Hussein and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

[2018] AATA 965

Hussein and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 965 (20 April 2018)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):2017/2761      

Re:Mr Yasin Hussein  

APPLICANT

Minister for Immigration and Border ProtectionAnd  

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Ms Anna Burke, Member

Date:20 April 2018

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[sgd]........................................................................

Member

CITIZENSHIP - cancellation of approval for Australian citizenship by conferral – whether the applicant is not of good character – whether the application for citizenship made by the applicant should be approved – decision under review affirmed.

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007

Cases

Re Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Re Mana v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2016] AATA 639

Re Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94

Secondary Materials

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms Anna Burke, Member

20 April 2018

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1. On 31 March 2011, Mr Hussein arrived in Australia on a subclass 200 Refugee visa.

2. On 18 July 2016, Mr Hussein lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral.

3. On 19 April 2017 a delegate of the Minister under section 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act) refused Mr Hussein’s application for citizenship.

4. Mr Hussein has applied to this Tribunal for review of the Delegate’s decision.

5. At the hearing, Mr Hussein was represented by Ms Anna Emad of Enaam Eljari Migration Services. Ms Melinda Jackson, solicitor from the Australian Government Solicitor, appeared on behalf of the respondent Minister.  Mr and Mrs Hussein, the applicant’s wife, gave evidence under oath at the hearing.

6. Mr Hussein is a 32 year old Iraqi national, married with four children, who arrived on a refugee visa in Australia after four years in Indonesia. Whilst in Indonesia he was involved in a motorcycle accident involving a truck which left him in a coma for six weeks, requiring neurosurgical intervention and being hospitalised for 14 months. The accident has left him with frontal lobe atrophy and gliosis, and ongoing issues of memory loss, depression and chronic pain.

7. When Mr Hussein first arrived in Australia he was in receipt of a disability support pension as a result of his acquired brain injury. He then gained work as an Uber driver, then driving heavy vehicles and he has subsequently gained full time employment as a truck driver with Citywide Waste Services and purchased his own home in Hoppers Crossing. Mr Hussein’s wife and children have been granted Australian citizenship.

ISSUE FOR THE TRIBUNAL

1. The issue for the Tribunal is whether or not the applicant is of good character.

   
   
   

LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY BACKGROUND

1. Section 21(2) of the Act sets out the general eligibility criteria for a person to become an Australian citizen.

General eligibility

A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:

(a)  is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and

(b)  is a permanent resident:

(i)  at the time the person made the application; and

(ii)  at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application; and

(c)  satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and

(d)  understands the nature of an application under subsection (1); and

(e)  possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; and

(f)  has an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and

(g)  is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and

(h)  is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.

1. Section 24 of the Act provides, in part:

   24 Minister's decision

   (1) 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.

   (1A) The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
   
   ....

2. Section 25 of the Act provides, in part:

   (1)  The Minister may, by writing, cancel an approval given to a person under section 24 if:

   (a)  the person has not become an Australian citizen under section 28; and

   (b)  either of the following 2 situations apply.

   Eligibility criteria not met

   (2)  The first situation applies if:

   (a)  the person is covered by subsection 21(2), (3) or (4); and

   (b)  the Minister is satisfied that, at the time the Minister proposes to cancel the approval, the person is:

   (i)  not a permanent resident; or

   (ii)  not likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia; or

     (iii)  not of good character.

   12.The term “good character” is not defined by the Act, however guidance is provided by the Citizenship Policy issued by the Minister in 2016 (the Policy).

3. The stated role of the Policy is to support the Act by providing guidance on the interpretation of, and the exercise of powers under, the Act and the Australian Citizenship Regulations 2007.

4. Chapter 11 of the Policy deals with good character. Importantly, it is expressly stated at the outset that it is not Departmental policy for decision-makers to be bound by a checklist. Rather, decision-makers are to look at the merits of each case and turn their minds to the issues of character until they are satisfied, on a reasoned basis, whether the applicant is, or is not, of good character.

5. Reference is made to the definition of “good character” given by Lee J in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 (at 431-432):

   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...A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character...Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.

6. The Policy also refers to Re Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, where Deputy President Breen discussed the role of the character requirement in a citizenship application (at para 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… The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts. It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of the State. The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few year’s time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.”

7. To assist decision-makers, the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of the characteristics of good behaviour, which is set out below:

an applicant of good character would:

·     respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries

·     be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay their taxes, and not be in dishonest receipt of public funds)

·     be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments, for example

o   providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications

o   involvement in a bogus marriage

o   concealment of convictions that could lead to the cancellation or refusal of a visa or citizenship

o   involvement in Centrelink or Australian Tax Office fraud

o   giving false names and/or addresses to police

·     not to be violent, involved in drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without licence or insurance)

·     not to be associated with others who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour, or others who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia

·     not to have evaded immigration control or assisted others to do so, or been involved in the illegal movement of people

·     not to have committed, been involved with or associated with war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide

·     not to be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant

·     not to be involved in or providing assistance to, or reasonably suspected of being involved in or providing assistance to, terrorist organisations or acts of terrorism overseas or in Australia and

·     not to be the subject of any verifiable information causing character doubts.

1. The Policy also provides guidance on weighing up the character decision. It points out that the assessment of whether an applicant is of “good character” requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. More weight is to be given to serious offences.

2. The Policy further states:

   In weighing up the various factors, the decision maker must not apply their own personal standards, but must apply community standards. Having regard to the words of the Preamble, and the pledge to be made if citizenship is approved, decision makers are asking themselves:

   would a person of good character have behaved the way the applicant did

   what is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law

   has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia’s community standards

   does the applicant share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties.

3. The guide references Deputy President Forgie in Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94, to demonstrate this point:

   In the context of the Act, loyalty to Australia, a belief in a democratic form of government, a respect for the rights and liberties of all Australians and obedience to and observance of the law are values that are regarded as significant. An assessment of a person’s character will need to have regard to them. They are not values that can be assessed in the abstract. Instead, they are measured in part by what a person says, in part by what a person does and in part by what a person is heard to say and seen to do.

EVIDENCE

1. The evidence before the Tribunal included two sets of documents provided pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, referred to as the “T documents” and the “Supplementary T documents”, Mr Hussein’s witness statement, application for review and character references from numerous individuals.

2. The following table has been derived from records against Mr Hussein as outlined in a National Police History Check dated 14 September 2016:

Court	Date	Nature of Offence	Sentence
Melbourne County Court	24 July 2014	Criminal Damage (intent damage/destroy) 2 charges Unlawful assault Contravene family violence final intervention order	Without Conviction released on adjournment for 2 years
Sunshine Magistrates Court	14 June 2012	Drive whilst authorisation suspended	Without Conviction adjourned to 13/06/2013 To pay $100.00 to the Court Fund

1. Below is Mr Hussein’s record of traffic offences as outlined in a VicRoads complete demerit points extract dated 21 August 2017:

Date	Nature of Offence
16 December 2011	Exceed speed limit by 35 km or more but less than 40 km/h
11 May 2013	Exceed 110 km/h speed limit by 20km/h or more but less than 25 km/h
16 July 2013	Driving without wearing a properly fastened and adjusted seat belt
9 September 2013	Driving without wearing a properly fastened and adjusted seat belt
27 April 2015	Exceed speed limit by 15 km/h or less
7 June 2015	Exceed speed limit by less than 10 km/h in heavy vehicle
14 December 2016	Exceed speed limit by less than 10 km/h

1. On 13 March 2013 Mr Hussein returned to the family home after a two-week separation. Mr and Mrs Hussein had separated as Mr Hussein had wanted the family to relocate to Sydney but Mrs Hussein did not wish to relocate. Mr Hussein’s mother was living in Sydney whilst Mrs Hussein’s extended family lived in Melbourne. Mr Hussein had returned seeking to move back into the family home to which Mrs Hussein agreed but immediately he recommenced arguing about relocating to Sydney. At this point Mr Hussein became angry. He commenced punching the plasma TV several times causing extensive damage, took a laptop snapped it over his knees and whilst Mrs Hussein asked why he was doing this he punched her in the face multiple times then left the premises.

2. Mrs Hussein reported the incident to the police once her husband had left the home. The Police who attended took a statement from Mrs Hussein and then requested Mr Hussein attend an interview at the police station which he did later that day where he was charged, interviewed and released on bail. The record of interview was not available to the Tribunal but the summary of charges notes that Mr Hussein admitted damaging the plasma television but stated his wife broke the laptop and slapped herself across the face. Mr Hussein confirmed the incident at the hearing, advising he had damaged the goods which he said he immediately replaced and confirmed he had struck his wife for which he was sorry. He repeatedly told the Tribunal at the hearing he had little recollection of the incident, stating he truly cannot remember anything as a result of the heavy medication he was taking at the time. Mr Hussein stated, it was so long ago and at that time he was taking an extensive amount of medication, particularly pain killers to deal with his ongoing health issue as a result of the motorcycle accident and his memory had been impacted by the accident. He could not recall telling the police his wife had broken the laptop and hit herself. At the time he had limited English and did not understand the Australian legal system but he admitted to breaking the goods and hitting his wife for which her felt very sorry.

3. On 14 March 2013 Mr and Mrs Hussein attended court together and a 12 month intervention order was put in place. The police contacted Mrs Hussein on              16 March 2013. She advised the couple were again living together and everything was fine.

4. On 12 July 2013 an email from the Police Prosecutions division states that a diversion order would be considered for Mr Hussein if Mrs Hussein made a statement of no complaint. The email went on to state : “I do concede the injuries were minor and if we were proceeding on one of the assault charges it would be unlawful assault rather than RCI so there may be an opportunity for withdrawal. Could you please provide documentation of his acquired brain injury and the lasting effects?”

5. On 25 July 2013 Mrs Hussein provided a statement to police stating her husband had been to court but not charged over a family violence issue. She stated she had given the matter a great deal of thought and did not want the police to take any further action in relation to the matter.

6. On 13 August 2013 Mrs Hussein called the Police to their home as she and her husband were having a verbal argument when he took a knife from the kitchen and threatened to kill her. Mrs Hussein stated this was in front of the children and that she took refuge behind her children. Mr Hussein in the police record denied this had taken place and that he had suggested a divorce from his wife and she had then started to abuse him and called the Police about Mr Hussein breaching the intervention order. 

7. At the Tribunal hearing both Mr and Mrs Hussein were vague in their recollection of the second incident involving the knife. Mr Hussein said he was in the kitchen cooking and had the knife in his hand. It was a normal argument between a husband and wife, he may have been waving the knife around but he certainly was not threatening to kill his wife.

8. Mrs Hussein advised the Tribunal she had no memory of the incident with the knife. She explained that when she had arrived in Australia she was very young and had attended an English language course which had advised her that when things got bad at home that she should call the police. When they first arrived in Australia, life had been very difficult, they did not have enough money, her husband could not work, they were in a new country, did not know the language, and were away from family and friends. All these factors combined caused a lot of tension and problems, but now all was well since her husband had stopped taking the medication, had a full-time job, and was a very good father and provider. Mrs Hussein told the Tribunal her husband encouraged her to take the opportunities that life in Australia offered. There had been no problems since the incident with the police, he has told her he is sorry and feels sorry for what he’s done, his memory is not good since the motorcycle accident. He supported her and the children financially, emotionally and morally they now have a new life together they do not want to remember the difficult life they had before.

9. On 6 March 2014 Mr Hussein was convicted and a community corrections order for 15 months was put in place. The court outcome report notes that the charges of “make threat to kill”, “unlawful assault and recklessly causing injury” on separate occasions have also been withdrawn.

10. On 24 July 2014 on appeal to the County Court of Victoria, the order of the Broadmeadows Magistrates’ Court was set aside without conviction and Mr Hussein was released on adjournment for two years.

11. Mr Hussein has a series of serious driving offences which have resulted in the cancellation of his licence twice. He has been fined on numerous occasions for speeding excessively and not wearing a seat belt. Mr Hussein sought to mitigate these offences by indicating they had occurred not long after he arrived in Australia, was often driving whilst affected by medication, was working as an Uber driver, his speedometer had been broken and he had been fined for failing to wear a seat belt when in fact he had it on when pulled over but had taken it off when the police officer approached the car. He understood speeding was dangerous and he had been wrong to disregard the road laws. He has subsequently undertaken a defensive driving course, providing a certificate of completion of the course in September 2017. He advised the Tribunal he had learnt a great deal from the course and had not breached the road rules since. He now has a job as a full time driver, having been given medical clearance by VicRoads to operate a heavy vehicle, and would do nothing to jeopardise his licence as the consequences would have an enormous impact on his family.

12. In the Delegate’s determination to cancel the approval of Mr Hussein’s conferral of Australian citizenship he stated:

    I am satisfied that although with no convictions, you have been found guilty of driving whilst authorisation suspended in June 2012 and 2 charges of criminal damage, unlawful assault and contra family violence final intervention order on 24 July 2014 which adjourned to 24 July 2016. Having regard to the sentences imposed I’m satisfied that your offences are at the middle to high range of significance, these weigh against you being of good character. I give this a considerable weight in my assessment of whether you are good character.

    …….

    I have considered whether a reasonable amount of time has passed since you were free of an obligation to the court, in order to establish a pattern of good behaviour and thus justify a conclusion that a person is now of good character. Your obligation to the court, in the form of a adjournment period ended on 24 July 2016. This weighs against you being of good character. I give this factor considerable weight in my assessment of whether you are a good character.

    I acknowledge your explanation that the incident was to do with domestic problems and you stated that you did not physically harm your family member. However, as the court released you on an adjournment of 2 years, this indicates that there are signs of unpredictability. Therefore, I am not satisfied that a reasonable amount of time has passed since the end of your adjournment period 24 July 2016 – to establish a pattern of good behaviour and to conclude that you are now of good character. (T2 p8)

CONSIDERATION

1. Mr Hussein’s advocate contends that Mr Hussein has been honest and frank about his behaviour and does not dispute any of his traffic offences or proceedings before the Court. He is ashamed about his offending and truly sorry for how he has treated his wife in the past.

2. Mr Hussein’s advocate contended that this offending occurred whilst he was heavily medicated as a result of the motorcycle accident and the acquired brain injury he sustained in Indonesia. Mr Hussein has now ceased taking the medication, has been dealing with the traumas of his past and has taken steps to help himself and his family by gaining full-time employment, purchasing a home and seeking to cement his life in Australia by becoming an Australian citizen.

3. Mr Hussein’s advocate contends that sufficient time has passed since Mr Hussein’s offending occurred. His last driving court appearance was in 2012 and the last reported incident of domestic violence occurred in 2013. In 2014, on an appeal of the 2013 decision, Mr Hussein received no conviction but was required to make an adjourned undertaking for two years.

4. Advocate for the respondent contended that Mr Hussein was not of good character as required by section 21(2)(h) of the Act to be eligible to apply for Australian citizenship. Mr Hussein’s pattern of offending demonstrated a disregard for Australian values, laws and institutions. Furthermore, the respondent’s advocate submitted that a completely insufficient period of time had passed since Mr Hussein’s last offending had occurred, which they considered ended in 2016 at the conclusion of the adjournment period. For the Tribunal to be satisfied that Mr Hussein has demonstrated good character it needed to be over a lasting or enduring period.

5. Advocate for the respondent contended that despite the lack of custodial sentence imposed on Mr Hussein his offending was of a serious nature. He had inflicted harm on his wife which they contended was witnessed by his young children on both occasions. Advocate for the respondent contended that during the first incident the baby was in the house, Mr and Mrs Hussein both testified that baby was asleep in another room when the incident occurred. Advocate for the respondent contended that during the second incident the children were present and the Tribunal should prefer the police statement of the event over the evidence given by both Mr and Mrs Hussein at the hearing. They could not recall the incident clearly but believed the children were in another room when the incident occurred. The Minister argued that family violence is a serious and unacceptable offence and that domestic violence is completely unacceptable to the Australian community particularly where it impacts young children.

6. Advocate for the respondent contended that Mr Hussein had attempted to minimise the seriousness of his offences in his statement. The respondent contends that little weight should be given to Mrs Hussein’s statement and testimony as her answers, particularly in respect to the second incident, had been evasive and of little assistance to the Tribunal. It did not mitigate the seriousness of his past violence nor was it a reliable indicator of his ongoing good behaviour. The numerous character references provided little assistance to the Tribunal as they did not refer to Mr Hussein’s offending and medical reports in respect of his depression and chronic pain had no bearing on his good character.

7. Advocate for the respondent contended the Tribunal should have regard to the report of Dr Michael King, clinical psychologist dated 9 September 2017 as it found that Mr Hussein required:

   Ongoing clinical assistance will be required to assist him in understanding his limitations and in order to help him to acquire a cautious and consistent habit of recognizing the difference between situations he can deal with, and those which overwhelm him and lead to faulty decisions and actions.

8. The Tribunal considered the issue of Mr Hussein’s good character in light of the Policy guideline, as the Act is silent on the definition of good character. The Tribunal found that Mr Hussein would not be considered of good character as he had been violent, and had caused harm to others through his conduct (for example recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without licence or insurance).

9. The Tribunal was impressed by Mr Hussein as a witness and the efforts he has made to help himself and his family have a better life in Australia to leave behind the past trauma of their life in Iraq and time in Indonesia. Mr Hussein showed positive signs of attempting to take control of his life, having stopped taking all the medication he was on some 9/10 months ago, getting off the disability support pension, finding full time work, purchasing his own home, learning English and being an active parent. He told the Tribunal that if he is now angry with his wife or situation at home he simply goes for a walk in the park and clears his head and then deals with the situation in a calm and rational manner.

10. Mrs Hussein seemed genuine when testifying to the Tribunal that her husband was a devoted father, who provides for his family and they have had no issues since the police were last called to their home. Her husband has been greatly affected by the motorcycle accident in Indonesia but he was now off all the medication and was working hard often six days a week to support the family. She believed he should become an Australian citizen as she and the children had to ensure they all had a secure future in Australia.

11. The Australian community expects that people will be given a chance to redeem themselves and Mr Hussein has demonstrated he has sought to rehabilitate himself through seeking psychological help, undertaking courses and taking himself off all his medication. However, the Australian community has a low tolerance for individuals who show no respect for our laws and values by demonstrating a pattern of offending particularly against women and children.

12. The Tribunal believes the Australian community would appreciate the efforts Mr Hussein has taken to turn his life around but they would feel not enough time has lapsed since his last offending. There is a contention between the parties in respect of when the clock starts ticking to assess when Mr Hussein last offended to get a picture of time that he has demonstrated he is compliant with Australian laws and values. Mr Hussein’s advocate contented he had five years of good behaviour since his last recorded offence took place. Advocate for the respondent contended Mr Hussein had only demonstrated over one year of good behaviour as his obligation to the court ended in 2016. The Tribunal referred to Re Mana and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2016] AATA 639 (26 August 2016) which stated that:

    However, the guidelines implicitly, and properly, reject the notion that "intrinsic character" is fixed in time. The question to be determined is whether the person has satisfied the Minister of their "good character" at the time of the relevant decision - (in the present circumstances the date of this Tribunal's decision): see ACA 2007 s 21(2)(h) & Dandan and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AATA 539 at [3]-[10]. Consequently the length of time that has passed since the last instance of an applicant's impugned conduct is, as the delegate's reasoning in the June 2015 refusal decision indicated, a relevant consideration. I remarked earlier on the suggestion in the guidelines that good character involves characteristics that "have been demonstrated over a very long period of time":….

    The guidelines suggest that in most cases the required period "will go back prior to any visa application": Australian Citizenship Instructions Chapter 10.5.4; Citizenship Policy Chapter 11, page 150. This suggestion appears to allude to the various "residence" requirements in ACA 2007 ss 22 - 22B. The typical "general residence requirement" is a period of 4 years. …..

    Finally, although a finding of satisfaction about character is ultimately the result of an impressionistic evaluation of a range of considerations, it is not a matter of merely subjective preference in the weighing of those considerations. This point is inherent in the guidelines' emphasis on the applicant's lawful conduct, and the obligations of citizenship. But the guidelines attempt to add some degree of emphasis exhorting the citizenship decision maker to apply "community standards" rather than "their own personal standards". Both the Australian Citizenship Instructions (at Chapter 10.5.4) and the Citizenship Policy (at Chapter 11, page 149) suggest that in applying this instruction decision makers should be enquiring (i) whether a person of good character would have engaged in the applicant's conduct, (ii) about the extent of the applicant's lawful conduct, (iii) about the extent of the applicant's compliance with Australian community standards, and (iv) about the extent that the applicant shares and respects Australian democratic beliefs.

    The Tribunal found that insufficient time has passed since Mr Hussein’s offending took place to consider him of good character.

13. The Tribunal is aware that this decision will cause considerable distress to Mr Hussein and his family and may even impact his ability to continue down the path he is currently taking. However this decision should not be read as implying that Mr Hussein is a bad person, in fact the Tribunal was highly impressed by Mr. Hussein’s efforts to create a better life for himself and his family under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. However the Tribunal found the offending was serious and not enough time had lapsed to consider him of good character at this point in time. The Tribunal would strongly encourage Mr Hussein to continue with his program of self-help and in time reapply for citizenship. The Tribunal again refers to Re Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [2000] AATA 931, where Deputy President Breen stated:

    The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few year’s time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.

CONCLUSION

1. The Tribunal having considered the applicant’s statements, character references and all the evidence placed before the hearing affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 48 (forty-eight)  paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Anna Burke

[sgd]...........................................................

Associate

Dated: 20 April 2018

Date(s) of hearing:

24 January 2018

Advocate for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Ms Anna Emad

Enaam Eljari Migration Services

Advocate for the Respondent:

Ms Melinda Jackson

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor