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

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against the refusal of his application for Australian citizenship by conferral. The Respondent initially refused the application on grounds of identity, but this was conceded by the Respondent’s representative at the commencement of the hearing. The sole remaining issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant was of good character, as required by section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant's conduct, specifically providing false and misleading information to immigration authorities regarding his identity and nationality upon arrival in Australia, demonstrated a lack of good character. This involved considering the definition of "good character" as outlined in the Citizenship Policy, which requires enduring moral qualities evident throughout the applicant's dealings with authorities, and whether the applicant's behaviour aligns with community standards. The Tribunal also had to consider the Applicant's submissions that the circumstances of his arrival as an unauthorised maritime arrival and his subsequent confession and remorse should be taken into account, drawing on case law concerning the "embroidering" of accounts by asylum seekers under duress.

The Tribunal considered both documentary and oral evidence, including statutory declarations from the Applicant and his family, evidence regarding his mental health, and testimony from his employer. The Applicant had arrived in Australia in 2011 and provided conflicting information about his identity and nationality in initial interviews. The Citizenship Policy defines good character as including being truthful and not engaging in deception, and requires a holistic assessment of behaviour over time against community standards. While acknowledging the Applicant's submissions regarding the pressures faced by asylum seekers and his subsequent remorse, the Tribunal found that the Applicant's conduct of providing false information to immigration authorities was a significant factor. The Tribunal also noted the positive evidence from the Applicant's employer, Ms. Goodall, who was considered a most impressive witness, and whose testimony was accepted as establishing the Applicant possessed the requisite character traits. Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the Respondent's decision to refuse the application.