Jaffrie and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) - [2025] ARTA 1187

Jaffrie and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 1187 (30 July 2025)

Applicant:Sadiq Jaffrie
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2024/3617
Tribunal:Senior Member A. Nikolic
Place:Melbourne
Date:30 July 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.

...............[SGD]...............
Senior Member A. Nikolic
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – citizen of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – refusal based on delegate not being satisfied of applicant’s identities – Tribunal not satisfied of Applicant’s identity – reviewable decision affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 78 AAR 481
BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865
Dhayakpa and Minister for immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310
G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 266 FCR 511
GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] AATA 3245 Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (27 November 2020)
Department of Home Affairs – Citizenship Procedural Instructions – CPI 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (reissued 1 January 2022)
Other Sources
Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 9 November 2005, 12 (John Cobb, Minister).
Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 (Cth) 26, 53.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant, Mr Sadiq Jaffrie, has asked the Tribunal to review the Respondent’s decision to refuse his application for Australian citizenship by conferral. The refusal decision was made based on the identity criteria at s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).[1]
[1] Exhibit R1, 10-26.
This application was heard by video on 16 and 17 July 2025. The Applicant was represented by Mr Abhishek Kumar, a solicitor with MIC Lawyers. The Respondent was represented by Ms Emma Letcher Boldt, a solicitor with Clayton Utz Lawyers.
For the following reasons the Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant states he was born in Oruzgan Province Afghanistan on 31 December 1984 and is of Hazara ethnicity and Shi’a Muslim faith.[2] In 2005 he lodged an asylum claim in England, but this was unsuccessful. He was deported to Afghanistan in April 2009 after exhausting his appeal rights.[3]
[2] Ibid 106 [2]-[3].
[3] Ibid 131 [3].
In December 2010, some 20 months after being deported from England, the Applicant arrived in Australia as an Unauthorised Maritime Arrival (UMA).[4] He applied for a Refugee Status Assessment in early 2011 that was unsuccessful.[5] The Applicant sought review of this decision and, on 20 October 2011, a delegate of the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship decided he did satisfy the definition of a refugee.[6]
[4] Ibid 131 [2], 147. An Unauthorised Maritime Arrival is defined at s 5AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to include a person who entered Australia by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jaffrie and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citize...

Details

AGLC: Jaffrie and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 1187
Case: [2025] ARTA 1187
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, born in Afghanistan, applied for Australian citizenship by conferral. The Minister refused the application, and the Applicant sought review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The central issue for the Tribunal was whether it could be satisfied of the Applicant's identity based on the evidence presented. The Tribunal considered documentary evidence, including statements of facts, issues, and contentions, and oral evidence from the Applicant, who testified with the assistance of an interpreter. The Applicant's evidence contained numerous inconsistencies, including variations in family composition, discrepancies in financial transactions, and conflicting accounts of his movements and identity documents. The Tribunal noted the lack of biometric evidence and the absence of corroborative documents to support the Applicant's claims.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's evidence was marked by significant contradictions and inconsistencies, particularly regarding family composition and financial transactions. The Applicant's shifting explanations and denials about key facts raised concerns about potential breaches of false or misleading information provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not made a compelling case for why the refusal of his citizenship application should be overturned. The lack of reliable documentary evidence and the absence of opportunities to secure additional evidence further undermined the Applicant's claims. The Tribunal was not satisfied of the Applicant's identity, affirming the Minister's decision to refuse the citizenship application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the following reasons the Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.BACKGROUND The Applicant states he was born in Oruzgan Province Afghanistan on 31 December 1984 and is of Hazara ethnicity and Shi’a Muslim faith.[2] In 2005 he lodged an asylum claim in England, but this was unsuccessful. He was deported to Afghanistan in April 2009 after exhausting his appeal rights.[3][2] Ibid 106 [2]-[3].[3] Ibid 131 [3]. In December 2010, some 20 months after being deported from England, the Applicant arrived in Australia as an Unauthorised Maritime Arrival (UMA).[4] He applied for a Refugee Status Assessment in early 2011 that was unsuccessful.[5] The Applicant sought review of this decision and, on 20 October 2011, a delegate of the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship decided he did satisfy the definition of a refugee.[6][4] Ibid 131 [2], 147. An Unauthorised Maritime Arrival is defined at s 5AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to include a person who entered Australia by sea at an excised offshore place.[5] Exhibit R1, 121-145.[6] Ibid 155. On 23 November 2011, the Applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa.[7] This was granted a week later on 30 November 2011.[8][7] Ibid 158-184.[8] Ibid 185-188. On 25 February 2013, the Applicant sponsored a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa for his mother and siblings residing in Pakistan. This was refused.[9][9] Ibid 185-188. On 15 February 2016, the Applicant lodged a citizenship application.[10] Between March 2017 and April 2024 he provided additional information in support of this application.[11][10] Ibid 191-203.[11] Ibid 205-252. On 29 March 2021, the Applicant was granted a five-year Resident Return visa.[12][12] Ibid 6 [8], 28. On 1 May 2024, the citizenship application was refused.[13] He applied to the Tribunal for review of the refusal decision on 29 May 2024.[14][13] Ibid 23-39.[14] Ibid 14-22.LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK Section 52(1)(b) of the Act is the source of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Minister or a delegate under s 24 of the Act. Section 21(2) of the Act provides that a person can apply to the Minister to become an Australian citizen and sets out general eligibility requirements a person must meet: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 that application.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The issue to be determined is whether the Tribunal is satisfied, at the date of its decision, of the Applicant’s identity.EVIDENCEDocumentary evidence The Tribunal has considered a Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions (SFIC)[20] dated 22 April 2025 that was lodged by Mr Kumar. The Respondent’s SFIC lodged by Ms Letcher-Boldt on 20 May 2025 has also been considered. A Hearing Folder from the Respondent numbering 781 pages was taken into evidence.[21] This contains documents lodged by the Applicant during the pre-hearing phase.[20] An SFIC is routinely lodged by parties during the pre-hearing phase and is comparable to a pleadings document in a court proceeding. It serves to identify / narrow the issues in dispute and helps ensure both sides are aware of and have an opportunity to answer each other’s case. [21] Exhibit R1.Oral evidence The Applicant was the only witness called to give oral evidence and did so with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hazaragi language. He did not lodge a statement for this proceeding. The Applicant’s oral evidence is summarised as follows:Afghanistan and Pakistan(a)The Applicant said he undertook religious studies for five years in Afghanistan and recalled his father travelled to Iran and other places. He stated that he had seen his father killed by the Taliban. When asked about the claim recorded by Australian authorities in 2010 that the murder of his brother-in-law was the precipitating event for his departure from Afghanistan,[22] the Applicant said the Taliban also killed his brother-in-law.[22] Ibid 629.(b)The Applicant said his mother and five siblings had lived together in Quetta, Pakistan since 2004. He named each sibling and answered ‘No’ to Ms Letcher-Boldt’s questions about any other brothers or sisters. When asked why Australian officials recorded in 2010 that he was unaware of the whereabouts of his mother and all but one sibling,[23] the Applicant responded: ‘I’m not really sure…Maybe they recorded it mistakenly’. [23] Ibid 102.(c)The Applicant agreed his mother and siblings know him best. When asked why there is no statement from them in this proceeding, the Applicant said this decision was based on legal advice. He claimed to speak regularly with his mother and other family members by telephone about twice a month and said they continue to live in Pakistan to the present day as undocumented refugees. (d)The Applicant said he became engaged to a Hazara woman in Pakistan in 2023 ‘over the telephone’ and hopes to bring her to Australia. He first met her in 2012 while visiting his family in Pakistan. In accordance with cultural custom, his mother then approached her. He referred to participation in a Nikkah, which is an Islamic ceremony under Shariah law to formalise an intended union. Asylum application in the United Kingdom(e)The Applicant said he travelled to the United Kingdom (UK) in 2005 to claim asylum. He recalled paying people smugglers USD$5,000 for arranging his passage, without travel documents, through Iran, Turkey, Greece, Italy and France by car and boat. After arriving in London, he undertook English lessons and worked illegally at a pizza shop while his asylum claim was considered. The Applicant said he was deported by the ‘Home Office’ to Kabul in 2009 after his application was refused and appeal rights exhausted. There is no independent evidence about these events. (f)When asked if he possessed an official Afghan identity card known as a Tazkira, when claiming asylum in England, the Applicant replied: ‘I can’t remember much about the UK’. When referred to submissions from his lawyer that he had obtained a Tazkira with the help of an agent in Afghanistan and provided it to British authorities,[24] the Applicant said he provided ‘either a Tazkira, licence or passport’. He was asked about the inconsistency of this with earlier evidence that he did not possess travel documents and relied on people smugglers. The Applicant then recalled handing over a Tazkira to British officials claiming other detainees told him to do so or he would be deported. The Applicant agreed he has not provided this Tazkira to Australian officials since arrival. He is unsure what happened to it, has never asked British authorities for its return, did not receive an explanation why it wasn’t returned, and has not taken steps to retrieve it during the last six years.[24] Ibid 248.(g)After being deported from the UK the Applicant said he stayed in Afghanistan for about six months before accompanying his sister Tahera to re-join their mother and other siblings in Quetta. The name Tahera was not among the siblings he listed earlier and the Applicant changed his evidence at this point to having five sisters and one brother in Pakistan. His explanation for not mentioning Tahera was because she was married. When challenged that marriage did not render her any less a sister, the Applicant’s response did not assist.Family composition(h)Ms Letcher-Boldt asked the Applicant about his past family composition claims, which is summarised as follows:(i)Two records completed in December 2010 after the Applicant’s arrival in Australia record his claims about having seven siblings comprising three brothers and four sisters. [25] Tahera is not one of the siblings listed on either form, one of which has both foreign and English language entries. The Applicant does not know why this is the case and said references to brothers called ‘Urfan’ and ‘Rezai’ were mistakes made by the person who completed the forms. He claimed several times not to have brothers called Urfan / Irfan or Reza / Rezai and does not know who these names refer to. The Applicant said he did not complete the form and could not recall if he asked someone else to. When referred to the last page of the Biodata form containing a signature in his name,[26] the Applicant claimed it is not his. In response to further questions the Applicant responded: ‘Maybe I wrote the Farsi and signed it in the detention centre – I can’t remember’.[25] Ibid 102, 620-642.[26] Ibid 104.(ii)The Applicant was asked about a ‘Personal Particulars for Character Assessment Form 80’ and accompanying statement completed on 16 February 2011.[27] He agreed that interpreters assisted him in completing this and other forms.[28] On this occasion the Applicant agreed the signature is his.[29] The Tribunal notes the comparable nature of this signature to others in evidence around the same time, including the signature on the 2010 Biodata form that the Applicant claims is not his.[30] [27] Ibid 106-120.[28] Ibid 105, 108-109[29] Ibid 116.[30] Ibid, 104, 108, 116.(iii)It is also stated in the 2011 Personal Particulars Form that the Applicant has seven siblings (three brothers and five sisters).[31] Irfan and Reza are again included, but Tahera is not. The Applicant insisted: ‘They are not my brothers…Maybe they wrote it mistakenly’. In relation to the omission of Tahera, the Applicant explained that in his culture when a sister is married their name is not mentioned because ‘they have their own family’. He stated that she was his only married sister at the time. When again put to him that marriage does not mean Tahera is no longer his sister, the Applicant’s response did not assist the Tribunal. He again referred to a ‘very crowded’ environment in detention and the stress he was experiencing. [31] Ibid 118.(iv)When put by Ms Letcher-Boldt that it was unusual for two separate records in 2010 and 2011 to record Irfan and Reza as the Applicant’s brothers, yet he now insists he does not have brothers by those names, the Applicant said detention centres are ‘very crowded’ and the ‘state of our mind was not very clear…I don’t know how this mistake happened.’(v)After an adjournment, the Applicant was further pressed by Ms Letcher Boldt about whether he gave Irfan and Reza’s names to Australian officials, the Applicant responded: ‘Yes, maybe I provided them’. This was a significant shift from his earlier evidence and enlivened the Tribunal’s concerns in the context of the false or misleading evidence provisions at s 118 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act) and s 50 of the Act. The Tribunal paused questioning at this point to ensure the Applicant understood his privilege against self-incrimination, which the Applicant said he understood. Mr Kumar was also afforded an opportunity to add to the Tribunal’s explanation as the Applicant’s lawyer but did not do so. In response to further questions from Ms Letcher-Boldt, the Applicant conceded that Irfan and Reza are his brothers, that he previously gave their names to Australian officials, and others had since told him: ‘They went to Europe’. He claimed in later evidence that others told him Reza may be in Afghanistan, Iran, or Turkey, but is unaware of Irfan’s whereabouts.(vi)When asked why he gave contradictory evidence to the Tribunal about Irfan and Reza being his siblings, the Applicant said he was ‘not sure’ what to say, claiming they had been ‘missing for many years’. He later gave other explanations, such as these brothers becoming associated with the Taliban and converting to the ‘Sunni’ branch of Islam, such that they were ‘dead’ to him. He said the last time he spoke with Irfan and Reza was in 2009 after being deported from the UK. The Applicant confirmed his current evidence is that he has eight siblings, comprising five sisters and three brothers. (vii)The Applicant was asked about a written response from his current lawyers to the Department on 28 April 2024 that refers to one of his siblings living in the United States.[32] This document also responds to questions about a Pakistani bank account and who has operated a business in Pakistan:[32] Ibid 241-249.Currently, my brother resides in the USA with his wife. I have enquired about his Facebook account, and he mentioned to me that this account had been opened by another person with the same name, and he had nothing to do with this account. Please note that this is a common occurrence in relation to Afghanistan that various will have the same name as well as similar date of birth. It could be a simple coincidence that this account is under my brother's name, but it must have been another person with a similar name. As far as the business named JaQary Movers is concerned, once again, the same explanation can be provided: this person can be anyone with a name similar to my brother. My brother told me that he was not involved with that business.[33][33] Ibid 249.(viii)Ms Letcher-Boldt noted that further reference to a brother in the United States is contained in the Applicant’s SFIC for the current proceeding.[34] The Applicant agreed he provided instructions to his lawyers but denied mentioning a brother in the United States and claims his lawyers made a mistake. He said a photograph of a man called Iftikhar Haidar holding a Pakistani flag[35] is not his brother. He also claimed a business advertisement referring to Iftikhar Jaffary and Irfan Jaffary as heading up the Quetta and Islamabad offices of a company called Jaffary Movers are not references to his brothers.[36] He does not recognise the business name and claimed Iftikhar had told him he has no knowledge of this business. The Applicant agreed there is no corroborating evidence of this from his siblings.[34] Ibid 9 [22]-[23].[35] Ibid 233.[36] Ibid 234.(ix)The Applicant was asked about a ‘Personal Particulars for Character Assessment Form 80’ lodged with the Department on 25 June 2019. He said this was lodged with the assistance of a migration agent called Jonathan and he told Jonathan what to write on the form. When asked why only five siblings are listed, including reference to a sibling called Nageen,[37] the Applicant said this was a mistake by the Migration Agent because Nageen is Tahera’s daughter and therefore his niece.[37] Ibid 225.Travel to Australia(i)The Applicant claimed that after being deported from the UK in 2009 he stayed in Afghanistan for about six months, then in Pakistan for about a month before leaving for Australia. He recalled paying people smugglers USD$22,000 for passage to Australia and again claimed he had no travel documents. This conflicts with a claim recorded soon after arrival in Australia that he commenced his journey from Iran on a fraudulent Iranian passport.[38] When asked how he obtained the considerable funds required to pay people smugglers for passage to Australia, the Applicant said he sold family land in Afghanistan and that his family was ‘not poor’ because both he and his mother had money.[38] Ibid 634-635.(j)The Applicant agreed his self-assessment about having a ‘Fair’ knowledge of English after arriving in Australia was correct.[39] He also agreed that he told Australian authorities that he had no documents from Afghanistan. The Applicant claimed it was only after returning to Pakistan to see his family in 2012 that he retrieved his Afghan driver’s licence from his mother. He first obtained this licence in 2009 after being deported from the UK. The Applicant recalled using this licence to obtain an Australian licence from the Roads and Traffic Authority in Sydney. The Afghan licence has not been lodged in the current proceeding.[39] Ibid 624.(k)When asked about references in Australian records to multiple variations of his name (Sadiq, Sadig, Jafari, Jaffrie, Jafary), including differences in the spelling of his family name with those of immediate relatives,[40] the Applicant said he does not know why: ‘It’s not my job’, and said he is ‘not very sufficient in English’. He also does not know why there are differences in dates of birth or different ages attributed to him in some records.[41] The Applicant disagreed with a reference to his Tazkira stating he is 24-and-a-half years old, which would mean his date of birth is in August 1986. He said one reason for differences in birth dates and ages could be that an interpreter used on one occasion was an ’Iranian Farsi speaker and [the Applicant] couldn’t understand him’. He insisted that his date of birth is as he currently claims.[40] Ibid 98, 118, 130, 153, 621.[41] Ibid 130.(l)The Applicant agreed that his current evidence contains multiple claims that others made mistakes when completing documents after his arrival in Australia. He is ‘not sure’ how they recorded the information he provided.Financial transactions(m)A key aspect of Ms Letcher-Boldt’s cross examination related to international financial transfers involving the Applicant during a 14-year period between January 2012 and February 2024.[42] Specific reference was made to the following transfers to people with the same or comparable names to his immediate relatives:(i)The Applicant was asked about a $98.99 transfer in his name to Iftikhar Hussain on 12 February 2015, who is listed as a ‘beneficiary customer’ of a Pakistani bank.[43] The Applicant agreed he transferred the money but insisted his brother Iftikhar ‘doesn’t have any account in Pakistan’. He claimed the recipient of this transaction is not his brother but someone his brother nominated to receive the funds on his behalf.(ii)The Applicant was asked about a $542.21 transfer in his name to Iftikhar Hussain on 21 February 2015, who is listed as a ‘beneficiary customer’ of a different bank in Pakistan.[44] The Applicant agreed he transferred the money but responded: ‘It is the name of my brother but it doesn’t mean it belongs to him and could be his friend…maybe it’s the middle man who gives the money to my brother’. (iii)The Applicant was asked about a $238.57 transfer in his name via the Hawala money broker system to Irfan Jafari on 23 April 2015, stating it was for ‘family support’.[45] He agreed that he sent this money but denied it was to his brother Irfan Jafari. He claimed that his other brother, Iftikhar, told him to send the money through a friend who is coincidentally also called Irfan Jafari and stated: ‘there are many people with this name’. When asked why he did not just send the funds directly to Iftikhar, the Applicant claimed Iftikhar ‘doesn’t have any documents over there’. The Tribunal notes multiple other records where the Applicant has sent funds to people called Irfan Jafari or Irfan Ali labelled ‘family support’.[46](iv)The Applicant was asked about a $988.21 transfer in his name to Shazia Abdul Rasheed on 4 June 2015, who has the same first name as one of his sisters and is listed as a ‘beneficiary customer’ of a bank in Pakistan.[47] He claimed he did not send these funds and does not know who did so. (v)The Applicant was asked about a transaction on 26 June 2015 in his name, where $380.85 was sent to Iftikhar Hussain, again using the Hawala money broker system. The Applicant agreed this is his brother in Quetta and claimed that by this stage Iftikhar had ‘obtained his documents’. He continued to insist, however, that neither Iftikhar nor other family in Quetta have a bank account. When challenged by Ms Letcher-Boldt that the financial records disclose money was sent to Iftikhar and other family members for family support / assistance, and some are described as a ‘beneficiary customer’ of Pakistani Banks, the Applicant responded: ‘I’m not sure.’ He said as far as he knows they don’t have accounts, and he sends them money through Iftikhar via money dealers and Western Union whenever they need support with rent and other expenses.(vi)The Applicant was asked about a $444.79 transfer made in his name to ‘Shazia Shazia’ on 15 September 2015, who has the same name as one of his sisters and is listed as a ‘beneficiary customer’ of a bank in Pakistan.[48] He agreed that he transferred this money, and the beneficiary is his sister Shazia. He insisted, however, that Shazia ‘doesn’t have any bank account’.(vii)The Applicant was asked about a $520.29 transfer made in his name to Bakhtawar Rashid on 21 November 2018, who is listed as a ‘beneficiary customer’ of a bank in Pakistan.[49] The Applicant agreed he transferred the money, and the beneficiary has the same first name as his mother but could not recall the transaction or the bank it was sent to.[42] Ibid 273-619.[43] Ibid 357.[44] Ibid 365.[45] Ibid 375-376.[46] Ibid 300, 313, 323, 325, 362, 367, 380, 448, 473, 475, 497, 542, 544, 562.[47] Ibid 385.[48] Ibid 397.[49] Ibid 526.Documents

Decision

Reasons for decision

It remains unclear to the Tribunal why the Applicant or those acting for him have not sought to recover the original Tazkira he claims to have given British authorities when making an unsuccessful asylum claim in 2005, or documents that are likely to be available about the refusal of his asylum claim, which may help corroborate his identity. This could have included, for example, approaches to British consular officials in Australia or the UK.CONCLUSION The Act does not specify how a decision-maker is to be satisfied of identity. There is also no evidential burden on an applicant to prove this nor does the Respondent have to disprove identity claims. It is self-evident, however, that a party seeking merits review needs to make the case for why an earlier administrative decision should be supplanted. The Applicant’s character is yet to be assessed by the Respondent pursuant to s 21(1)(h) of the Act.[76] That said, aspects of the evidence in the current proceeding enliven concerns about potential breaches of the false or misleading information provisions at s 118 of the ART Act and s 50 of the Act. This includes: (a)Stark differences in the Applicant’s evidence about family composition. This includes express denials in oral evidence about knowing people called Irfan and Reza, only to later concede they are his brothers.(b)He is recorded as telling Australian officials in 2010 and 2011 that he was unaware of the whereabouts of his mother and all but one sibling after their house was purportedly destroyed by the Taliban.[77] In the current proceeding, however, he claims to have re-joined his mother and siblings in Pakistan in 2009, where they had lived since 2004. (c)In his 2016 citizenship application the Applicant claimed the only national identity document he has is an Afghan driver’s licence and had never been deported from another country. A 2019 Personal Particulars Form 80 includes the claim that he never held any national identity document, nor had he been deported from another country. The latter is factually incorrect and his evidence about the former has evolved over time.[76] Ibid 29.[77] Ibid 102, 154. Other aspects of the Applicant’s evidence, including about international financial transfers since 2012, blaming others for multiple documentary inconsistencies, claiming not to have seen or signed certain forms in his name, and memory problems was unpersuasive This is particularly so because documents were completed with the assistance of migration agents, lawyers and interpreters. There is no evidence that those assisting him recorded other than what they were told. The Tribunal was left with the impression that aspects of the Applicant’s evidence were overly general, opaque, or less than forthright. These factors weigh against accepting his assertions alone. The Applicant’s past receipt of visas or Australian-issued identity documents is not determinative of identity in a citizenship context. Were this the case, the issue of a visa and/or other Australian-issued documents would be provided for under the Act as determinative. The statutory emphasis on identity in the Act, however, requires the Tribunal to consider the probative value of evidence advanced and whether applicants have availed themselves of ‘opportunities to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist’.[78] Such enquiries are necessary to protect the integrity of Australia’s citizenship system because of the considerable privileges and benefits citizenship bestows.[78] Dhayakpa and Minister for immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310 at [117].

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Ms Letcher-Boldt said the Respondent’s SFIC continues to be relied upon, including the contention that the Applicant’s relatives may either be Pakistani citizens or eligible for Pakistani citizenship. She further submitted that the Respondent is not required to disprove the Applicant’s claims. Ms Letcher-Boldt said the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of his identity because of a dearth of biometric information or reliable documents, lack of corroborative evidence, and contradictory information about his life story.CONSIDERATIONBiometric information The biometric evidence in this case is scant. It is uncontested the few photographs available are of the Applicant.[53] There are also references to a photograph of the Applicant’s brother Iftikhar being provided as part of a 2013 Humanitarian Visa application.[54] The Respondent claims there is also a more recent photograph of Iftikhar taken from a social media account.[55] The 2013 photograph is not in evidence and the social media photograph is of a person called Iftikhar Haidar, which is the same first name but a different family name. A delegate of the Respondent has stated that social media checks disclose the Applicant’s brother Iftikhar ‘uses the surname Haidar’,[56] but evidence about this was not led, nor was this contention advanced during the hearing. There is no evidence from Iftikhar in this proceeding despite the Applicant stating they speak frequently and that he has sent multiple payments to him over the years to help support their family in Pakistan.[53] Ibid 1, 3, 5, 203, 252.[54] Ibid 21.[55] Ibid 233-234.[56] Ibid 233. In terms of signatures, there is no expert evidence about this. The Applicant claims he did not sign a handwritten Biodata form in December 2010 containing text in two languages.[57] The Tribunal’s impression, however, is that the signature on this form is comparable to others submitted in his name soon after arrival. The Applicant agreed during oral testimony that one of these is his.[58] The group of signatures soon after his arrival in Australia, however, are incomparable to others on his protection visa application,[59] 2016 citizenship application,[60] and 2019 Personal Particulars Form.[61] It is not possible without expert evidence about this behavioural biometric to make reliable findings.[57] Ibid 104.[58] Ibid 108, 116, 620, 637, 643.[59] Ibid 167, 179, 182. [60] Ibid 199, 202.[61] Ibid 228.Documents Documents can help establish identity but are neither legally essential nor determinative. This includes identity documents, more general documents, or other materials such as photographs or letters. These can assist the broad evaluative judgement on which identity assessments are based. That said, the Tribunal accepts that dates relating to notable life events in western countries such as a person’s birth or marriage are culturally less important in other parts of the world. Documentary inconsistencies can also arise from different calendars, such as the Persian Solar Hijri Calendar used in Afghanistan. The Tribunal is obliged, however, to consider what documents might reasonably be available, what efforts have been made to obtain them, and any explanations given for inconsistencies within and between documents. The Applicant’s evidence about what documents he has possessed or could obtain has changed over time.