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

[2022] AATA 2627

Josiah and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2022] AATA 2627 (1 August 2022)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2020/3367

Re:Paul Josiah

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

Date of Decision:                   1 August 2022

Date of Written Reasons:      17 August 2022

Place:Melbourne

On 1 August 2022, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. These are the written reasons for that decision.

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

Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP- application for conferral of Australian citizenship – where Applicant’s country of birth is Liberia – delegate not satisfied of Applicant’s identity – s 24(3) Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – whether Tribunal is satisfied of Applicant’s identity ––Citizenship Policy – National Identity Proofing Guidelines – Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions – three pillars of identity – Applicant claims to have no relatives overseas – no biometric information – no documents from life prior to arrival in Australia – inconsistencies in life story – payments to persons with same surname overseas – Tribunal not satisfied of Applicant’s identity – decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

CASES

Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Re (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Hneidi and Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 20
Mahamud v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1635
Minister for Home Affairs v G (2019) 164 ALD 103

Negri v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] FCA 879

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Attorney-General’s Department, National Identity Proofing Guidelines (2016)

Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (27 November 2020)

Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (1 January 2022)

Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Citizenship Bill 2007 (Cth)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

17 August 2022

1. The Applicant seeks review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse his application for Australian citizenship by conferral.

2. This hearing was conducted on 29 July and 1 August 2022. The Applicant was self-represented. The Minister was represented by Mr Creedon of the Australian Government Solicitor.

3. On 1 August 2022, the Tribunal provided oral reasons affirming the decision under review. On 3 August 2022, Mr Creedon emailed the Tribunal on behalf of the Respondent stating: “We are instructed to request the written reasons for the Tribunal’s decision in this matter.” These are now provided consistent with the requirements of s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) and Federal Court authority,[1] which states:

   “...As long as the reasoning remains consistent, there can be no objection to the provision of a more-elaborate exposition of the same reasoning that was orally explained. What is not permissible is altered or new reasoning. The Tribunal is not permitted to substantially divert from the reasoning upon which its decision was made, but is permitted to explain that reasoning differently and, in doing so, is required to address the matters specified in s 43(2B).”

   [1] Negri v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] FCA 879, [27] (Bromberg J).

   BACKGROUND

4. The Applicant was born on 30 March 1997 in Foyah, Liberia,[2] and is a citizen of that country.[3] During the civil war in Liberia, the Applicant claimed he was ‘separated from (his) parents and deprived of any form of normal life.’[4] He and his younger sister came under the care of their grandmother, with whom  they lived in a Guinea refugee camp.[5] The Applicant arrived in Australia with his grandmother and sister on 4 June 2014 under a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) Visa.[6] He completed high school in Australia, found work,[7] and undertook further study.[8]

   [2] Exhibit R1, 129.

   [3] Ibid 84.

   [4] Exhibit A1.

   [5] Exhibit R2, 184.

   [6] Exhibit R1, 129.

   [7] Ibid 84.

   [8] Exhibit A1.

5. On 4 July 2018, the Applicant lodged a Form 1300t Application for Australian Citizenship under s 21 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).[9] The only documents provided with his application were a Victorian Probationary Driver Licence and the travel authority issued by Australia’s diplomatic post in Kenya.[10]

   [9] Exhibit R1, 83.

   [10] Exhibit R2, 190.

6. On 9 September 2019, the Respondent emailed the Applicant requesting copies of original documents to support his claimed identity.[11] He was asked to provide this material within 28 days but did not respond.

   [11] Ibid 105.

7. On 26 May 2020 the Respondent refused the citizenship application. The Decision Record noted that although the Applicant satisfied several of the legislative requirements for citizenship (age, permanent residency, general residence), his application was denied because of the identity prohibition at s 24(3) of the Act.[12] Several other requirements were either not assessed (character, and close and continuing association assessments), or not yet satisfied (completion of citizenship test).

   [12] Ibid 9.

8. On 2 June 2020, the Applicant asked the Tribunal to review the citizenship refusal decision. He stated the following as the reason for his application:[13]

   “…My citizenship application was refused based on insufficient proof of my identity…With regards to providing documentation to support my identity; I have no records of my childhood. As far as I can remember, I have never had a birth certificate or any personal documents that proves my identity…With no known family back in Liberia; I do not know where to start looking to get these documents.”[14]

   [13] Ibid 1.

   [14] Ibid 5.

   PROCEDURAL HISTORY

9. This application has a long procedural history since being lodged over two years ago. This includes several case conferences and scheduling orders, prior to initially being listed for hearing on 22 June 2021. In the year since, the Tribunal has received multiple requests by consent, following discussions between Mr Creedon and the Applicant, to delay the hearing. Mr Creedon has contacted the Tribunal approximately seven times between March 2021 and December 2021 to advise that the Applicant was in contact with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), International Red Cross (IRC), and other organisations, to explore the availability of documents. Several requests for an update by the Tribunal were not responded to. On 8 March 2022, in the absence of a response to an earlier inquiry, the Tribunal listed a Directions Hearing on 1 April 2022 to determine the future progress of the matter. Scheduling orders were subsequently issued.

10. The very slow progress of this application is difficult to understand in circumstances where, it emerged during the hearing, the Applicant had only sent two emails to the UNHCR and IRC. These elicited an automated response from the UNHCR dated 26 April 2021, and a brief response from an IRC representative advising the Applicant to consult a migration agent. The Applicant confirmed during the hearing he had not contacted the Liberian Government or Liberia’s diplomatic mission in Australia, to explore the existence of documents relevant to his identity. The basis for multiple delays by consent of the parties therefore remains difficult to understand. Parties are obligated under s 33(1AB) of the AAT Act to use their best endeavours to assist the fulfilment of the Tribunal’s objective at s 2A of the AAT Act. This includes, amongst other things, providing a mechanism of review that is quick and economical.

    LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

11. A person can apply for Australian citizenship under s 21(1) of the Act.

12. Section 24 of the Act confers a general power on the Minister to either approve or refuse an application made under s 21 of the Act. Specified circumstances at ss 24(3) to (7) of the Act preclude the Minister from granting citizenship, including if the Minister is not satisfied of the person’s identity:[15]

    There may be cases where identity is unclear or cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. In these circumstances the Minister cannot approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.[16]

    [15] Division 5 of the Act sets out identity provisions at ss 40-45.

    [16] Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Citizenship Bill 2007 (Cth).

13. Section 25(1)(a) of the AAT Act and s 52(1)(b) of the Act are the sources of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions under s 24 of the Act.

    Citizenship Policy and Procedural Instructions

14. A decision-maker exercising power under the Act can be guided by government policy.[17] This includes the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (2020), Australian Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 ‘CPI 16-Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act’ (CPI 16) and the National Identity Proofing Guidelines (Guidelines).

    [17] See, for example, Hneidi and Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 20 at [41].

15. The Full Court of the Australian Federal Court has held that the discretion to approve or refuse citizenship is unfettered, and ‘not inimical to the adoption of executive policy…to guide the exercise of discretion.’[18] Their Honours reasoned that the Act envisaged the application of executive policy to promote consistency and rationality in decision-making.[19] Each case before the Tribunal is considered afresh, and executive or departmental policy is ordinarily considered unless there is a cogent reason not to do so.[20] The Tribunal has not identified any reason why it should not consider the available policy documents; and no submission was made by either party that the Tribunal should not do so.

    [18] Minister for Home Affairs v G (2019) 164 ALD 103, 120 [64] (Murphy, Moshinsky, and O’Callaghan JJ).

    [19] Ibid, [65]; [70].

    [20]Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Re (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.

16. The term ‘identity’ is not defined in the Act. Paragraph 2.1.1. of the Guidelines describes it in the following terms:

    A person’s identity is not a fixed concept; it is highly dependent on context. It is some combination of characteristics or attributes that allow a person to be uniquely distinguished from others within a specific context.

17. CPI16 relevantly describes three pillars, comprising biometrics, documents, and life story, as the foundation upon which assessments of identity are made:

Pillar of Identity	Individual Characteristics
Biometrics	Personal identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person's signature. Biometrics can be used for comparison, with, for example, facial images held by the Department or other domestic or international agencies.
Documents	Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features. Documents contain biodata, or personal information, such as name, date of birth, nationality, and/or citizenship, and may also contain biometric information.
Life Story	A person's life story is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. Officers should consider the events that happened to the person, and the information and detail correlating to the events. A person's life story may include descriptions of family composition, education, employment, countries of residence, countries visited, social footprint, and online presence.

1. Decision makers are counselled not to rely on a single pillar in isolation, but to comprehensively:

   …test and evaluate a person's claims with regard to their identity, decision-makers should consider each pillar. In most cases the consideration of the three pillars is embedded in the identity assessment process. The citizenship Applicant is likely to be well documented, information provided to the Department will have remained consistent over a long period of time, and no inconsistencies or concerns will have been identified.

   Through their reliability and comprehensiveness, identity documents testify to important events in the Applicant’s life story. Through personal identifiers contained in identity documents the Applicant’s biometrics held on departmental records are matched and confirmed.

2. Additional guidance is provided in the following terms:

   4.12 How do I assess a person’s identity – an evidence based approach

   In order to make an informed assessment of a person’s identity, officers must seek to establish a person’s identity from birth using an evidence-based approach. It is not sufficient to be satisfied of a person’s identity at one point in time, as a person’s identity is not a point in time concept; it must be verified incrementally throughout a person’s life and considered historically.

   The way in which officers should approach the concept of assessing a person’s identity from birth is to create an identity timeline, thus creating a complete picture of the person’s identity from birth to present. The objective is to link the Applicant’s identity at birth to the identity provided in their application for Australian citizenship by considering key chronological events in the person’s life. The three pillars are the methodology for establishing a person’s identity, and officers must turn their mind to the individual characteristics in order to piece together a person’s identity timeline and create an ‘identity picture’.

   …

   4.14 Assessing pillar two – documents

   Documents are an important element of the process in establishing a person’s identity. While they do not establish or verify a person’s identity in and of themselves, they contribute to a person’s identity timeline by providing an anchor to corroborate information pursuant to pillar one (biometrics) and pillar three (life story).

   When assessing pillar two, decision-makers should consider and assess whether the documents and information they contain are consistent, or otherwise, and whether they element support or refute a person’s claimed identity. The crucial element of a document, whether genuine or not, is the story the document tells. Documents need not be identity documents to tell a story. For instance, a hotel invoice may demonstrate a person’s presence in a particular place at a point in time.

   …

   4.15 Assessing pillar three – life story

   When assessing a person’s life story in the context of a citizenship application, officers should seek to create a complete identity ‘picture’ of the person from birth. This is not done by asking a person to recite their life story in interview. Instead, a practical way in which to begin an assessment of a person’s identity, while at the same time considering their life story, is to consider their identity timeline.

   …

   In most cases, by the time a person applies for Australian citizenship, they will have interacted with the Department and previously provided aspects of their life story. Where necessary, officers should locate the information provided during these interactions, plot it on the person’s identity timeline, and compare it with information provided at the time of applying for Australian citizenship.

   Example – testing information pursuant to the pillars of identity

   A person’s identity story can include, but is not limited to, their age compared to

   their:

   ·education, employment, places of residence, marriage and divorce;

   ·extended family history including:

   obirth of children, births and deaths of siblings and parents, date of marriage.

   Example – the importance of family composition

   Family relationships can be very useful when establishing an individual’s identity. Relationships form an important characteristic of a person’s life story. It is important for officers to compare the family composition provided by the Applicant at various interactions with the Department.

   In order to corroborate information, officers should examine the family composition provided to the Department by the citizenship Applicant’s claimed family members, as well as the particulars of the information. There are generally common elements between family members who travelled to Australia together, or were from the same village. Independent corroborating evidence for a particular fact or interpretation means that the fact or interpretation is more likely to be true.

3. Paragraph 5.1 of the AGD Guidelines establishes that where a person cannot meet the minimum identity requirements, alternative identity proofing processes may be undertaken, encompassing:

   ·     Acceptance of alternative types of evidence of identity (such as multiple types of SECONDARY evidence types where normally a PRIMARY evidence type would be required).

   ·     Verification of the person’s claimed identity with a trusted referee whose identity has been (or is being) verified to an equal or greater level of assurance.

   ·     Verification of a person’s claimed identity with reputable organisations or bodies known to them…

   ·     A detailed interview with the person about their life story to assess the consistency and legitimacy of their claims.

4. It is clear from the language of s 24 (3) of the Act, that decision-makers do not have a residual discretion to grant an application for citizenship where a person’s identity is not established to the requisite level of proof. This was confirmed by the Tribunal in Mahamud v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1635, citing the comments of Senior Member Walsh in Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256, that the Tribunal standing in the shoes of the Minister is unable to exercise discretion in those circumstances:

   … a Certificate of Australian Citizenship is a legal document of considerable significance and the Tribunal should not countenance an outcome which could lead to such a certificate being issued in circumstances where, as is the case here, the identity of the Applicant is far from clear.

5. As to the requisite level of proof, the Guidelines provide at paragraph 2.2.1 that the evidence supporting the person’s identity should meet some or all the following identity proofing objectives:

   1.Confirm uniqueness of the identity in the intended context to ensure that individuals can be distinguished from one another and that the right service is delivered to the right individual. This would include a check that another person has not previously claimed ownership of the identity (i.e. there is a sole claimant), for example by checking the organisation’s database for identity records with the same attributes.

   2.Confirm the claimed identity is legitimate to ensure the identity has not been fraudulently created (i.e. the identity is that of a real person) through evidence of commencement of identity in Australia. Where greater confidence in the claimed identity is required, this objective may also include a check that an identity has not been recorded as deceased (e.g. through the Fact of Death file).

   3.Confirm the operation of the identity in the community over time to provide additional confidence that an identity is legitimate in that it is being used in the community (including online where appropriate). Even where a person is able to obtain genuine identity documents in a fictitious name, it will be harder to provide evidence that the identity has been active in the community, particularly over an extended period of time and if evidence reflects the breadth of a person’s life, such as:

   ·Citizen: evidence that demonstrates the person’s life as a citizen and any support or services they are provided by government

   ·Money: evidence that demonstrates the person’s financial and working life, and

   ·Living: evidence that demonstrates where they live and what they consume.

   4.Confirm the linkage between the identity and the person claiming the identity to provide confidence that the identity confirmed through objectives 2 and 3 is not only legitimate, but that the person claiming the identity is its legitimate holder. This has traditionally been done by comparing a person’s face against a photograph, although there is an increasing range of technologies that can provide alternative methods, such as comparison of a biometric captured at enrolment against a biometric previously captured by a trusted organisation.

   5.Confirm the identity is not known to be used fraudulently to provide additional confidence that a fraudulent (either fictitious or stolen) identity is not being used. This could be through checks against internal registers of known fraudulent identities or against ‘dummy records’ recorded in the system. Where possible, this could include checks against information provided by external sources, such as law enforcement agencies.

   EVIDENCE

   Documentary evidence

1. The following documents were tendered into evidence:

   (a)Applicant’s statement dated 25 August 2020 and a single-page document titled “My life story”;[21]

   (b)A six-page document, comprising a table of the Applicant’s family in Australia and another blank section titled “Family Outside Australia”;[22]

   (c)A single page undated and unsigned letter from the Applicant’s sister;[23]

   (d)Form 80 ‘Personal particulars for character assessment’ dated 29 May 2021;[24]

   (e)Form 1399 ‘Declaration of service’ form;[25]

   (f)Two emails from the Applicant to the Red Cross and UNHCR, with a brief automated response from the UNHCR dated 26 April 2021; and a brief email response from a representative of the Red Cross;[26] 

   (g)Statement of the Applicant’s friend dated 3 April 2022;[27] and

   (h)Documents tendered by the Respondent, collectively numbering 230 pages.[28]

   [21] Exhibit A1.

   [22] Exhibit A2.

   [23] Exhibit A3.

   [24] Exhibit A4.

   [25] Exhibit A5.

   [26] Exhibit A6.

   [27] Exhibit A7.

   [28] Exhibit R1.

   Respondent’s evidence

2. The Tribunal has considered the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions dated 28 June 2022, accompanying letter dated 7 June 2022, and the other written and oral submissions made.

   Applicant’s evidence

3. In a statement dated 25 August 2020, the Applicant claimed the two documents he provided with his citizenship application were the only documents he possessed, and he ‘had no documents prior to moving to Australia’. He referred to separation from his parents ‘during the war’; and stated there was ‘no one’ from whom he could request a birth certificate or educational records to corroborate who he is. His grandmother has died, and he claimed to be estranged from his uncle in Australia.

4. In a Personal Particulars Form dated 29 May 2021, the Applicant stated he never held citizenship or permanent residency rights in any other country. He also stated he never previously held any passport or travel document. In response to other questions on that form, however, he stated he did have such a document, but it was ‘lost/stolen’ and he could not recall the details. The Applicant also stated he never possessed national identity documents or numbers.

5. In a Declaration of Service form dated 29 May 2021, the Applicant stated his parents were dead, and he has one sibling born eleven months after him. He signed a declaration that the information he provided was ‘complete, correct and up-to-date in every detail’.

6. The Applicant gave oral evidence on the first hearing day and did not intend to call any family members as witnesses. The Tribunal suggested it would be useful to hear his sister’s oral evidence if she was available, which was not objected to. She subsequently gave oral evidence by telephone.

   CONSIDERATION

7. Receiving an Australian certificate of citizenship is a significant privilege and bestows considerable rights and obligations. The strict emphasis on establishing identity as a precondition to granting citizenship, differs from the humanitarian assessment process, which focusses on other criteria.  The focus on identity in the former is particularly important because it links to the acquisition of valuable identity documents like a passport and potential entitlement to taxpayer-funded benefits. Australian citizens can also vote, depart / return to Australia at will, and apply for certain public sector jobs. Thorough assessment of identity claims is therefore inexorably linked to the integrity of Australian citizenship.

   Biometric data

8. There is no biometric data in evidence from the Applicant’s life prior to arrival in Australia.

   Documents

9. Apart from the travel document issued to the Applicant’s grandmother by Australia’s post in Kenya, there are no documents from the Applicant’s life prior to arrival in Australia.

   Life story

10. In the absence of any biometric data or documents, the Applicant’s life story assumes greater prominence in establishing his identity. His claims in this regard are inconsistent.

11. The Applicant previously stated he has no family outside of Australia and, after the death of his grandmother, only his sister and an uncle live here. He provided no statements from either and did not intend to call them as witnesses. When asked during the hearing if he objected to the Tribunal calling these two people, the Applicant said he did not object to his sister being called but he was estranged from and no longer in contact with his uncle. Much of what the Applicant subsequently relied upon is based on his self-reported claims alone.

12. The Asylum Application Certificate of the Applicant’s grandmother dated 26 December 2010 and the accompanying narrative of her life story prior to fleeing Liberia make no mention of the Applicant or his sister being taken into her care.[29] Neither does the supporting application dated September 2012 by the visa sponsor, who is the Applicant’s now estranged uncle.[30]

    [29]  Exhibit R2, 178-183.

    [30] Ibid 171-176. See particularly 171 [Q13].

13. The first reference in the available evidence to the Applicant and his sister, is in a 2012 application,[31] and then during an interview on 15 April 2013 between the Applicant’s grandmother and an officer of the Australian High Commission in Kenya. This interview was assisted by an interpreter in the Kissi language.[32] It was recorded during this interview that the Applicant’s parents died when ‘they were very young’ and he and his sibling  had been in his grandmother’s care since.[33] The interviewer stated, in relation to the Applicant’s uncle as sponsor of the application:[34] ‘…I suspect that the story has been embellished to strengthen the PA’s claim’.[35] On the available evidence, the Tribunal is unable to reconcile the omission of the Applicant and his sister from his grandmother’s 2010 application.

    [31] Ibid 146.

    [32] Ibid 184-188.

    [33] Ibid 185.

    [34] Ibid 155; 170; 172.

    [35] Ibid 187.

14. The Applicant’s mother is referred to in the documents by two different names.[36] The Tribunal is unable to reconcile this inconsistency on the available evidence.

    [36] Exhibit R1 91, 192.

15. The Applicant’s claims during the hearing about prolonged attempts to locate his parents and re-establish contact with them, is contradicted by past documentary evidence.[37]. Both the Applicant and his grandmother previously claimed the Applicant’s parents died when he was very young.  It remains unclear to the Tribunal, despite the Applicant’s explanations, why this would be in doubt now. If they are deceased there is no rational basis why he would meet people in Africa on social networking sites, including some people with the same last name as him, and pay them significant amounts of money to try and help him resume contact with his parents.

    [37] Exhibit A5, [Q11].

16. The Applicant claims his grandmother refused to tell him what age he was when he was separated from his parents and other details regarding their whereabouts. His grandmother died two years ago, so it is not possible to test this aspect of his evidence. It remains unclear to the Tribunal, however, despite the Applicant’s explanations, why his grandmother would refuse to reveal such information. It is also inconsistent with her and the Applicant’s previous documentary claims that his parents had died.

17. The only other adult who appears to have some understanding of the Applicant’s life in Africa is his uncle, who did not provide a statement and was not called as a witness. The Applicant said this is because they are estranged and no longer in contact. The Applicant presented an email during the hearing that he purportedly sent to this uncle, but upon inspection the email address has one additional character compared to the email address previously used by his uncle. The Applicant accepted the email was unlikely to have been delivered.

18. The Applicant initially claimed his uncle told him he has relatives in Liberia, but later explained they were “not close relatives”. He then claimed they are “close” but not “blood relatives”, and he speaks to them weekly by telephone or social media.

19. In a family composition table submitted to the Department by the Applicant,[38] he did not list anyone in the “Family Outside of Australia” section, which included a request for information about any “distant relatives”. The Applicant explained he thought this only included people he might be able to get a statement from, which is not accepted. The form refers to all family members outside of Australia, irrespective of how close they are or whether they might be able to provide a statement.

    [38] Exhibit A2.

20. The Applicant was asked about information obtained by the Respondent from the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), which disclosed that he sent significant amounts of money to people overseas since arriving in Australia, including to some people with the same last name as his. The Applicant did not dispute he sent these funds, including $27,500 to one person whom he claimed to have befriended on Facebook. The Applicant insisted the recipients were not his relatives, and he only wanted to assist these people with expenses like school costs and medical care, because they “might be able to contact my parents”. For the reasons discussed earlier, these claims were unpersuasive. In her oral evidence, the Applicant’s sister was unaware of these purported efforts to locate their parents through contacts in Africa.

21. When asked about approximately $5000 he sent to a person called Aminata Josiah, the Applicant accepted he sent these funds to this person, but denied she is a relative. When directed to his grandmother’s visa application, which referred to a person called Aminata Josiah as one of her children and therefore the Applicant’s aunt,[39] the Applicant responded: “I’m not sure”. The Tribunal found the Applicant’s evidence about the people he sent money to, including some with the same surname as his, to be unpersuasive.

    [39] Exhibit R1, 150.

22. When asked if the people he sent money to in Africa were asked to provide a statement or give oral evidence in support of his identity, the Applicant responded: “I didn’t ask them because technically they may not be able to write something for me.” He explained this was because they did not have a laptop and lived in remote areas with limited internet access. It is clear from the Applicant’s other evidence, however, that he talks to these people regularly by telephone and social media and sends them money through international remittances. Given contact is possible for that purpose, it remains unclear why they would not be able to provide a statement or oral evidence in support of his application.

23. When pressed, the Applicant claimed the money he remitted overseas was not just from himself, but on behalf of other people. When asked why this was so when these others could send money themselves, the Applicant claimed that one person’s “Western Union app was not working” and they were also having “issues with their credit card”.  There was no evidence from this person or the others he purportedly sent money on behalf of, and the Applicant has not previously responded to requests to explain these overseas transactions.

24. The Applicant was asked about his purported efforts over an extended period to seek documents and other information from the UNHCR and ICR. Two brief emails dated April and May 2021 were taken into evidence.  These are general enquiries that produced an automated response from the UNHCR and a brief email from a representative of the IRC, telling the Applicant to consult a migration agent.[40]  The Applicant stated during oral evidence that he never followed these initial enquiries up. He has also not attempted to contact the Liberian Government, or its diplomatic mission in Melbourne. The Applicant has only made limited attempts to try and locate documents about his identity, or statements from those in Australia and Africa who might also be able to shed light on his identity.

    [40] Exhibit A6.

25. Even on a generous assessment of the Applicant’s life story, the inconsistencies are of such significance that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of his identity. The Tribunal is unable to accept his claim about having no relatives in Africa, in circumstances where AUSTRAC records disclose he sent significant amounts of money in multiple transactions since arriving here, including to people with the same surname. At least one of those people is listed in his now deceased grandmother’s records as a close relative.

26. The Tribunal places no weight on the statement of the Applicant’s friend, in relation to establishing the Applicant’s identity.[41] This friend only met the Applicant in early 2015, does not appear to have access to all the material before the Tribunal, is reliant on the Applicant’s self-reported claims, and has no reliable basis to corroborate the Applicant’s ‘personal details [as] correct’.       

    [41] Exhibit A7.

    CONCLUSION

27. In the absence of any biometric data and documents, coupled with significant unexplained inconsistencies in his life story, the Tribunal is not satisfied of the Applicant’s identity for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act.

    DECISION

28. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 50 (fifty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

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

Associate

Dated: 17 August 2022

Date of hearing:	29 July – 1 August 2022
Applicant, self-represented	Mr Paul Josiah
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Thomas Creedon
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor