Kamara and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)
[2023] AATA 266
•27 February 2023
Kamara and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 266 (27 February 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/1982
Re:Noah Salam Kamara
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
Decision
Tribunal:Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD
Date:27 February 2023
Place:Brisbane
I affirm the decision under review.
.................................[SGD].......................................
Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship - notice to cancel approval on character grounds – whether the applicant is not of good character - decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
Da Wei Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
Ghamraoui and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 254
Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCFCA 44
Hocking v Director-General of the National Archive of Australia (2020) 271 CLR 1
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Re Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 19 AAR 148
Repatriation Commission v Warren (2008) 167 FCR 511
Secondary Materials
Australian Citizenship Policy
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD
27 February 2023
INTRODUCTION
This is an application for review of the decision of a delegate of the respondent made on 6 March 2020[1] to cancel the approval of the applicant becoming an Australian citizen. That decision was made pursuant to s 25(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act). The approval was cancelled on the basis that the delegate was satisfied that the applicant was ‘not of good character’ for the purposes of s 25(2)(b)(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the delegate’s decision under s 52(1)(c) of the Act.
[1] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T14.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Section 24(1) of the Act provides that, if a person makes an application to become an Australian citizen under s 21 of the Act, the Minister must approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Section 25 of the Act provides that:
(1) The Minister may, by writing, cancel an approval given to a person under section 24 if:
(a) the person has not become an Australian citizen under section 28; and
(b) either of the following 2 situations apply.
Eligibility criteria not met
(2) The first situation applies if:
(a) the person is covered by subsection 21(2), (3) or (4); and
(b) the Minister is satisfied that, at the time the Minister proposes to cancel the approval, the person is:
(i) not a permanent resident; or
(ii) not likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia; or
(iii) not of good character.
…
Effect of cancellation
(5) If the Minister cancels an approval given to a person, the approval is taken never to have been given.
Note: A person cannot become an Australian citizen under this Subdivision unless the Minister approves the person becoming an Australian citizen. This subsection has the effect that the person will need to make another application if the person wants to become an Australian citizen.
RELEVANT POLICY
It is appropriate for the Tribunal to have regard to the policy expressed in the revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) in reviewing the respondent’s decision. The Tribunal is not bound by policy, as the law lies in the statutory text rather than in the policy (Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60 at 69-70 per Bowen CJ and Deane J). However, the relevant parts of the policy provide assistance in the application of the Act and the provisions in issue.
For instance, the term ‘good character’ is not defined in the Act and the policy provides some guidance on the meaning of ‘good character’ in the context of decision making under the Act. For example Chapter 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, of the CPI notes:
Good character refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person. A person who is of good character is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia and the other commitments made when making the Pledge of commitment should they be approved to become an Australian citizen.
This Instruction provides a framework for assessing an applicant under the ‘good character’ provisions. Decision-makers must:
·consider any character issues that arise on the facts of a case;
·consider all relevant information;
·guard against bias;
·be mindful that the requirement to be of ‘good character’ does not mean that a person must be of ‘perfect character’;
·be mindful that a person who may not have been of good character can become a person of good character;
·continue to assess the character issues until satisfied, on a reasoned basis, having regard to the available evidence that an applicant is, or is not, of good character.
In most cases, it would not be appropriate to automatically conclude that a person is not of good character based on the fact that the person has been convicted of an offence. A full assessment is required.
The policy set out in this Instruction should not be applied rigidly or inflexibly. It is important to remember that, where a discretionary power is conferred in the Act, it should be exercised bearing in mind the facts of any particular case.
Chapter 15 of the CPI provides guidance on a range of factors that may be considered when assessing whether the applicant is of good character [at 11]. One example of such a factor for consideration is, the applicant’s general conduct [at 11.1]:
How has the applicant behaved in their interactions with government officials?
The Australian community expects that persons in Australia will abide by Australian laws. This includes providing correct information when seeking a government benefit or service.
It is relevant to consider whether the applicant has been honest in dealings with the Department. Decision- makers should consider all of the applicant’s interactions with the Department, including visa and citizenship applications.
…
If the applicant has knowingly presented incorrect information or a bogus document, this may reflect on the person’s character. If the applicant presents the incorrect information or bogus document unknowingly, there would be no ground for character concern.
BACKGROUND
On or about 30 September 2008, the applicant and eleven other people, who all claimed to be siblings, applied for Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 202) visas. The applicant signed the visa application form and declared that the information he provided in respect of the visa application was correct. On 9 June 2009, the applicant was granted the Subclass 202 visa.
On 19 June 2017, the applicant lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral.[2]
[2] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T7, at page 103.
The citizenship application form required the applicant to list family members. Part C required the applicant to provide details of his parents. In answering questions 32 and 33, the applicant listed ‘A.K’ as his father and ‘Am.K’ as his mother.[3]
[3] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T6, at page 89.
Part D of the citizenship application form required the applicant to provide details of ‘associated family’. Question 34 stated ‘Immediate family members include full, half, adopted and step brothers and sisters, a spouse or de facto partner included if deceased’. The applicant included details of 4 siblings in response to question 34: D. K. (sister), O. K. (sister), S. K. (brother) and I. K.(sister).[4]
[4] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T6, at page 90.
On 7 September 2018, the applicant’s application for Australian citizenship was approved.
On 24 January 2020, the respondent’s delegate sent the applicant a notice of intention to consider cancellation of approval of citizenship (NOICCA).[5] The delegate considered the applicant no longer satisfied the eligibility criteria for Australian citizenship by conferral because there was information before the delegate that the applicant was ‘not of good character’. The delegate referred to inconsistencies in the information provided by the applicant to the Department over time concerning the applicant’s family composition.
[5] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T12, at page 124.
The NOICCA referenced details of the applicant’s parents and immediate family members in the citizenship application form and stated:
In your subclass 202 visa application you declared that you were part of a family of 12 siblings. The names you provided for your parents at the time of your subclass 202 visa application were different to the names given in your citizenship application.
Based on these inconsistencies it appears either the family composition that you provided at the time of your subclass 202 visa application was false or the family composition you have declared in relation to your citizenship application is false or both.[6]
[6] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T12, at page 125.
Further particulars were provided in the NOICCA about the inconsistent information, and it was noted that:
It is reasonable to expect a person holding or applying for a visa or citizenship to provide genuine, consistent and accurate information in all their interactions with the Department. It is reasonable to expect a person who claims to have no identity documentation and therefore whose identity rests solely on their life story, to provide a genuine consistent and accurate account of their life story in every interaction with the Department. The inconsistencies noted bring into question your name, your age, your parentage and your family composition and therefore your identity as a dependant on the main applicant on your subclass 202 visa application and as a refugee.
A person of good character would reasonably be expected not to provide inconsistent, false and/or misleading information to the Department in relation to any of their identity and other personal details or those of their family members.[7]
[7] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T12, at page 127.
The applicant was invited to comment on the information provided in the NOICCA.
On 28 February 2020, the applicant provided a response to the NOICCA which included submissions, statutory declarations from himself and other family members, a family tree, character references, payslips, tax returns and documents relating to his academic qualifications.
In the applicant’s statutory declaration, he admitted that he had made mistakes in his citizenship application form but asserted that he had no intention to purposely provide misleading or incorrect information.[8]
[8] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T13, at pages 149-150.
On 6 March 2020, the delegate cancelled the approval of the applicant’s application for Australian citizenship under s 25(2)(b)(iii).[9] The delegate found the applicant had provided false information to the Department and accordingly he did not meet the requirements for the conferral of Australian citizenship as he was not of good character.
[9] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T14.
On 30 March 2020, the applicant lodged a review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal.[10]
[10] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2.
On 14 December 2021, a hearing before this Tribunal was held, after which, both the applicant and respondent provided closing submissions.
ISSUES
The applicant has not become an Australian citizen under s 28 of the Act by making a Pledge of Commitment. There is no issue that the mandatory condition in s 25(1)(a) is satisfied.
The Tribunal must determine if the applicant is not of good character for the purposes of s 25(2)(b)(iii) of the Act. If the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not of good character, then the Tribunal will consider whether under s 25(1) of the Act to exercise the discretion to cancel the approval of the application for Australian citizenship.
CONSIDERATION
At the outset of my consideration, I should mention that this Tribunal is bound by the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 231 FCR 128 (‘Grass’), which confirms the nature of the power of the Minister to reconsider an approval under s 25(1) of the Act. The Full Court in Grass at [57] emphasized that ‘the placement of s 25 in the scheme indicates parliament’s intention to afford a further opportunity, prior to a person taking the pledge of commitment, for the executive to deny a person citizenship’.
I am satisfied after reading the decision of the delegate that the applicant has not become an Australian citizen under s 28 of the Act by making a pledge of commitment. In his statutory declaration dated 19 April 2021, the applicant has made it clear that he has not had the opportunity to attend an Australian citizenship ceremony.[11] Therefore, the mandatory condition in s 25(1)(a) of the Act is satisfied.
[11] Exhibit D, Applicant’s Tender Bundle, Applicant’s SFIC, paragraph 10.
This application is focused on whether the applicant was not of “good character” in terms of s 25(2)(b)(iii) of the Act. Section 25(2) of the Act is extracted above at paragraph 3 of these reasons and provides that the eligibility criteria for Australian citizenship will not be met if the applicant is “not of good character” at the time the Minister proposes to cancel the citizenship approval.
The Act does not contain a definition of the expression “good character”. This expression was considered in Re Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 19 AAR 148 when reviewing a decision made under the former s 180A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Deputy President McMahon stated (at 154-155):
The Macquarie Dictionary defines character as
“1. the aggregate of qualities that distinguishes one person or thing from others;
2. moral constitution, as of a person or people;
3. good moral constitution or status;
4. reputation;
5. good repute;
6. an account of the qualities or peculiarities of a person or thing.”
In assisting the Minister to determine whether a person has a good aggregate of qualities, as distinct from a bad one, regard should be had to the structure and purpose of the legislation.
To show his good character the applicant has relied upon statutory declarations and letters of support, the persons who have provided those documents have not been called as witnesses and it is not apparent that they fully appreciate the reason why the approval of the applicant’s application for Australian citizenship has been cancelled. In Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 Lee J remarked (at 431):
Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words “good character” should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community.
In Irving, Davies J remarked (at 427-428) that the drawing of a conclusion by a decision-maker as to whether he or she is satisfied as to whether a person is of good character is a “value judgment”. Deputy President Forgie in Da Wei Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94 examined the decisions of the Federal Court of Australia and remarked (at 133):
It would seem, then, that the authorities are drawing attention to a person’s ability to know what society considers good, right and proper and to conduct him or herself in a manner that accords with society’s values.
I am essentially required to have regard to the evidence before the Tribunal to make what Davies J referred to as a “value judgment” of whether the applicant is not of good character.
Honesty in making statements to Departmental officers has long been regarded as indicative of the good character of an applicant. In Re Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Deputy President McMahon stated (at 155-156):
These are overall requirements important in the administration of immigration procedures. The observance of truth in dealing with officials in migration matters (particularly where the truth is known only to the person making the statement) is of fundamental importance to the control mechanism which this country exercises in visa applications when dealing with the many reasons for coming to Australia.
When the applicant applied for the subclass 202 visa, he declared that he had twelve siblings.[12] In that application the applicant referred to other persons who have his surname but it is not apparent that they were claimed to be his siblings. In his application for Australian citizenship the applicant was required to list his full, half, adopted and step brothers and sisters.[13] In his application the applicant listed four siblings who were listed in the Document for travel to Australia form that was issued to him when he was granted the subclass 202 visa.
[12] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T4, at pages 13-15.
[13] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T6, at page 90.
When the applicant applied for the subclass 202 visa, he declared that his mother was T.K. In his application for Australian citizenship the applicant now claims that Am.K is his mother. In his statutory declaration dated 19 April 2021, the applicant now states that the person who he nominated as his mother is in fact his sister.[14]
[14] Exhibit D, Applicant’s Tender Bundle, Applicant’s Statutory Declaration, at 62.
The applicant in his statutory declaration dated 19 April 2021, has explained the background to his completion of the application for Australian citizenship. The applicant declared:
When I was filling out my citizenship application, I only listed the four siblings listed with me on my ‘Document for Travel to Australia’. I have been able to produce two of the three Documents for travel to Australia issued to us wherein you will see my four siblings listed on my document as were listed on my citizenship application. One of the documents for travel has been lost as the siblings listed on my document as were listed on my citizenship application. One of the documents for travel has been lost as the siblings listed on that document are now Australian Citizens and have had no need for the document. In hindsight I recognise that I should have listed all of my siblings, but I dd not realise that this was necessary… I regret that I have been lazy in my approach to filling out my citizenship application form.
Before the Tribunal the applicant was asked: ‘Sir, on page 90 you only declared four siblings. Why is it that you only declared these four siblings?’. The applicant answered: ‘These four siblings are the one that were with me on the travel document, and in hindsight, I should have listed them all my siblings, but I wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead the Department’.
The applicant was also asked: ‘Do you have any explanation for why you did not include other family members on a – on a separate sheet, as the top of that page indicates that you could?’ He answered:
‘In hindsight I should have done that, but that’s my mistakes, and – and I just listed the – the siblings that were with me on our travel document, so that’s my mistake, and now I’m even paying for it, because in hindsight, I should have listed their names on separate sheet. I now know the importance of, like, making sure you read everything, whatever documents you’re given thoroughly and answer each question thoroughly, because I now know what it cost me. Financially and emotionally, I know what I’m going through now because of that. It’s not just, like, I intentionally decided not to list my siblings’ names, no. It’s just a huge human error from my side. I should have. And if I’m given the time back to redo my application, I will show you I will list all my siblings’.
The form of application for Australian citizenship requires the applicant to make the following declaration: ‘I declare that the information I have supplied in this form is complete, truthful and correct in every detail’.[15]
[15] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T6, at page 98.
The preamble to the Act provides that Australian citizenship confers upon a person full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia. In Hocking v Director-General of the National Archive of Australia (2020) 271 CLR 1, Edelman J. at 87 [212] in discussing the nature and membership of the Commonwealth of Australia referred to the ‘political community of the people in the body politic’. An application to become a member of the body politic of the Commonwealth and thereby assume the benefits as well as the responsibilities of an Australian citizen is a serious undertaking.
An applicant is expected to carefully read the questions in an application for Australian citizenship and provide complete and truthful answers to those questions. I have concluded that the fact that the applicant did not fully disclose details of his siblings in his application and for listing the name of his mother in his application for citizenship who is different from his mother who was listed in the visa application, the applicant did not take care in answering the questions in his application for citizenship and he admits that he was lazy in completing the form.
Before the Tribunal the applicant testified that he had fourteen siblings as well as three siblings who have passed away and he provided the names of each sibling. The explanation that was put on behalf of the applicant was that he did not provide full details of his siblings in the citizenship application form because ‘he was under the impression that the Department already had this information before them, it was not necessary to list all 14 siblings’.[16] This explanation was clearly inadequate because the form of application for Australian citizenship required the applicant to provide details of all ‘other immediate family members whose details have not been provided in this application’ and instructs if you have more than 5 other immediate family members, attach their details on a separate sheet’[17], which the applicant did not do either.
[16] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T13, at page 136.
[17] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T6, at page 50.
In his statutory declaration dated 19 April 2021, the applicant remarked:
my family is so huge that it is always a challenge listing everyone and I regret that I have been lazy in my approach to filling out the citizenship form. As I have previously provided all this information to the Department before I didn’t realise that it would be such a big issue.
In not taking care in completing the form by listing all the persons who he claimed to be his siblings the applicant decided to provide an incomplete application. I do not consider that the deliberate falsehood of the applicant in not disclosing all of his siblings can be regarded as a ‘mistake’. I also note that the applicant has listed the name of his sister as being the name of his mother. I also consider that his vocational qualifications and his admission to an Australian University show that the applicant has attained a standard of literacy that would enable him to read and complete the application for Australian citizenship correctly.
The form of application for Australian citizenship makes it clear that the term ‘Immediate family members include full, half, adopted and step brothers and sisters, a spouse or de factor partner including if deceased’. In these reasons I have earlier mentioned (at paragraph 13) that it was important that the applicant disclose those siblings who had passed away. In his statutory declaration dated 19 April 2021, he explained why he had neglected to list his deceased siblings, he remarked: ‘I simply made a mistake and I understand that dead siblings were no longer part of my family because they have passed away’. This is an inadequate explanation having regard to the clear instructions on the form.
In his statutory declaration dated 19 April 2021, the applicant has referred to his proposer as being his ‘older sister’.[18] In his statutory declaration the applicant also declared that his proposer ‘did not declare our family correctly when applying or our citizenship’.[19] This statement is a reference to the fact that the proposer did not acknowledge the applicant as being her sibling in her own application for Australian citizenship. However, the applicant had himself not declared his proposer as his sibling in his application for citizenship but had listed her as his sibling in his application for a subclass 202 visa. It is not clear why the applicant did not list his proposer as a sibling in his application for Australian citizenship even though in his statutory declaration he claims that she is his ‘older sister’. The failure of the applicant to declare her as a sibling in his application for Australian citizenship raises questions as to whether she is his sibling.
[18] Exhibit D, Applicant’s Tender Bundle, Applicant’s Statutory Declaration, at 18.
[19] Exhibit D, Applicant’s Tender Bundle, Applicant’s Statutory Declaration, at 62.
The respondent has made a contention that the delegate came to the correct conclusion when they determined that the other siblings listed in the visa application form are not his siblings. This submission may have been made on the assumption that his proposer would give evidence on behalf of the applicant and would be able to provide evidence as to the family of the applicant. In a family tree that was submitted by the applicant it is represented that his proposer and himself have the same parents.[20] I have previously mentioned that the proposer did not declare the applicant as a sibling in their application for Australian citizenship and the applicant in his application for Australian citizenship did not disclose the proposer as a sibling.
[20] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T13, at page 153.
In my view the delegate was fully justified in pointing out that the information in the subclass 202 visa diagram was inconsistent with the family diagram or family tree that the applicant provided in response to the NOICCA. The family diagram that the applicant provided represents that his proposer and himself are siblings. These are grounds for concluding that his family tree is inaccurate. However, in his statutory declaration dated 19 April 2021 the applicant takes issue with the Department being ‘unclear about our family tree’.[21] The applicant has not in his evidence addressed the concerns of the delegate.
[21] Exhibit D, Applicant’s Tender Bundle, Applicant’s Statutory Declaration, at 44.
On the state of the evidence before me I am unable to make a finding as to who are the actual siblings of the applicant. I do not consider that the applicant is a reliable historian. The Department advised the applicant that one of his claimed siblings has a sister in Sierra Leone who was not declared.[22] The applicant in his statutory declaration dated 19 April 2021 did not make any submissions in relation to this matter.[23] The applicant has also not provided a convincing response to the assessment of the Department that he has inconsistently represented his name, his parents’ names and his siblings’ names as well as the assessment of the Department that his mother may have been alive at the time of his application for a subclass 202 visa.[24]
[22] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T12, at page 127.
[23] Exhibit D, Applicant’s Tender Bundle, Applicant’s Statutory Declaration, at 40.
[24] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T12, at page 127.
The fact that the applicant did not fully disclose details of all the persons that he has claimed to be his siblings in his application for Australian citizenship as well as misstating the name of his mother means that the applicant has made a misleading and false declaration. The fact that the applicant has admitted that he was ‘lazy’ in completing the form of application for Australian citizenship does not reflect well in my assessment of his character. His conduct, as well as making a false declaration, makes me satisfied that the applicant is not of good character.
I have previously mentioned that an application to become a member of the body politic of the Commonwealth is a serious undertaking. The fact that the applicant has declared that he did not realise that the provision of inconsistent information to the Department was ‘such a big issue’ is certainly why I am satisfied that the applicant is not of good character. The applicant (in terms of the formulation of Deputy President Forgie in Da Wei Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94, 133) lacks the ‘ability to know what society considers good, right and proper and to conduct him or herself in a manner that accords with society’s values’.
The applicant on 27 April 2020, filed a comprehensive Statement of Issues, Fact and Contentions (SFICs) in which he stated that he had never contravened any laws in Australia[25] and that he has no serious driving offences.[26] In making that statement the applicant has squarely put in issue his traffic history. The filing of the traffic history as part of the respondent’s tender bundle[27] gave the applicant who is represented certainly gave the applicant fair notice of his traffic history. In filing that traffic history the respondent has quite properly acted in accordance with s 38AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).
[25] Exhibit D, Applicant’s Tender Bundle, Applicant’s SFIC, at 202.
[26] Exhibit D, Applicant’s Tender Bundle, Applicant’s SFIC, at 202.
[27] Exhibit C, Respondent’s Tender Bundle.
At the hearing I stated that the respondent’s SFICs was not amended to refer to the traffic history of the applicant as being material in the assessment of the character of the applicant and referred to Repatriation Commission v Warren (2008) 167 FCR 511 at 532 [92], where Logan J observed that the SFICs that are lodged with the Tribunal in accordance with the General Practice Direction is a document designed to refer to the issues between the parties, his Honour remarked: ‘These Statements formed the background against which each party conducted its case and interchanged with the Tribunal in the course of the Hearing’.
While I permitted the applicant to be questioned on the traffic history, I remarked that I would have to bear in mind the use that could be given to the traffic history. On further reflection, I consider that in this jurisdiction without pleadings it would not be ‘fair’[28] to consider the traffic history of the applicant in my assessment of his character even though the traffic history was annexed to the respondent’s SFICs. The applicant’s SFICs was filed before the respondent’s SFICs. Had the respondent’s SFICs been amended to refer to the traffic history of the applicant, the applicant would have an opportunity to respond to any contentions concerning his traffic history.
[28] Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth), s 2A.
In Ghamraoui and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 254, Member Professor McCallum AO explained (at [15]) that mitigating factors include whether the person has accepted responsibility and shown remorse. Before the Tribunal the applicant stated that he expressed remorse for his traffic infringements, however, but did not express remorse for providing incorrect information in his application for Australian citizenship.
I do not consider that there is evidence upon which I can find that the applicant is remorseful for having made a false declaration. In his statutory declaration dated 19 April 2021, the applicant took issue with the Department making what he claimed to be an error in the NOICCA concerning the date of birth of his sister. However, the reasons of the delegate indicated that the date of birth of the sister which was stated in the NOICCA was the date of birth of his sister as indicated on her original visa application, that date of birth was different on the travel document.[29] The comment of the applicant is not indicative of the applicant having any remorse.
[29] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T14, at page 249.
CONCLUSION
I affirm the decision of the Minister’s delegate. The Minister can under s 25(1) of the Act cancel an approval given to the applicant under s 24 of the Act. The applicant has not become an Australian citizen under s 28 of the Act by making a pledge of commitment. Therefore, the mandatory condition in s 25(1)(a) is satisfied. I am satisfied that the applicant is not of good character under s 25(2)(b)(iii) of the Act. I consider that the making of the false declaration in his application for Australian citizenship, his lack of remorse for his conduct as well as his provision of an inaccurate family tree document enables me to be satisfied that the applicant is not of good character.
Under s 25(1) of the Act, I exercise the discretion to cancel the approval of the application for Australian citizenship, in my view the applicant does not appreciate the importance of providing correct information in an application for Australian citizenship. There are no reasons why I should not exercise the discretion because my decision does not prejudice the visa of the applicant. The delegate informed the applicant that he has the right to make a further application for Australian citizenship.[30]
[30] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T14, at page 249.
DECISION
I affirm the decision of the delegate of the Minister dated 6 March 2020.
I certify that the preceding 56 (fifty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD
................................[SGD]........................................
Associate
Dated: 27 February 2023
Date(s) of hearing: 14 December 2021 Date final submissions received: 28 February 2022 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Michael Henry Advocate for the Applicant: Rosemary Acutt Solicitors for the Applicant: Queensland Migration Practice Advocate for the Respondent: Jake Kyranis Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore
0
5
0