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

Jimma and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2024] ARTA 274 (18 December 2024)
Applicant/s:  Nebiyat Seid Jimma
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:                2023/7922

Tribunal:R Cameron, General Member
Place:Melbourne
Date:18 December 2024

Decision:Pursuant to section 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

................................[SGD]........................................
R Cameron, General Member
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP –citizenship by conferral – delegate refused application for citizenship – whether Tribunal is satisfied as to the applicant’s identity pursuant to section 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 – meaning of identity – pillars of identity – where applicant possesses multiple birth certificates – where applicant citizen of Ethiopia – where Applicant a refugee from the age of 14 – inconsistent evidence about aspects of life story – inconsistencies concerning the applicant’s name and date of birth, the identity of her father, the identity of her mother and her siblings – inconsistencies critical to question of identity – oral evidence given by the applicant and witness must be viewed with considerable caution unless corroborated by reliable contemporaneous documents or other admissible evidence – decision under review is affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials
Citizenship Procedural Instructions (‘CPI’)
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE MATTER

The applicant seeks a review of a decision of a delegate of the respondent made on 19 October 2023 which refused her application for conferral of Australian citizenship (‘the reviewable decision’). The reason for the refusal of conferral of Australian citizenship on the applicant was that the delegate of the respondent Minister was not satisfied of the applicant’s identity as required by section 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (‘the Act’).
On 11 July 2016, an application for Australian citizenship by conferral was lodged by the applicant with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
After some time, a delegate of the Department of Home affairs sent a letter to the applicant on 21 September 2021 entitled ‘Invitation to comment on adverse information-application for Australian citizenship by conferral’. Amongst other things, that letter stated that it was being sent to her to give her the opportunity to comment on, or provide an explanation about, adverse information that was in the possession of the Department that might lead to a decision to refuse her application for Australian citizenship. That letter was comparatively lengthy, comprising approximately 12 pages, and contained detailed information concerning several inconsistencies arising from an examination of relevant information in the possession of the Department concerning the question of the applicant’s identity.
The applicant via an immigration agent that she had appointed to assist her with respect to the application for Australian citizenship by conferral, provided further information on 16 November 2021 in response to the letter sent previously to her inviting a comment on adverse information. The letter of 16 November 2021 included a statutory declaration made by the applicant on 15 November 2021 together with birth certificates for her 3 children and a list of her family members comprising four pages.
Subsequently, as referred to above, the delegate made the reviewable decision 19 October 2023 refusing the application for Australian citizenship by conferral on the grounds that he was not satisfied as to the applicant’s identity.
THE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL
There is one issue in dispute between the parties which requires determination by the Tribunal. That issue is whether the Tribunal standing in the shoes of the decision-maker is satisfied of the applicant’s identity as required by section 24(3) of the Act.
THE EVIDENCE AND OTHER MATERIAL
There was both documentary and oral evidence given at the hearing of the application.
Received in evidence was a Joint Tribunal Book (‘JTB’) prepared by the parties in accordance with directions previously given.
The applicant and her aunt, Ms Kadir gave oral evidence on affirmation and were quite extensively cross examined.
Both the applicant and the respondent lodged Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
At the conclusion of the hearing, both parties lodged and served written submissions.
THE APPLICABLE LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK
As has already been noted, the section of the Act that must be construed and applied in this matter is section 24(3) of the Act – ‘Ministers decision’. The section provides as follows: ‘The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.’
Decision-makers, including the Delegate of the respondent when making the reviewable decision, also took into account and applied the provisions of Chapter 16 ‘Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act’ of the applicable Citizenship Procedural Instructions (‘CPI’). The contents of that chapter are referred to in their entirety. It is well-established that departmental policy documents such as the CPI should generally be applied by decision-makers, including the Tribunal unless there is a good reason not to do so, such as the contents of the policy document being inconsistent with the true and proper construction of applicable sections of the statute.[1] The integrity of decision-making in particular cases is better assured if decisions can be tested against the guidance given by an adopted policy. The adoption of such a policy can diminish inconsistency between decisions that may otherwise arise in a series of administrative decisions which enhances the fairness and continuity of the relevant administrative process.
[1] See, Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
Whilst it is not necessary for the purposes of this application to reproduce many parts of Chapter 16 of the CPI, it is worthwhile referring to some of its contents to appreciate how they guide or assist decision-makers, such as the Tribunal, in applying section 23(4) of the Act.
Paragraph 4 of the CPI - ‘What is identity?’ provides that a person’s identity is defined by a certain combination of characteristics or attributes that allow that person to be uniquely distinguished from others within a specific context. The paragraph also emphasises that identities need to be trusted and secure and that identity integrity is essential in maintaining Australia’s national security, law-enforcement economic and social interests.
Paragraph 5 – ‘Three pillars of identity’ provides each pillar of identity is made up of individual characteristics. They are as follows:
(a)Biometrics, a measurable characteristic that is unique to a person such as fingerprints or face;
(b)Documents, reliable and secure identity documents as defined by the Security Standards for Proof-of-Identity documents. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features;
(c)Life Story, an account of the events that happened to a person during their lifetime.
Paragraph 5 also emphasises that combining and fact checking the Three Pillars of Identity against each other provides a strong evidence-base to establish an identity.
In paragraph 11 of the CPI, it is specified that while delegates (in this case the Tribunal as decision-maker) must make every effort to inform themselves of the applicant’s identity, the onus is on the applicant to provide information or evidence to support their identity (emphasis added).[2]
[2] CPI (emphasis added).
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE REVIEWABLE DECISION MADE BY THE DELEGATE
It is appropriate to briefly articulate a summary of the reasons of the delegate which contained the grounds for the finding that he was not satisfied of the applicant’s identity. Several grounds were relied upon.
The delegate was not satisfied that he had been furnished with credible and reliable identity documentation issued by the Ethiopian authorities to confirm the applicant’s claimed identity.
Further, the delegate expressed concerns in relation to the information furnished to him concerning the applicant’s name, date of birth and family composition.
The delegate found that there was over time inconsistent information provided by the applicant about the reasons for her name change.
Additional inconsistencies were highlighted with respect to the applicant’s stated date of birth. On several occasions different dates were provided or otherwise referred to by the applicant.
The delegate was not satisfied that he had a complete and accurate account of the applicant’s name change and considered that it was still unclear to him which identity the applicant used in Ethiopia, let alone what her claimed true identity in Ethiopia is or was.
It was also found by the delegate that there was insufficient information concerning the identity of the applicant’s father as well as both the identity and family composition of her mother. He highlighted that there was information before him which contradicted the applicant’s claims about the identity of her mother.
With respect to her own family composition, the delegate found that there was inconsistent information relation to her siblings, including the number of siblings she had, their names in their exact biological relationship to her.
By reason of these inconsistencies that were identified, the delegate stated that he was not satisfied that he had a complete and true account of the basic facts concerning the applicant’s identity. These matters included her claimed name, date of birth and family composition. Accordingly, he concluded the information before him when considered cumulatively, cast doubt on her claimed identity.
SOME BRIEF OBSERVATIONS OF THE ORAL EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT AND MS KADIR
The Tribunal considers that it is appropriate to make some brief observations concerning the evidence given by the applicant and her aunt Ms Kadir. Several things emerged from that evidence.
Understandably, English is not their first language. Although, they gave evidence without the necessity for engaging the services of an interpreter the Tribunal considers that from time to time they did struggle with understanding and responding to questions that were put to them both in evidence in chief and cross examination. This was problematic. However, overall, they understood the questions that were put to them.
Another feature of their evidence, about which further comment will be made concerning specific instances later in these reasons, was a propensity, or practice on their part to sign documents that had been prepared by others, predominantly lawyers or migration agents, regardless of their contents. Unfortunately, this evidence was of some gravity because there were occasions where they both signed documents which contained information, they admitted was incorrect or false. They did so not only knowing that the contents contained information that was incorrect or false, but also knowing that such documents were to be submitted to government departments or agencies in support of various visa applications. In their evidence, both of the applicant and her aunt, Ms Kadir admitted this.
Explanations were offered for why this occurred which were on occasion somewhat difficult to accept. Notwithstanding the fact that English was not the first language of either of them, it seemed that they had a reasonable capacity to protect their own interests, and they clearly knew the difference between right and wrong. It was in this sense puzzling that they allowed documents which they knew to contain incorrect or false information to be proffered in support of various applications for visas from time to time.
Such incorrect information included the wrong name for the applicant, her father and the inclusion of a reference siblings who were not in fact her siblings.
Various explanations for this were proffered. They included that when the applicant escaped from Ethiopia to Kenya with her auntie’s then brother-in-law these details were recorded by the United Nation’s High Commissioner for Refugees (‘UNHCR’) office in Nairobi. The evidence they gave was that these details were furnished to that organisation and that once that information was recorded in its database, it was not possible to change or correct it. It was stated that upon such registration they were given a UNHCR identification number. Also, there was an oblique reference to the fact that if there were an attempt to change the details recorded by the UNHCR such an attempt might attract adverse scrutiny of any potential application for refugee status and subsequent resettlement in another nation. They considered that this might place their attempts to obtain refugee status and subsequent resettlement in jeopardy. This was of concern to both of them. They gave evidence to the effect that they were ‘in bad straits at the time’ when they registered with the UNHCR.
Another explanation given by both witnesses for such incorrect or false information being included in the documentation concerned, was that the information recorded was as a ‘family unit’ and that the applicant had in effect been ‘adopted’ by her auntie’s then brother-in-law and treated as part of his family unit. This on occasion included recording or noting him in official documentation as her ‘father’ when this was not in fact the case. Although not legally adopted, it was contended that there was some kind of informal adoption which arose from the unique circumstances of the applicant fleeing from Ethiopia to Kenya.
Overall, the Tribunal found the explanations offered by the applicant and her auntie about why they signed documents knowing that they contained false or incorrect information to be unconvincing. At best the attitude of both witnesses to signing documents which they knew to contain incorrect or false information, and were to be lodged with government agencies, was casual in the extreme. It seems more probable than not that they did not expect these discrepancies to see the light of day. It does not reflect well upon them, as understandable, as it well might be, that they did not wish to jeopardise their prospects of being classified as refugees and assessed as suitable for resettlement.
By reason of these matters described, the Tribunal views the evidence of the applicant and her auntie with considerable caution unless it is corroborated by a reliable contemporaneous document or other admissible evidence.
CONSIDERATION
The applicant submitted that she has done all that is possible to place before both the delegate and this Tribunal evidence which establishes her identity. It is fair to say that in making this submission the applicant invites the Tribunal to consider the question of her identity with some degree of reality given the history of her leaving Ethiopia at a comparatively young age of 14 years, initially travelling to Kenya and then ultimately resettling in Australia. Emphasis was also placed that at all relevant times she had a limited capacity to speaking English.
In this context, she invites the Tribunal to accept that she was unable to provide much in the way of documentation establishing her identity because she fled Ethiopia when she was 14 years and did not have, and would not be able to obtain, any documentation of an original or authentic nature that would enable her to establish her identity. She was, she said, too young to procure an Ethiopian passport.
It was also competed on her behalf that she should ‘not be punished’ for incorrect information that she may have lodged, or may have been lodged on her behalf, with the relevant department.
Both from the witness box, and in documents lodged with the Department including her statutory declaration of 12 October 2017, the applicant explained that she brought to Australia very few documents that might in some way establish her identity to the requisite standard. Those documents were an allegedly certified copy of a certificate from Behorizons College dated 15 January 2007 which recorded various subjects that she stayed at that college in Kenya, an alleged certified copy of a birth certificate issued on 31 September 2008, a certified copy of a ‘Document for travel to Australia’ and an apparently certified letter from the Kenyan Department of Refugee Affairs of 11 June 2008 which stated, amongst other things, that she was an asylum seeker from Ethiopia. She invites the Tribunal to accept the authenticity and reliability of these documents, in particular the Ethiopian birth certificates.
The applicant also submits that the Tribunal should accept the explanation concerning her identity with respect to the several inconsistencies that have been highlighted both by the delegate and in submissions lodged with the Tribunal at the hearing of this application. With respect to the authenticity of the birth certificate, she emphasised that she had not returned to Ethiopia since she fled in 2004 to Kenya. That an auntie had obtained the birth certificate legitimately in circumstances that were difficult for her given that she is a refugee who was fleeing persecution and did so as a young child on her own.
The applicant also contended in submissions lodged on her behalf and dated 21 June 2024 that the birth certificates furnished demonstrate her true identity.[3]
Three pillars of identity
[3] These submissions are contained in the applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (‘SFIC’) at paragraphs [19] and [28]. Submissions to a similar effect were made orally by the applicant's representative during the hearing of the application and in closing written submissions.
The first pillar of identity: Biometrics
The respondent both in submissions made in writing, and orally acknowledged that the applicant’s biometrics appeared to be consistent across her these applications. The Tribunal agrees with this submission as there was nothing in the material to demonstrate any discrepancy or doubt with respect to biometric evidence that had been submitted to the respondent. Nothing further will be touched on concerning this pillar of identity.
The second pillar of identity: Documents
Overview concerning documents
There are several documents which were the subject of much consideration during the hearing of this application both in terms of evidence from the witness box and submissions made by both parties.
The consideration given to the several documents concerned had several dimensions to it. There was on the one hand a question of whether the documents themselves were authentic, genuine or otherwise capable of being properly relied upon. A further question that arose in this context concerning several documents, was whether the information contained in such documents was correct or accurate. In this setting with respect to some documents there were clear inconsistencies as to several facts that are material to establishing the applicant’s identity to the level of satisfaction required by section 24(3) of the Act. For instance, there were documents that, amongst other things, gave different dates of birth for the applicant, gave different names of her father, and inconsistent details concerning her mother and siblings. Specific details of these inconsistencies will be referred to below.
The Ethiopian birth certificates; inconsistencies between each other and further documents signed and lodged by the applicant

The Tribunal is not satisfied as to the authenticity, accuracy or genuineness of the Ethiopian birth certificates provided by the applicant.
There were two Ethiopian birth certificates for the applicant in evidence. The first Ethiopian birth certificate which accompanied the application for citizenship and was considered by the delegate when making the reviewable decision, is said to be issued by the ‘Jimma City Administration’.[4] A second birth certificate was lodged by the applicant with the Tribunal and served on the respondent on 16 May 2024.[5] This was of course after the reviewable decision was made.
[4] JTB, 123.
[5] The second Ethiopian birth certificate is at pages308 of the JTB . For the purposes of these reasons the birth certificate that was before the delegate will be described as ‘the first Ethiopian birth certificate’. The birth certificate lodged with the Tribunal and served on the respondent on 16 May 2024 will be referred to as ‘the second Ethiopian birth certificate’.
There are several reasons why the Tribunal does not accept the accuracy or genuineness of the Ethiopian birth certificates.
The first Ethiopian birth certificate is said to have been issued on ‘31 September 2008’. Such a fundamental mistake in such an important document issued by a responsible authority, supposedly recording births seems unlikely. The applicant sought to explain this somewhat vaguely by reference to the calendar used in Ethiopia being different to that in Australia. Whilst this contention might have some superficial attraction, it seems inherently implausible as the document is written in English. One would have thought its creator would not have made such a fundamental error. This was after the applicant had left Ethiopia. Attached to it as a photograph purportedly of the applicant. It is not clear to the Tribunal how a responsible government authority or agency responsible for the registration of births could issue a genuine or authentic birth certificate with a photograph of the applicant upon it if she was not physically present in Ethiopia before the “Authorised Person” who issued the document. If they did issue the first Ethiopian birth certificate with the photo attached without having seen the applicant, it must cast serious doubts on the authenticity or genuineness of the document. One has to ask how would they know if it was the applicant?
The applicant acknowledged both in the witness box and in her statutory declaration of 15 November 2021[6] that she has not returned to Ethiopia since she fled in 2004. The first Ethiopian birth certificate was she said, procured by her auntie who contacted her family in Ethiopia to procure the certificate which they got from ‘Jimma Hospital’. The birth certificate concerned was procured by the applicant’s auntie as supporting documentation for an orphan relative sponsorship visa application made by her on behalf of the applicant. In the witness box, the applicant stated that her auntie gave that first Ethiopian birth certificate to her when she asked for it in support of the present application for Australian citizenship by conferral.
[6] JTB,187.
Ms Kadir’s evidence on this topic was slightly different. She stated that the applicant asked her for her birth certificate. Upon such request being made to her by the applicant she said she asked a ‘friend’ in Ethiopia to get it, not a relative, as the applicant contrarily stated in her evidence. Ms Kadir also stated in the witness box that the friend she requested to obtain the birth certificate asked for details of the applicant’s identity, where she was born, where she lived, her name, date of birth and parents’ names. She then said that the friend obtained the first Ethiopian birth certificate from what she described as the ‘District Office’ (not the ‘Jimma Hospital’).
Whilst these two versions of how the first Ethiopian birth certificate was procured given by the applicant and Ms Kadir in one sense are not radically different, they are nonetheless at considerable variance. It does raise concerns about reaching a conclusion as to precisely how this document was obtained. It seems difficult to believe that they would have versions of the events that would be so different given the interactions between them.
There are other reasons why the Tribunal and has significant doubts about the authenticity, accuracy or genuineness of the Ethiopian birth certificates provided by the applicant. Those reasons arise from the several instances of inconsistent or differing information being provided by or on the applicant’s behalf concerning her name and date of birth. Details of these inconsistencies or differences will be provided below. They are not referred to in any particular order of priority or emphasis.
The applicant completed an ‘Application for an Offshore Humanitarian Visa’ that was received by the Department on 6 December 2004.[7] In that document, her name was given as ‘Nabiat Qasim Jima’ with a date of birth of 9 July 1990. This is of course a different name in a different date of birth to that recorded on both the first Ethiopian birth certificate and the second Ethiopian birth certificate which was 8 October 1990.[8] This is a fundamental difference, which must raise doubts about what her actual name and birthdate really are.
[7] Ibid 323.
[8] Ibid 308.
On 24 November 2005, the applicant wrote to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Nairobi Kenya.[9] The contents of that letter are referred to in their entirety. Amongst other things, the applicant stated that her family had disappeared, and she had no information as to their whereabouts. She expressed the view that she was in great risk due to her age and gender. Most importantly, for the purposes of this application she gave her name as ‘Nabiyat Kasime Jima’ and her date of birth as 29 August 1990. Whilst one may be prepared to give the applicant some latitude about the spelling of her name, which the Tribunal has great reservations about in this instance, the birthdate is once again different from the date recorded in both the first Ethiopian birth certificate and the second Ethiopian birth certificate, which it will be recalled was 8 October 1990. Also, the date of birth is different to that recorded in the Application for an Offshore Humanitarian Visa lodged on the applicant’s behalf, which was 9 July 1990. These differences both with respect to her name and date of birth, have not been adequately explained by the applicant. As is evident from this analysis, three different dates of birth and at least two different names, for her have been disclosed in purportedly official documents. That significant discrepancy alone must raise serious doubts about the accuracy of her life story. Thus, leading to serious doubts about her identity triggering the prohibition contemplated by section 24(3) of the Act.
[9] Ibid 384.
The question of birth certificates has taken on a different dimension in this application when compared to what was before the delegate. This is, as noted above, was because on 16 May 2024 the applicant lodged with the Tribunal, and served on the respondent, the second Ethiopian birth certificate.[10]
[10] Ibid 308.
The applicant was probed in cross-examination as to how she obtained the second Ethiopian birth certificate. Her evidence was that she procured it with the assistance of her siblings in Ethiopia who went to the Jimma University Medical Centre. She said that she gave authority to her siblings to get it. In doing so, she provided them with her last name and date of birth. Her siblings informed her that the University Medical Centre had her birth certificate in their files and a copy was provided to her.
Some observations concerning the second Ethiopian birth certificate are warranted. Like the first Ethiopian birth certificate produced by the applicant, it has attached to it a photograph of the applicant as an adult. How could such a photograph be attached without seeing or verifying who the applicant is, one can only speculate. On its face, the document looks rather crude in the extreme. The copy provided is a photocopy of a Birth Certificate issued by the ‘Jimma University Medical Centre’. It has been completed in very crude handwriting. Insofar as one is able to decipher it, it appears to state that the baby’s name is ‘Nebiyat’ and her date of birth is 8 October 1990. At face value, the second Ethiopian birth certificate is very hard to accept. Its authenticity or provenance must be doubtful in the extreme. It is, once again a little difficult to comprehend how this document was procured and why it was not produced to the Tribunal much earlier.
The second Ethiopian birth certificate is undated and does not otherwise indicate a date on which it was issued. This is surprising indeed, and another reason why significant doubts must be entertained as to its authenticity or provenance.
There are material differences between the first Ethiopian birth certificate and the second Ethiopian birth certificate that raise serious doubts about their genuineness or authenticity. The first Ethiopian birth certificate records the applicant’s father’s name as ‘Kasim Jima Abdo’, whereas in the second Ethiopian birth certificate it records the applicant’s father’s name as ‘Seid Jimma’. The first Ethiopian birth certificate records the applicant’s mother’s name as ‘Zekiya Abduraman Kedir’ whereas the second Ethiopian birth certificate records the applicant’s mother’s name as ‘Zekiya Abruraman’.
The applicant in her statutory declaration of 15 November 2021 purported to give an explanation for the discrepancies concerning her name and date of birth.[11] As she described it the ‘confusion. She stated that in 2004 her aunt’s ex-husband Dido Jima sent a humanitarian visa application to his brother Kasim Jima and he included the applicant as Kasim Jima’s daughter. This was done so because at that time the applicant stated she was under the care of Kasim. Otherwise, she did not know why on the relevant documentation her date of birth was stated to be on 9 July 1990. She stated she did not fill out any form at that time as she was young and had no idea what was going on. Whilst at one level this explanation is understandable, it is overall not adequate particularly with respect to the inconsistencies arising from the first and second Ethiopian birth certificates. Indeed, on what the applicant referred to in that statutory declaration it would tend to appear that whoever issued each of the Ethiopian birth certificates had been fed the information recorded on them including the date of birth of 9 July 1990, by others. Therefore, this highlights the unreliability of such documents.
[11] Ibid 187.
Ms Kadir was probed in cross-examination about any explanation she could offer for the applicant’s father being recorded in the first Ethiopian birth certificate as ‘Kasim Jima Abdo’, which she knew was incorrect. She stated that this discrepancy emerged from the fact that when the applicant fled to Kenya with Kasim Jima Abdo, her sister’s former husband, they were ‘booked together with the UNHCR’, as a ‘family unit’ which has been noted previously in these reasons. This explanation has an air of implausibility about it because it involves contact or acts occurring after their arrival in Kenya and not anything to do with Ethiopia. It seems inconceivable that such a fundamental error would occur on what is purportedly an official document such as the first Ethiopian birth certificate unless such information was provided by or on behalf of the applicant at the time such certificate was procured. Presumably, if accurate records were kept in Ethiopia the correct name of the applicant’s father would have been recorded in the birth certificate which presumably would be derived from original records held by a responsible official authority. Also, there just does not seem to be any rational reason why when obtaining a birth certificate from Ethiopia that steps would not have been taken to ensure that the correct name of the applicant’s father was recorded when such a certificate was obtained.
The significant differences between the first Ethiopian birth certificate and the second Ethiopian birth certificate, particularly with respect to the identity and description of her father, also raise very serious doubts about the accuracy or authenticity of the applicant’s life story.
Another question that one also has to ask, without any evidence of the Ethiopian law ( presumably from an expert in Ethiopian law) relating to the registration of births in Ethiopia, assuming there is such a law, how two birth certificates, with substantial differences or discrepancies between them, could be issued with respect to the same person? If that is the case, does one have more legal force or effect than the other? Also, what if any status does either birth certificate have in Ethiopian law as to the proof of its contents? Namely, that the applicant is the applicant and was born on the date recorded therein. This question throws further doubts on the authenticity or genuineness of both birth certificates.
By way of conclusion concerning the authenticity or genuineness of the first and second Ethiopian birth certificates produced by the applicant, reference should be made to external country information which was referred to by the respondent concerning the risks of fraud and falsity with respect to them.
The Tribunal’s attention was directed to a publication of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (‘DFAT’) entitled ‘Country Information Report Ethiopia’, August 2020. Specifically, reference was made to paragraphs 5.64, 5.65 and 5.66 of that publication. Its contents are referred to in their entirety. However, for the purposes of these reasons those paragraphs highlight that Ethiopian civil documents such as birth certificates are issued on the basis of statements made by the applicant and supporting witnesses. Limited supporting documentation is required for the issue of such a document. They can be falsified. The report also specifies that documents considered to be higher risk in terms of fraud include birth certificates.
It appears to the Tribunal from the comparatively limited evidence before it that the observations made in the DFAT Country Information Report Ethiopia are apposite to this case. It seems more probable than not, that whoever applied for each of the Ethiopian birth certificates, as requested by the applicant’s auntie, furnished the relevant information to the issuing authority, which relied upon such information without question to issue the birth certificates concerned. Therefore, this is a further ground for the Tribunal to not accept the authenticity or genuineness of such documents.
Inconsistencies in the material relied on by the applicant from time to time concerning her name and date of birth
Both before the delegate and the Tribunal at the hearing of this application there was a significant array of documentation in which the applicant’s name and date of birth differed. These differences will be specifically referred to further in these reasons. However, at the outset of this consideration, the Tribunal should state that it found unfortunately, the applicant’s evidence both from the witness box and in a statutory declaration made on her behalf, did not adequately explain away the differences or inconsistencies that emerged from a careful examination of this documentation.
In reaching a conclusion that the applicant’s evidence from the witness box, did not adequately explain the differences or inconsistencies emerging from an examination of the documentation, the Tribunal wishes to emphasise that it does not necessarily conclude that the applicant’s evidence was unreliable, as lawyers understand it, or indeed that she was necessarily consciously lying. However, there was significant confusion coupled with a failure to adequately explain these discrepancies that raise a significant doubt to the Tribunal with respect to the issue that it has to determine, namely, that it must be satisfied as to the applicant’s identity. These discrepancies may well be a product of several things. Although not altogether clear, a misunderstanding of an obligation to consistently and accurately explain her personal circumstances. It might well be also the fact that English is her second language and there is an element of confusion, although, having had the opportunity to observe the applicant this seems unlikely. It may also possibly be that she misunderstood advice that was being given to her by the professionals she retained when such documentation was completed. Such professionals being immigration agents and immigration lawyers. It also may arise that the applicant bears some misunderstanding of the differences between the concepts of a ‘family’ in Ethiopia when compared with those of developed Western nations such as Australia. As has been touched on previously in these reasons, the evidence of her and her auntie that the concept of a ‘family’ is something broader than a conventional Australian understanding might well be, could be relevant in explaining this discrepancy. These possibilities have all been taken into account by the Tribunal in reaching a conclusion on this matter. Nonetheless, these discrepancies in the eyes of the Tribunal remain unresolved.
The inconsistencies between the first and second Ethiopian birth certificates addressed above are referred to and repeated for the purposes of a consideration of this pillar of identity.
Also referred to and repeated concerning the discrepancies about the applicant’s name and date of birth referred to above are those contained in the ‘Application for an Offshore Humanitarian Visa’ that was received by the Department on 6 December 2004.
The discrepancies concerning her name and date of birth arising from the contents of the letter the applicant wrote on 24 November 2005 to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Nairobi Kenya, must also be referred to and repeated.
There are other documents that should be referred to there have been produced by the applicant. A certificate from ‘Behorizons College’ of 15 January 2007 recording various courses of study undertaken by the applicant and the grades achieved at their institution reveals her name to be ‘Nebiyat Kassim’.[12]
[12] Ibid 125.
A letter from the Kenyan Ministry of State for Immigration & Registration of Persons dated 11 June 2008 records the applicant’s name as ‘Nebiyat Kassim Jima’.
Given the significant number of documents which contain differing names and dates of birth concerning the applicant, the Tribunal must have by reason of same, significant doubts about the identity of the applicant. She has simply used far too many names and dates of birth, almost interchangeably, to the point that one cannot be certain what her actual name and date of birth are.
Inconsistencies in the material relied on by the applicant from time to time concerning her father
There were a number of matters that arose from both the documentary and oral evidence before the Tribunal they give rise to concerns, if not significant doubts about the identity and background of the applicant’s father. Particularly, the circumstances surrounding his separation from the immediate family (sometimes referred to as an ‘abandonment’) or, as it emerged from time to time in the evidence his ‘disappearance’.
There were significant inconsistencies concerning the applicant’s version of her father’s travels to Kenya and his interaction with his family. For instance, in a statutory declaration that she made on 24 October 2011 she stated that when she was 14 years old when her father left Ethiopia moving to Kenya.[13] At that time, he took the applicant, his wife and three of her siblings. She stated she was not sure why her father left Ethiopia, as she was young, and the adults did not tell the children the reasons why they had to leave. She believed he was escaping from danger and needed to leave quickly. Subsequently, following their arrival in Nairobi her father travelled to a refugee camp known as ‘Kokuma’ and never returned. That was the last time she saw him in the year 2005. Family members endeavoured to locate him, but they were unable to do so.
[13] Ibid 507.

In cross examination about the contents of her statutory declaration of 24 October 2011, the applicant was asked why there were different stories. She was somewhat reluctant to acknowledge the differences. When pressed for an explanation she stated that such different stories could be explained by her language difficulties. Additionally, she sought to deflect some level of blame on an immigration lawyer who she said helped prepare the statutory declaration. However, once again somewhat reluctantly, she ultimately conceded that she told the immigration lawyer the words used by herself. When pressed again she reluctantly conceded one story had her father abandoning her and another one stating that he had disappeared. The two versions are irreconcilable. It seems more probable than not that the applicant did not, for whatever reason, appreciate when she made the statutory declaration on 24 October 2011 that it might many years later see the light of day in the way that it had.
In a letter to the Department of 26 August 2014, the applicant gave a different version of her father’s journey to Kenya.[14] In that version she stated that, contrary to the previous version, she fled with her father Seid and they left her siblings behind with her mother as they were too young. She described fleeing Ethiopia as a traumatic event. She and her father walked a day and a night heading towards the border at Kenya. They did so in the presence of many other people also fleeing Ethiopia. They were able to cross the border into Kenya at night. Following the border crossing, she looked for her father, and he was not amongst those who had crossed. She lost her father crossing the border to Kenya that night and has not seen him again.
[14] Ibid 619.
When in the witness box the applicant gave yet another version concerning the fate of her father. Indeed, that version shifted somewhat during her evidence. When the topic was touched on initially, she stated that since she left her country (presuming Ethiopia) she has never seen her father again. She repeated that she had never seen her real father since she left her country. Then she stated she travelled to Kenya by car with Kasim Jima, his wife and their 3 children. In effect, Kasim and his family adopted her. She stayed with them until the next year 2005 when Kasim and his family ‘abandoned’ her.
Confronted during cross examination with the different version of events referred to in her letter of 26 August 2014 to the Department, in which she said she travelled to Kenya with her father Seid, she stated she never wrote such statement. She acknowledged somewhat reluctantly, that she did not draft the letter, but she could not remember who helped to do so. She then said that she told her lawyer this. When the inconsistencies in that letter were put to her, she sought to explain it away as possibly being a language issue.
Suffice to say these versions of the circumstances surrounding her travel and times in Kenya, and what her father actually did, where he went and his ultimate fate, are considerably different in many significant respects that is self-evident. It does highlight the discrepancies in this aspect of her life story. It does not reflect well upon her, and more importantly on the reliability of her account. Serious doubts must be raised.
There was another inconsistency concerning the whereabouts of the applicant’s father, in the context of her life story, which should be referred to. There was in the material an application for a partner visa and associated documentation.[15] In that material was an affidavit sworn by both the applicant and her partner on 3 December 2009.[16] Paragraph 4 of that affidavit deposes to the applicant’s father currently being in Ethiopia, further being duly informed of a proposed marriage between them and that he has no objection to it. In cross examination, the contents of this paragraph were specifically put to the applicant. Her evidence concerning it was moderately evasive. Firstly, she said it was wrong, even though she swore the affidavit, to suggest that her father was still alive in 2009. She robustly stated he was not alive at that time. How she could have sworn such an affidavit that was so demonstrably wrong concerning her father defies belief. Further, rather unconvincingly, in her evidence she responded that she did not remember how the document came into being. She repeated that it was many years ago and it was provided by her then future husband because he spoke English. Puzzlingly, she stated that she did not discuss her family composition with her future husband. Once again, the Tribunal finds this evidence on the part of the applicant thoroughly unconvincing.
[15] Ibid 396 - 428.
[16] Ibid 427.
There are two other relevant matters that should be mentioned concerning the question of the applicant’s father, in terms of her life story and how it is relevant to proving or disproving the question of her identity.
When in the witness box the applicant also stated that she was unaware that sponsorship of the Application for an Offshore Humanitarian Visa had been made by ‘Qasim Jima Abdo’ for his brother. In that application for the visa concerned Kasim the applicant was included as part of what is described in the form itself as part of his family unit When the contents of that document were put to her including her name and date of birth the applicant responded that the sponsor was her auntie’s ex-husband and that she didn’t think he knew her date of birth or proper name. This is all somewhat puzzling. However, it highlights the fact that on official documentation there is a significant question about who the applicant’s father actually is.
There were evidence before the Tribunal were forms with respect to obtaining Orphan Relative visas for the applicant’s siblings Jamila and Nabrid. She was the sponsor of them. An immigration lawyer was retained to assist her in completing these forms. The father on such forms was recorded as ‘Qasim Jima Abdo’. When this was put to her in the witness box, she was unable to explain how this had occurred and seem to deflect the reasons for this on the immigration lawyer. She rather reluctantly conceded that such forms were submitted with incorrect information on them knowing that they were incorrect at that time.
Collectively, when all these inconsistencies in the material referred to above concerning the identity or name of the applicant’s father are taken into account, they do raise significant questions and doubts concerning the applicant’s life story. These significant questions and doubts do pose serious questions about the applicant’s identity within the meaning of section 24(3) of the Act.
Inconsistencies in the material relied on by the applicant from time to time concerning her mother
There are in the material several inconsistencies concerning the description and identity of the applicant’s mother.
The applicant’s mother has been identified in several different ways as follows:
(a)In the orphan relative visa application lodged in 2007 the applicant has identified her mother as Zekiya Abdurahman Kadir;
(b)The 2013 citizenship application recorded her mother as Zakiya Abdurahman Kadir;
(c)In the citizenship application which is before this Tribunal and was before the delegate her mother was identified as Zakiya Abdurahman Kadir;
(d)In the orphan relative visa application for her siblings previously mentioned, and mother was referred to as Zakila Abdurahaman Kadir
In each of those documents her mother was said to have passed away.
The offshore humanitarian visa application recorded the applicant’s mother as ‘Sadiya Mohammed Usman’. There was also a letter provided with the offshore humanitarian visa application purportedly sent by the applicant’s mother who is identified as ‘Sadiya Mohammed’. In the witness box, the applicant was unable to explain this discrepancy. Further, she stated that she did not know who ‘Sadiya Mohammed’ is, and further, categorically denied that such person was her mother.
These differing names given for the applicant’s mother, create significant doubt about what her mother’s name actually was.
Another matter arises from a consideration of the contents of the offshore humanitarian visa application lodged in 2004. Her parents were recorded as being ‘Sadiya Mohammed Usman’, her mother and ‘Qasim Jima Abdo’ her father. They were said to be divorced and had subsequently remarried. Of course, this is contrary to the contents of the documents referred to above in which the applicant’s mother was said to have passed away. This discrepancy was not explained by the applicant when she was in the witness box.
There is another discrepancy which warrants mentioned. The applicants then partner Mr Abagissa attended at an interview with the Department on 5 November 2011. He stated that the applicant’s mother’s name was ‘Sadiya Abdulrahman’. The only explanation for this offered by the applicant was that her then partner handled the application because he spoke English. Further, she stated that she did not know how he said that. It is difficult to reconcile this response with the fact that the applicant steadfastly denied in the witness box that she had shared any details of the composition of her family with her then partner. One is then prompted to question how in the absence of knowing anything about the applicant’s family, her then partner would be able to provide the name he did to the department during the interview that he undertook. It once again raises significant questions about the true identity of the applicant’s mother.
There was another matter put to the applicant when she was in the witness box concerning the identity of her mother. The applicant was referred to a section of the decision of the delegate which noted that the applicant had been invited to address concerns relating to the identity and circumstances of her mother. The delegate’s decision recorded the conflicting or inconsistent information. It noted that the names ‘Zakiya’ and ‘Sadiya’ were associated with the maternal side of her family. The applicant when questioned, stated that they were not the same people. The applicant’s auntie went slightly further and stated that she did not know who Sadiya was. These matters also raise significant questions about the identity of the applicant’s mother, and therefore, the accuracy of the information provided with respect to this aspect of her life story.
Once again, these inconsistencies in the material relied on by the applicant from time to time, concerning the applicant’s mother lead the Tribunal to conclude that there must be serious doubts about this aspect of her life story and therefore cannot be satisfied as to her identity as required by section 24(3) of the Act.
Inconsistencies in the material relied on by the applicant from time to time concerning her siblings
There are several inconsistencies or discrepancies concerning information that has been furnished to the Department from time to time. These inconsistencies or discrepancies raise considerable doubt about the accuracy of this aspect of the applicant’s life story. Such considerable doubts also lead the Tribunal to conclude that it cannot be satisfied as to her identity as required by section 24(3) of the Act.
In the ‘Application for an Offshore Humanitarian Visa’ that was received by the Department on 6 December 2004 the applicant’s siblings were identified as ‘Sulthan Qasim Jima, Awal Qasim Jima, Taha Qasim Jima, Muktar Qasim Jima, Kadija Qasim Jima, Aisha Qasim Jima and Bilal Qasim Jima’.
In the orphan relative visa application lodged in November 2011 she sponsored siblings ‘Jamila and Nabrid’. In that visa application, the applicant also stated that she had several siblings ‘Kalida or Kalia Kasim Jima, Hamza Kasim Jima, Amire Kasim Jima, Bilale Kasim Jima, Rahma Kasim Jima and India Kasim Jima.[17] In her evidence to the Tribunal, she stated she had three siblings, Jamila, Nabrid and Kahlid. Further, her evidence was that she does not know the other siblings referred to in those documents.
[17] Ibid 447; 475.
The applicant sought to deflect consideration of this issue by saying that it was her auntie’s ex-husband who listed such persons as her siblings. She went on to say that she did not know any of her auntie’s ex-husband’s family. Further, when confronted with the form she stated that she did not look at it before it was submitted to the department. She also sought to deflect some responsibility for the completion of the form onto the immigration lawyer who completed it or helped her complete it on her behalf. She maintained, that consistent with her evidence to the Tribunal, she told the immigration lawyer that she only had three siblings. When she was asked where the immigration lawyer would have gotten the names from, the applicant’s response was that she had no idea. It was suggested to her that an immigration lawyer would not make up the details. The applicant’s response was that she got all the documents from her auntie’s husband and gave them to the lawyer. She said steadfastly and reiterated that she was not aware of the names listed on the form and that she only told the lawyer that she had three siblings. This is of concern, as the applicant readily acknowledged that she signed the form.[18] It seems very hard to accept that she would not have known given her evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing of the application, that such form that she signed contained incorrect information. Her evidence with respect to this issue had a considerable area of implausibility about it.
[18] Ibid 457.
There is another aspect to the orphan relative visa application lodged in November 2011 that should also be mentioned. Several documents were lodged with that application. There were two school reports from Ethiopian for Jemila and Nebrid.[19] The children’s surnames were recorded. They were different surnames to those recorded in the application. There surnames were recorded in those reports as ‘Seid’. The applicant stated that this discrepancy arose because she had changed her surname whereas her siblings never did.
[19] Ibid 518; 519.
Also in cross examination, the applicant was referred to a section of the delegates decision. That section recorded that information obtained from the school of the applicant’s siblings Jamila and Nabrid, in Ethiopia indicated that their parent or guardian was ‘Seid Desalegn’. It was further recorded that consistent with this information, the Department received information alleging that the applicant’s father was in fact named ‘Tasfaye Seid Desalegn’. The delegate recorded that such information suggested to them that the applicant’s family names may not be that declared to the Department. In response, the applicant stated that she did not know why Tasfaye would be listed as a father when he had no relationship with the siblings. She further stated that Tasfaye was a friend of her parents. She had assisted him financially because he had looked after her siblings from time to time. Once again, this is a significant discrepancy concerning the applicant’s siblings, and indeed to some extent her father, which just casts significant doubt about the identity of those siblings, and to some extent even her father, such that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that her life story as it has been depicted enables it to be satisfied of her identity as required by section 24(3) of the Act.
Additionally, the orphan relative visa application lodged in November 2011 was accompanied by birth certificates purportedly for her siblings ‘Jamila’ and ‘Nabrid’.[20] Those certificates record the father as being ‘Qasim Jima’. Surprisingly, she stated she did not know who obtained the birth certificates. She was also asked why the father on those birth certificates was recorded as ‘Qasim Jima’ if he was not their father. The applicant was unable to explain this discrepancy. Reluctantly, she did concede that the issuing authority being the ‘Council of Serbo Town’ just completed the forms on the basis of information provided to it. There was later in her evidence a vague acknowledgement that she had given details to someone in Ethiopia who obtained the birth certificates concerned. This is of concern.
[20] Ibid 520 - 521.
The applicant also stated that with respect to her sibling Nabrid she was unaware that he was her half sibling until a DNA test was completed for the purposes of the orphan relative visa application. Even when this question was canvassed, she went so far as to say, ‘to be honest, I don’t know if he is my half-brother’. This fact also raises serious concerns about the applicant’s life story with respect to her siblings.
In conclusion, with respect to the inconsistencies in the material relied on by the applicant from time to time concerning her siblings, by reason of the matters articulated under the subheading, the Tribunal considers that there are serious questions concerning the reliability of such material. Given the serious questions that arise with respect to the reliability of such material, it does cast significant doubt on the applicant’s life story as she has portrayed it particularly, in the witness box and also in the documentary evidence. Following these significant doubts concerning the applicant’s life story, the Tribunal finds that this also means that it is unable to reach the state of satisfaction as to the applicant’s identity required by section 24(3) of the Act.
The evidence of the applicant’s auntie concerning her biological relationship to the applicant
The applicant’s auntie made a statutory declaration of 20 June 2024. The contents of that statutory declaration were adopted by her when she was in the witness box. Amongst other things, she stated that she is biologically related to the applicant in an aunt and niece relationship. Although this was not canvassed in any significant depth during cross examination, nor for that matter submissions, the Tribunal considers that it is an important aspect of the evidence adduced by the applicant that should be addressed.
The Tribunal has made some observations concerning the oral evidence given by both the applicant and her auntie. It concluded that such evidence must be viewed with considerable caution unless corroborated by reliable contemporaneous documents or other admissible evidence.
Given the caution with which the Tribunal views the evidence of Ms Kadir, it cannot accept the categorical statement made by her concerning the biological relationship with the applicant contained in her statutory declaration as adopted when she was in the witness box.
It reaches this conclusion about Ms Kadir’s evidence not only due to the caution which it views such evidence but also given the significant pattern of inconsistencies that have been articulated earlier in these reasons concerning the Ethiopian birth certificates, the applicant’s name and date of birth, the identity of her father, the identity of her mother and with respect to her siblings. Collectively, all these matters create significant doubts about her life story as required by paragraph 5 ‘Three pillars of identity’ of the CPI.
CONCLUSION
Having considered all of the information and evidence before it, including the oral evidence given by the applicant and Ms Kadir, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has discharged the onus identified in paragraph 11 of the CPI to support her identity. The collective series of inconsistencies, concerning the matters referred to, cast sufficient doubt on the applicant’s identity such that the Tribunal cannot reach the state of satisfaction required by section 24(3) of the Act.
In reaching the conclusion that it does, the Tribunal wishes to emphasise that it is not seeking to ‘punish’ the applicant in the way that was submitted on her behalf by her advocate. The Tribunal has an obligation to apply section 24(3) of the Act as legislated by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. It has to be repeated that it is necessary for the applicant to place before the Tribunal sufficient evidence to enable it to reach the state of satisfaction that the section of the Act requires.

Accordingly, by reason of the foregoing matters the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of the identity of the applicant as required by section 24(3) of the Act.
Therefore, the reviewable decision is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 113 (one-hundred and thirteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of R Cameron, General Member

......................[SGD]...........................
Associate
Dated: 18 December 2024

Date(s) of hearing: 23-24 October 2024

Solicitors for the Applicant: Global Migration Firm

Solicitors for the Respondent: Minter Ellison

[2024] ARTA 274

18 December 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Immigration & Refugee Law

Legal Concepts

Jurisdiction

Identity Verification

Admissibility of Evidence

Unconscionable Conduct

Statutory Interpretation

Date(s) of hearing:	23-24 October 2024
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Global Migration Firm
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Minter Ellison