the Tribunal accepts that there is no evidence of the applicant being charged with, or convicted of, any other offences or of the applicant otherwise engaging in any conduct that may reflect adversely on his character. The applicant presented evidence of being involved in a number of community organisations and provided character references from third parties. The psychological report prepared by Dr Kwok indicates that the applicant represents low risk of re-offending and that he did not suffer from any mental health condition or alcohol use disorder at the time of the offence and does not suffer from any condition now. The Tribunal acknowledges that such evidence may indicate that the applicant has rehabilitated.

7. Another issue of concern to the Tribunal relates to the applicant’s Citizenship applications. The applicant completed Form 80 in support of his citizenship application in 2014. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that he completed the form with the help of a friend and this friend asked him questions to which he provided information. The applicant’s evidence is that nobody else assisted him with the form. The applicant confirmed that he submitted the form to the Department. The applicant claims he could not read the form but the Tribunal is satisfied that the information on the form is the information supplied by the applicant. The Tribunal is also of the view that as the applicant, it was his responsibility to ensure that the information on the forms was complete and accurate, and if the applicant did not believe he had sufficient skills to complete the form, it was imperative for him to obtain adequate and competent help. In an answer to a question about his overstay, the applicant stated on that form that he overstayed his visa from 1995 and until he made an application in 1996. The applicant made no mention of his other, and significant, periods of overstay. While the information he supplied was true, the applicant’s statement was clearly inadequate and incomplete. The applicant claims he did not intend to deceive. However, in the Tribunal’s view, that is not sufficient. The applicant’s failure to take adequate steps to ensure the information he provided was correct shows, in the Tribunal’s view, that the applicant was indifferent about the content and the veracity of the information that he submitted to the Department.

8. The Tribunal is also concerned with the applicant’s explanation for the drink driving offence that he provided in his two statements to the Department. The two explanations are vastly different. The applicant submitted a statement of 6 January 2015 to the Department, as part of his first Citizenship application, explaining the circumstances of his drink driving offence. In that statement the applicant stated that he opened a new coffee shop in 2011 and a few friends came to celebrate. He was happy that night and drank a cup of red wine. The applicant provided a separate declaration in support of his present application for citizenship, dated 8 May 2018. In the second statement, the applicant stated that he was concerned about his wife’s gambling debt and the poor performance of the new restaurant and that was the reason for the drinking. In oral evidence to the Tribunal, and also in his declaration of 12 September 2018, the applicant explains that he was asked to provide an explanation for the offence and he asked his employee who had better English to provide an explanation for him. The applicant states that he had no intention to deceive. In the Tribunal’s view, that does not explain the diversity of the two explanations. In his declaration of 12 September 2018, the applicant states that he told his employee what happened and she wrote the first statement of 6 January 2015. If that was the case, it seems implausible that the applicant would refer in his communication with his employee to being upset about finances while she would only write down about his happiness of opening another restaurant. In the Tribunal’s view, a more likely explanation is that the information supplied in the statement of 6 January 2015 was at least broadly the explanation the applicant offered to his employee. The fact that he has now offered an entirely different explanation for his drinking suggests that the applicant continues to be untruthful in his dealing with the Department.

9. It is highly problematic in the Tribunal’s view, that the applicant claims in his statement of 12 September 2018 that he was careless and did not think it was important to check the statement of 6 January 2015. The applicant had made an application for the conferral of Australian citizenship. He was presenting his case to the Department and claims he did not intend to deceive. He had undertaken to explain his criminal conviction, yet he did not think it was necessary to ensure that the explanation that he supplied was truthful and accurate. The applicant’s evidence is that the employee was fluent in Mandarin. The applicant could communicate with her easily. He could have easily asked his employee to read the statement back to him before signing.  There were steps that the applicant could have taken without any difficulty to ensure the information he was supplying to the Department of Immigration was correct, yet he made no effort to take such steps. The applicant argues that such errors were minor, insignificant and not intentional and they therefore do not reflect on his character. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant’s lack of any reasonable action to check the content of the document shows his indifference about his obligations when dealing with government agencies and his lack of concern for the truth. It indicates the applicant’s inability to distinguish right from wrong. It represents the same attitude the applicant displayed throughout his dealings with the Department and, contrary to the applicant’s submission, that conduct does not appear to have changed since 2010.

10. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant’s submission that the earlier citizenship application is not the matter before the Tribunal. However, it is the applicant’s interactions with the Department that the Tribunal relies on and which, in the Tribunal’s view, are indicative of the applicant’s ongoing willingness to deceive, or the applicant’s lack of concern for such deception.

11. The respondent refers to other discrepancies in the Citizenship application form, for example in relation to the use of a different name and the reason for the change of name. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s submission that the question on form was poorly drafted and the Tribunal also notes that there was no other opportunity for the applicant to refer to his other name. The Tribunal does not draw any adverse conclusions from that evidence.

12. The applicant has been living in Australia for over 22 years. He presently operates several Donut King franchises and provides employment to Australian citizens and permanent and temporary visa holders. He is involved in community work. He has Australian citizen children who rely on his support. The Tribunal accepts there are mitigating factors.

13. The Tribunal has considered the written character references and oral evidence of the applicant’s former partner and his business partner. Those who provided statements are aware of the applicant’s identity and believe the applicant to be a person of good character. The Tribunal is mindful that many of the declarations refer to the applicant’s criminal conviction but not to his immigration history, although the applicant claims most are aware of his immigration history. Nevertheless, the Tribunal accepts that those who provided statements believe the applicant to be of good character. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant is involved in the community and has contributed financially to community organisations. That evidence supports the applicant’s claim that he is of good character.

14. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant's criminal offence and the nature of his general behaviour in relation to his obligations under the Migration Act. Contrary to the applicant’s submission, the Tribunal does not accept that his conduct prior to 2010 should be disregarded or given little weight because it was already assessed as part of his Partner visa application. The Tribunal has formed the view that the entirety of the applicant’s conduct is relevant and significant for the purposes of the present assessment. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has shown some remorse for his past actions and some of his more recent conduct points to rehabilitation. Substantial time has passed since the criminal offence but less time since the applicant’s most recent dealings with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in relation to the citizenship application, which the Tribunal has found problematic.

15. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant has consistently shown a disregard for the Australian law, his willingness to breach the law or his indifference about the truth when dealing with government agencies. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that he can uphold and obey the law. While he has expressed remorse for his conduct, the applicant appears to believe that his past misconduct was not entirely his responsibility.

16. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is able to distinguish right from wrong or that, if he can make such a distinction, he would necessarily behave in the ‘right’ manner if it did not further his own needs. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has the willingness to behave in an ethical manner and conform to the rules and values of Australian society. The Tribunal is not positively persuaded that the applicant is of good character.

17. As the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person of good character, he does not meet s. 21(2) and the general eligibility requirements for the conferral of citizenship.

    CONCLUSION

18. Having found that the applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements for conferral of Australian citizenship, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 51 (fifty -one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member K Raif

........................................................................

Associate

Dated: 28 September 2018

Date(s) of hearing:	17 September 2018
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Kinslor Prince Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor