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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by Mr Kakos, who was seeking to challenge the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs' decision to refuse his application on character grounds. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Mr Kakos met the good character requirement for citizenship, considering his criminal record and an apprehended domestic violence order (ADVO).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Kakos satisfied the good character requirement under paragraph 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). This involved assessing his past conduct, including driving infringements, resisting and assaulting police officers, and domestic violence related charges that led to an ADVO. The Tribunal also considered the relevance of character references provided by Mr Kakos in light of his offending history and the Australian community standards regarding domestic violence.

The Tribunal found that while some of Mr Kakos's more serious charges had been dismissed, he remained subject to an ADVO made for the protection of another person. The Tribunal was satisfied, based on the evidence and Mr Kakos's own admissions, that his conduct leading to the ADVO involved intimidating behaviour and demonstrated a limited insight into the impact of his actions on others. The Tribunal noted that the making of an ADVO required a court to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the protected person had reasonable grounds to fear the applicant. Despite the passage of time since his last conviction and the provision of character references, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Kakos had not demonstrated he met the good character requirement.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning Mr Kakos's application for citizenship was refused. However, the Tribunal noted that this decision did not preclude him from making a future application if he could demonstrate, over time, that he met the necessary requirements.