Hussaini and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

Hussaini and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2024] AATA 428 (14 March 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/2861
Re:Mohammad Hussaini
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President Boyle
Date:14 March 2024
Place:Perth

The decision of the delegate of the Minister dated 17 March 2022 pursuant to s 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) to refuse to approve the Applicant becoming an Australian citizen is affirmed.
...........[Sgd]........................
Deputy President Boyle
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – refusal of a delegate of the Minister to grant the Applicant’s application for conferral of Australian citizenship – delegate not satisfied of the Applicant’s identity – delegate found that the Applicant was not of good character – Applicant claims he is a citizen of Afghanistan – conflicting primary documentation – Tribunal not satisfied of the Applicant’s identity – prohibition under s 24(3) of the Citizenship Act applies – reviewable decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) - ss 21, 21(2)(h), 24, 24(1), 24(3), 52(1)(b)
Australian Citizenship Regulations 2016 (Cth)
CASES
BGQ21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865
BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574
GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] AATA 3245
Hneidi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 182 FCR 115; [2010] FCAFC 20
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Attorney-General’s Department, ‘National Identity Proofing Guidelines’ (2016) < Citizenship Policy Statement (2020)
Department of Home Affairs, ‘Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act’ (2019)
Department of Home Affairs, ‘Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions CPI 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act’ (2019)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Boyle
14 March 2024
THE APPLICATION

The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent (Minister) dated 17 March 2022 pursuant to s 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (Act) to refuse to approve the Applicant becoming an Australian citizen.[1]
[1] R1/221-240.
The delegate refused the Applicant becoming an Australian citizen on the basis, firstly, that the delegate was not satisfied of the Applicant’s identity and that, accordingly, the prohibition on approval under s 24(3) of the Act applies and, secondly, the delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant was of good character as required by s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
The application for review is made in accordance with s 52(1)(b) of the Act, which allows applications to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of a decision made under s 24 of the Act.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant claims to be a 37-year-old (born 23 November 1986) citizen of Afghanistan. He arrived in Australia on 23 May 2010 as an unauthorised maritime arrival and was subsequently granted a Protection Class XA (Subclass 866) visa on 23 November 2011.
On 19 December 2015, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.[2]
[2] R1/82-94.
On 14 January 2022, the Department invited the Applicant to comment on adverse information relating to his identity and character.[3]
[3] R1/173-182.
On 17 March 2022, a delegate of the Minister refused the application for Australian citizenship (see [1] above).
On 7 April 2022, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision.
THE ISSUES
The issues for determination are:
1. Whether I am satisfied of the Applicant’s identity (s 24(3) of the Act); and
2. Whether I am satisfied that the Applicant is of good character (s 21(2)(h) of the Act).
THE LEGISLATION
The Preamble to the Act states that:
The Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.
The Parliament recognises that persons conferred Australian citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations:
(a) by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people; and
(b) by sharing their democratic beliefs; and
(c) by respecting their rights and liberties; and
(d) by upholding and obeying the laws of Australia.
Section 21 of the Act relevantly provides that:
(1) A person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
(2) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
…
(h) is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.
Section 24(1) of the Act provides that:
If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Section 24(3) of the Act provides that:
The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.
THE HEARING AND THE EVIDENCE
The application was heard on 31 October 2023. The Applicant represented himself and the Minister was represented by Ms D Jones-Bolla. The Applicant was the only witness to give oral evidence at the hearing. The following documents were admitted into evidence:
(a)Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, received 13 January 2023 (A1);
(b)Applicant’s Statutory Declaration dated 21 September 2022, received 18 October 2022 (A2);
(c)Applicant’s Submissions dated and received 18 October 2022 (A3);
(d)Applicant’s Statement of Issues (undated), received 22 August 2022 (A4);
(e)Support Letter - Hussain Hussaini Imam (Chairperson of Jafary Community, Perth) dated 22 February 2022, received 18 October 2022 (A5);
(f)Applicant’s 2021 Tax Return Declaration including tax return documents, received 18 October 2022 (A6);
(g)Statement of Ali Heidari (text message) dated 13 November 2022, received 15 November 2022 (A7);
(h)Statement of John Temov dated 10 November 2022, received 15 November 2022 (A8);
(i)Respondent’s Section 37 T Documents, received 8 May 2022 (R1);
(j)Independent Merits Review Report by Christopher Keher dated 26 September 2011, received 16 May 2022 (R2); and
(k)Further translation of Applicant’s high school diploma, and a student number not in previous translation received 20 August 2022 (R3).
At the commencement of the hearing, I sought to determine how well the Applicant understood English. The Applicant said that he “understood most things”.[4] After some discussion with the Applicant, I was satisfied that his command of English was sufficient enough not to require interpretation of everything. I advised the Applicant that if, at any time, he did not understand anything then we could use the interpreter. As the hearing progressed, however, it appeared that the Applicant was having some difficulty in understanding some questions and the answers to some of the questions indicated that he may not be understanding some of the questions. In those cases, I had the questions and the Applicant’s answers interpreted.
THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
[4] Transcript at 2.
The Minister
The Minister’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (Minister’s SFIC) made submissions to the following effect:
Identity
(a)Neither the Act nor the Australian Citizenship Regulations 2016 (Cth) prescribe specific identity documents that must be provided by an applicant in order to satisfy the Minister for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act.
(b)The Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2007 explained in relation to s 24(3):
There may be cases where identity is unclear or cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. In these circumstances the Minister cannot approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
(c)The concept of identity is described in the Attorney-General’s Department’s National Identity Proofing Guidelines.
(d)Extensive guidance for decision makers making assessments as to identity also exists in the Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs). The Minister highlighted various parts of CPI 16, in particular the three pillars of identity:
(i)biometrics;
(ii)documents; and
(iii)the person’s life story.
(e)CPI 16 notes that protection visa holders may have fled their homeland as a result of persecution and have been displaced long-term in third countries prior to arrival in Australia. In these exceptional cases, alternative identity proofing processes may be developed.
(f)CPI 16 confirms that “the onus is on the applicant to provide information or evidence to support their identity”.
(g)CPI 16 also states that it is insufficient for a decision-maker be satisfied of a person’s identity at one point in time. Identity must be verified incrementally throughout a person’s life by assessing a person’s identity from birth. The objective of the decision-maker’s task is to link the person’s identity from birth to present.
(h)The Applicant has provided the following documents:
Protection visa application
(i)Afghan passport number OR101287,[5] and visit pass issued by Malaysia number DA6587528.[6]
[5] R1/167-169.
[6] R1/12.
(ii)Iranian Amayesh card number 8776154 (untranslated).[7]
[7] T4/11.
(iii)Evidence of employment in an Iranian pharmacy (untranslated).
(iv)Parents’ Iranian Amayesh cards (untranslated).
2015 Citizenship application
(v)Afghan taskera number 8916950.[8]
[8] R1/130.
(vi)Afghan taskera number 292 issued to Ghulam Nabi.[9]
[9] R1/148.
(vii)Iranian High School Diploma number 3025.[10]
[10] R1/131.
(viii)Iranian Marriage certificate registration number 3620.[11]
[11] R1/132-133.
(ix)Letter from UNHCR number 354-07C07251 dated 4 September 2009.[12]
[12] R1/171.
(x)Letter from ANZ bank.[13]
[13] R1/196.
(xi)Tax return for the financial year 2020 to 2021.[14]
[14] R1/198-207.
2022 Tribunal application
(xii)Termed departure permit number 8776156 (filed on 18 October 2022).
(xiii)Termed departure permit number 4139879 for Ghulam Nabi Hussaini (filed on 18 October 2022).
(xiv)Temporary residence ID card for foreign nationals number 70644500077 for Sabereh Hussaini (filed on 18 October 2022).
(xv)Technical High School education completion certificate number 3025 (filed on 18 October 2022).
(xvi)Tax return for the financial year 2020 to 2021 (filed on 18 October 2022).
(i)Other than the taskera issued in 2013 (No 8916950), the Applicant has not provided any identification documents containing full details of his identity (e.g. name, date of birth and place of birth). Limited weight should be placed on the taskera in circumstances where there is no detailed information in relation to how the document was obtained and what documentation was submitted in order to obtain it. This is particularly the case where the taskera was supposedly issued 26 years after the Applicant’s birth.
(j)The marriage certificate and Australian travel documents were not issued on the basis of information contained in the taskera or a passport.
(k)The Australian identification documents are not,[15] of themselves, “feeder documents” with an unbroken chain linking to a primary official identity document, unlike a drivers licence issued to a person who has provided a birth certificate, for example.
[15] R1/196-207.
(l)There are a number of clear inconsistencies in the material before the Tribunal including in relation to the Applicant’s date and place of birth and his family composition.
(m)It is significant that the Applicant has not provided the birth certificate or ID card referred to in the completion of studies certificate, documents relating to past employment or identity documents in respect of his siblings.
(n)In respect of the Applicant’s life story, limited weight should be placed on his claims in circumstances where:
(i)inconsistent information and documentation provided has not been adequately explained;
(ii)the Applicant only provided a copy of certain pages from his Afghan passport to the Department,[16] and relevantly did not provide his biodata page which recorded that he was born in Tehran on 8 December 1982 (the complete document was eventually provided by UNHCR);[17]
[16] R1/12.
[17] R1/165.
(iii)in his statement provided on 17 February 2022, the Applicant claimed that his passport was taken by a people smuggler when he arrived in Malaysia however, he has previously claimed that the document was lost in the water;
(iv)the Applicant failed to declare his brother, Mohammad, in information provided to the UNHCR;
(v)the Applicant told the UNHCR that he was born in Iran and had never been to Afghanistan, which is inconsistent with his claims that he was born in Afghanistan and left when he was about five years of age; and
(vi)the Applicant claimed to have been registered by the UNHCR in Indonesia under the name of Mohammad Reza Hassan Zaleh. However, the Australian Embassy in Jakarta was advised by the UNHCR that they did not hold a record of the Applicant’s identity or his alias as Mohammad Reza Hassan Zaleh.
Good character
(o)The Federal Court considered the meaning of satisfaction in the context of s 21(2)(h) in BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[18]
(p)The term “good character” is not defined in the Act. Guidance for decision makers making character assessments exists in the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement and the CPIs, in particular CPI 15.
(q)A person can fail to establish that they are of good character even if they have not been convicted of any criminal offences. It has long been held that dishonesty in migration and citizenship applications is indicative that a person is not of good character.
(r)Factors weighing against a finding that the Applicant is of good character are that he knowingly provided false and misleading personal information to the Department in respect of his date of birth and place of birth. The Applicant:
(i)only provided a copy of certain pages from his Afghan passport to the Department and relevantly did not provide his biodata page which recorded that he was born in Tehran on 8 December 1982;[19]
(ii)claims his passport (which records his place of birth as Tehran) was fraudulently obtained, but this does not accord with the fact that the Applicant stated that he had been a lawful resident in Iran, travelled from Iran to Malaysia lawfully, arranged that travel himself and was in Malaysia lawfully. There is no evidence that the document is fraudulent beyond the Applicant’s subsequent assertions to support his claimed identity.
(s)The Applicant was convicted of using a mobile phone whilst driving a vehicle on 4 July 2016 which demonstrates a disregard for laws that are aimed at protecting users of the road and go to the essential safety of the community.[20]
The Applicant
[18] [2019] FCA 574.
[19] R1/12.
[20] R1/216.
Identity
The Applicant provided a number of statements and other documents which set out his claims.[21]
[21] A3 & A4.
In his statement A1, the Applicant said that he paid someone to obtain the Afghan passport for him from the Afghan consulate in Tehran. The date of birth shown in the passport was the date shown on his Ameshya which was the date declared by the Applicant’s father when he sought asylum in Iran. He does not know what his actual date of birth is.
His taskera was obtained after showing his father’s taskera. The reason that the year of birth is different is that it is calculated according to the Afghan year. In Afghanistan there is no tradition of recording the exact date of birth officially. Sometimes families record it on their holy books and sometimes they remember the dates of birth according to some major events that might have happened. The Applicant said that he has never known the exact date of his birth but has always tried to give an approximate date which is all that he knew. He has never tried to intentionally hide his date of birth or deceive the Department in any way.
His evidence in his statement A1 was that while he had given dates of birth in 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1987 at different times, he was not lying, and he could not have obtained any benefit on those occasions by lying about his date of birth.
In relation to the inconsistencies in his place of birth, the passport was obtained by someone else, so he does not know what that person told the authorities to obtain the passport.
In relation to the inconsistencies in his life story, those inconsistencies were caused by him not knowing the relevant events but having to rely on documents of his father. All that he knows is that he is the second child between two sisters. He did not declare his brother because he was not sure whether he was alive. There was no advantage to be gained by not declaring his younger brother.
He only had a brief chat with UNHCR in Indonesia, it was informal and not an interview. The document given to him was only a piece of paper with a number and had no significance once he started travelling to Australia. He therefore did not keep it with him. In relation to the Iranian high school diploma, the Applicant said that it has consistently been inaccurately translated.
The Applicant also provided a statutory declaration made on 21 September 2022 which was materially to the same effect as his abovementioned statement.[22] Submissions dated 18 October 2022 had been filed by the Applicant’s former migration agent.[23] The Applicant filed a document headed ‘statement of issues’ on 22 August 2022.[24] Again, those submissions and statement of issues were materially to the same effect as the Applicant’s two statements.
CONSIDERATION
[22] A2.
[23] A3.
[24] A4.
The Applicant’s evidence at the hearing
The Applicant was cross-examined about the circumstances in which he obtained his Afghan passport. He had, in several written statements, stated that someone else had obtained that passport for him (see [18] above). The Applicant was taken to the statutory declaration made by him on 18 February (could be December) 2022,[25] in which he had stated that “The passport that was submitted to the UNHCR Malaysia was obtained through a people smuggler in Iran who put in the information about me that was never verified with me”.[26] It was put to the Applicant that that statement was inconsistent with his evidence at the hearing that he had attended the Afghan embassy in Tehran, spoken to someone behind the counter and had filled out forms to obtain his passport.[27] The Applicant’s response when asked by counsel which version was correct, was that he felt that the version involving the people smuggler was “one written by lawyer”.[28] His evidence at the hearing was the story that the passport was obtained by people smugglers in Iran was “Definitely not correct”,[29] and that the statutory declaration which claimed that that was the case had been prepared by his lawyers. Referring to his lawyer, his evidence was [b]ut she always told me to sign but I didn’t read all of them properly”.
[25] R1/209-212.
[26] R1/209.
[27] Transcript at 31.
[28] Transcript at 33.
[29] Transcript at 33.
The Applicant was then taken to an email that he had sent to the Department on 1 June 2021 in which he advised that the passport was:[30]
… a fake passport which was forged by the human trafficker which was further used as a piece of document evidence to register me at UNHCR and once the registeration was done the passport was taken back from me by the trafficker, so here by i dont remember what details i provided to them.
(Errors included)
[30] R1/161.

The Applicant’s story then changed somewhat. His evidence was that there may have been two passports, the one that he obtained in Tehran and on which he claimed to have travelled legally to Malaysia, and a second passport, a fake passport given to him in Malaysia to travel to Indonesia. He claimed, however, contrary to the advice in his 1 June 2021 email to the Department, that the passport that he presented to UNHCR in Indonesia (which he no longer has) was the legitimate passport that he obtained in Tehran.
The only page of that passport that the Applicant has produced is the page which has the Malaysian visa.[31] As noted by the Minister, that page does not have any of the Applicant’s biometric data. Asked why he had not produced more than the single page to the Department, the Applicant’s evidence was that he did not think that it was needed and that the information was not relevant. His evidence was that he has no idea where that passport is now and,[32] that as long as he had the UNHCR document, his passport was not important.[33] I note that contrary to the claim that he now has no idea where that passport is, in the initial Immigration Department interview conducted on 12 June 2010, he asserted that his documents were either “lost in water” or “thrown away in water”.[34]
[31] R1/12.
[32] Transcript at 39.
[33] Transcript at 41.
[34] R1/22.
The Applicant was cross-examined on his taskera. He confirmed that he, or his family, had paid someone in Iran in 2015 or 2016 to obtain the taskera. His evidence was that he had no idea who that person was. He said that someone would have either crossed over the border from Iran into Afghanistan to obtain the taskera, or it could have been posted. It was, according to the Applicant, issued on the presentation of his father’s taskera.
The Applicant’s evidence in relation to his marriage certificate was that he obtained it from the Afghan embassy in Iran and that he thinks that the only document that he had to produce to obtain it was an Australian travel document.[35] On further questioning from me and my pointing out that the Australian travel document has nothing to do with and provides no advice as to whether the Applicant is married, the Applicant’s evidence appeared to change to him claiming that he may also have produced a piece of paper from a mullah to obtain the marriage certificate. He no longer has that piece of paper.
[35] Transcript at 79.
As a general observation, the Applicant’s evidence was confused, confusing and unconvincing. While I accept that some confusion arose because of the need to translate some of the questions and the answers, the matters on which the Applicant’s evidence was inconsistent and even changed at the hearing, were not matters that required a sophisticated level of understanding. In most cases they simply related to facts of which the Applicant had first-hand knowledge and history which he had provided previously.
In deciding whether to grant Australian citizenship under the Act, decision-makers can be guided by government policy.[36] Relevant polices are set out in the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, the CPIs and the Guidelines.
[36] Hneidi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 182 FCR 115; [2010] FCAFC 20 at [41]: GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] AATA 3245.
Paragraph 5 of CPI 16 describes three pillars of identity comprising biometrics, documents, and life story, as the foundation on which assessments of identity can be made. It states that:
Combining and fact checking the Three Pillars of Identity against each other provides a strong evidence-base to establish identity.
The Policy Statement refers to the concept of identity as described in the Guidelines. Paragraphs 2.1.1–2.1.2 of the Guidelines relevantly provide as follows:
A person’s identity is not a fixed concept; it is highly dependent on context. It is some combination of characteristics or attributes that allow a person to be uniquely distinguished from others within a specific context.
... For people not born in Australia, their identity in Australia is generally established from personal details recorded on DIBP Australian immigration documents or records.
The Guidelines further provide that the veracity of a person’s identity is established through evidence provided to meet some, or all, of the five identity proofing objectives. Those objectives are set out in para 2.2.1 as follows:
1. Confirm uniqueness of the identity in the intended context to ensure that individuals can be distinguished from one another...
2. Confirm the claimed identity is legitimate to ensure the identity has not been fraudulently created ... through evidence of commencement of identity in Australia...
3. Confirm the operation of the identity in the community over time to provide additional confidence that an identity is legitimate in that it is being used in the community...
4. Confirm the linkage between the identity and the person claiming the identity to provide confidence that the identity confirmed through objectives 2 and 3 is not only legitimate, but that the person claiming the identity is its legitimate holder...
5. Confirm the identity is not known to be used fraudulently to provide additional confidence that a fraudulent (either fictitious or stolen) identity is not being used...
Chief Justice Mortimer at [32] of BGQ21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs described the process of determination of identity for the purposes of the Act as follows:[37]
Ultimately, the concept of “identity” is about an assessment of whether the repository of the power to confer citizenship is satisfied the human being who is the individual applying for citizenship is the person they say they are, with the relevant background to their citizenship application they rely on, and not a different human being with a different background which may affect their citizenship application.
[37] [2023] FCA 865.
The President the Honourable Justice Kyrou observed at [28] of GJDB that:
The three pillars approach set out in CPI 16 can provide a useful, common sense framework for assessing the facts of a particular case to determine whether one can be satisfied of the identity of an applicant for citizenship. Accordingly, the approach set out in CPI 16 can be adopted by the Tribunal to the extent that the Tribunal considers that the approach may be of assistance in determining whether it is satisfied of the identity of an applicant in a particular case.
The Minister contended that I should not be satisfied of the Applicant’s identity based on the documents provided by the Applicant which are listed in [16(h)] above. The Minister contended that, other than the taskera issued in 2013 (the Applicant’s evidence at the hearing was that it was obtained in 2015 or 2016), the Applicant has not provided any identification documents containing full details of his identity (e.g. name, date of birth and place of birth) and that limited weight should be placed on the taskera in circumstances where there is no detailed information in relation to how the document was obtained and when the only documentation was submitted in order to obtain it was the Applicant’s Father’s taskera. This is particularly the case where the taskera was supposedly issued over 26 years after the Applicant’s birth.
The Minister contended that there are clear inconsistencies in critical information in the documents produced and the history given by the Applicant. That is undoubtedly the case. The Minister identified the following inconsistencies:
(a)The Applicant reported that he was born on 23 November 1986 in Qurbaghi Ander Ghazni, Afghanistan in his Entry interview in 2010,[38] Form 80 dated 1 October 2010,[39] statement of 31 October 2010,[40] visa application dated 17 November 2011,[41] citizenship application,[42] declaration of service,[43] and subsequent Form 80 dated 6 May 2019.[44]
(b)In the taskera issued in 2013 (No 8916950) (actually 2015 or 2016 according to the Applicant) however, his place of birth is listed as Zakori and his year of birth calculated as 1987,[45] which is not consistent with the Applicant’s reporting to the Department.
(c)The Applicant’s passport (or at least that part as is produced) lists his date of birth as 8 December 1982 and his place of birth as Tehran (Iran), not 23 November 1986 or Afghanistan as claimed by the Applicant.[46]
(d)The Applicant’s completion of studies certificate lodged during the course of his application for Australian citizenship states his birth certificate was issued in Shahrerey and lists a document number of 15149 for the birth certificate – this document has relevantly not been provided to date,[47] and is also not consistent with the Applicant’s reporting to the Department where he reported that he never held a birth certificate. The Applicant’s evidence at the hearing was that the reference to a birth certificate in that document was an error in translation and that the document numbered 15149 (it was actually 15194) was a reference to his Iranian ID card.
(e)The UNHCR documents state that the Applicant was born on 8 December 1982,[48] not 23 November 1986 as claimed and that the Applicant reported that the year of birth (1982) as recorded in his passport was incorrect and his correct year of birth is 1984.[49]
[38] R1/15.
[39] R1/41.
[40] R1/52.
[41] R1/65.
[42] R1/82-83.
[43] R1/102.
[44] R1/112.
[45] R1/130 & 149.
[46] R1/167.
[47] R1/131.
[48] R1/165-171.
[49] R1/165.
The Minister also pointed out that the two documents issued by the Government of Afghanistan list conflicting information in respect of the Applicant’s place and date of birth.
While the Applicant attempted to explain the inconsistencies in the document that he has produced, his explanations were, in some cases, confused and contradicted prior statements. These explanations which, in part, are interwoven with the Applicant’s life story, were confused and unconvincing. The purported explanations not only raised significant questions about the Applicant’s honesty, but also undermined the value that can be placed on these documents. Obviously the most concerning aspect of the Applicant’s narrative, a narrative which has changed over time, is his claim that he used a fake passport. On two separate occasions he advised the Department that the information contained in the passport, in particular the critical information as to his place and date of birth, was incorrect because the passport was a fake obtained by someone else and that he had not checked the information in it (see [25] and [26] above). He has now resiled from that claim.
Whatever the truth is about the passport, what is clear is that little weight can be given to that document as either being authentic or in establishing the Applicant’s identity. Only one page of what the Applicant says was the passport legitimately issued by the Afghan embassy in Tehran was produced and that page does not contain any biometric or other relevant data. It is also not clear on the Applicant’s evidence whether he had paid someone to obtain that passport in Tehran and he was not sure what information had been provided by that person (his original claim: see [18] above) or whether he had gone into the Afghan embassy in Tehran, spoken to someone behind the counter and filled out forms (the Applicant’s evidence at the hearing: see [25] above).
That leaves us with the untranslated Amayesh card and those supposedly of his parents,[50] again untranslated, and an untranslated document purporting to refer to his employment in Iran. Those documents are not sufficient to satisfy me of the Applicant’s identity.
[50] R1/11.
The other documents being the Afghan taskera, the Iranian High School Diploma, the letter from UNHCR, the Iranian marriage certificate and the documents created since the Applicant’s arrival in Australia, even if they were accepted as being what the Applicant claimed them to be, are not “feeder documents” as defined in para 1.14 of CPI 16 with an unbroken chain linking to a primary official identity document. The closest to an identity document is the taskera, however, the obvious difficulty with the taskera is that, according to the Applicant, it was issued to a third person, whose identity the Applicant does not know, based merely on the production of the Applicant’s father’s taskera. It cannot be taken as evidence of the Applicant’s identity.
The third pillar of identity referred to in CPI 16 is that of the Applicant’s life story. I make two observations about the Applicant’s life story as presented by the Applicant. The first is that it is not a fulsome history, and secondly it has changed or has inconsistencies. The most obvious inconsistencies are those around the Applicant obtaining a passport in Iran and a visa for Malaysia, the Applicant’s subsequent journey from Iran to Malaysia and then from Malaysia to Indonesia. At some point late in this journey and for a reason that is still unclear to me, the Applicant claimed that he was given a fake passport (notwithstanding he claims to have had a legal passport at that time) but that he then lost the passport when travelling to Australia. There are, in my view, too many holes in and inconsistencies with the Applicant’s narrative to find that his narrative can satisfy me as to his identity.
The other deficiency in the Applicant’s life story, particularly that part of his life which would be critical in establishing his identity, namely his life in Afghanistan and Iran, was not supported by any corroborative evidence from family or those who knew him in Iran and/or Afghanistan.
Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied of the identity of the Applicant. Accordingly, the prohibition under s 24(3) of the Citizenship Act applies and the Applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral must not be approved.
DECISION
The decision of the delegate of the Minister dated 17 March 2022 pursuant to s 24 of the Act to refuse to approve the Applicant becoming an Australian citizen is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 48 (forty - eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Boyle

.....[Sgd]..............................................
Associate
Dated: 14 March 2024

Date(s) of hearing: 31 October 2023

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Daphne Jones-Bolla

[2024] AATA 428

14 March 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Statutory Construction

Date(s) of hearing:	31 October 2023
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Daphne Jones-Bolla