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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse an application for Australian citizenship by conferral. The applicant, a 49-year-old Israeli citizen, sought citizenship despite a prior manslaughter conviction in Israel approximately 30 years ago, for which he served a five-year prison sentence. While residing in Australia, he was convicted of domestic violence offences against his then-wife, including intentionally causing injury and contravening a family violence intervention order, although these resulted in no recorded conviction and a Community Corrections Order. The applicant also failed to disclose his Israeli conviction on an incoming passenger card upon arrival in Australia and did not disclose his Australian offending in his 2017 citizenship application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a person of good character at the time of the Minister's decision, as required by section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to form a judgment and reach an affirmative belief that the applicant possessed the requisite good character, which is an evaluative assessment rather than a factual determination subject to a strict burden of proof. The Tribunal considered the applicant's explanations for his past offending and non-disclosure, including claims of false conviction in Israel and inadequate legal representation for his Australian offences.

The Tribunal placed considerable weight on the applicant's manslaughter conviction in Israel, noting it was a serious offence involving the death of another person and constituted a "serious prison sentence" under the Act. The applicant's claims of false conviction were uncorroborated and therefore given no weight. Regarding his Australian offending, while acknowledging the absence of recorded convictions and the cessation of the Community Corrections Order, the Tribunal found the applicant's continued attempts to impugn these convictions indicative of a lack of insight, which exacerbated character concerns. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the applicant's explanations for failing to disclose his criminal history to immigration authorities and in his citizenship application to be unpersuasive, highlighting his personal responsibility for the accuracy of documents lodged in his name. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's history of violent criminal offences, his continued denial of responsibility, and his lack of truthfulness in dealings with government agencies were inconsistent with the enduring moral qualities expected of a person of good character.