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

[2022] AATA 15

Khanum and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2022] AATA 15 (4 January 2022)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2021/3436

Re:Aliya Khanum

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

Date of Decision:               4 January 2022

Date of Written Reasons:      7 January 2022

Place:Melbourne

On 4 January 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 – whether the Tribunal is satisfied of the Applicant’s good character – Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – Applicant maintained fraudulent identity for over a decade – false information to Department – Tribunal not satisfied Applicant is of good character – decision affirmed

LEGISLATION

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Statutory Declarations Act 1959 (Cth)

CASES

Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Re (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931
Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Negri v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2016] FCA 879
Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326

Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304

SECONDARY MATERIALS

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

Refugee, Citizenship and Multicultural Programs Division, Department of Home Affairs, Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (26 February 2021)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

7 January 2022

INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant seeks review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister to refuse her citizenship application on character grounds. The hearing was held on 4 January 2022. The Applicant was represented by Mr Amani, a solicitor with Amani Lawyers. The Respondent was represented by Ms Liddy, a solicitor with Sparke Helmore Lawyers.

2. The hearing of this matter was concluded relatively quickly on 4 January 2022, with only the Applicant and one character witness giving oral evidence. Following a three-hour adjournment, the Tribunal gave ex tempore reasons. The Respondent confirmed on 5 January 2022 that written reasons were required. These are now provided, consistent with the requirements of section 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AATA) and Federal Court authority that 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]

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

   BACKGROUND 

3. The Applicant arrived in Australia with her eldest daughter in October 2009[2] as unauthorised maritime arrivals.[3] She claimed her name was Bakht Bibi Hussaini, her daughter’s name was Ozra Safdari, and they were citizens of Afghanistan.[4] It was further claimed the Applicant’s husband, Ewaz Ali, was missing for the last two years[5] and they feared harm from the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan.[6] The Applicant and her daughter were subsequently granted Protection Visas based on these claims.[7] They have continued to use these names during the last 12 years in documents issued by the Australian Government and in dealings with other businesses and organisations.[8]

   [2] Exhibit R1, 10; 23; 136.

   [3] Within the meaning of s 5AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

   [4] Exhibit R1, 10.

   [5] Ibid 16; 54; 93.

   [6] Ibid 11.

   [7] Ibid.

   [8] Ibid 32-36; 41.

4. The Applicant travelled to Pakistan within a year of arriving in Australia and has returned on several occasions since, for periods totalling approximately 15 months.[9] She has not worked in Australia and relies on government support payments.[10]  During the hearing she claimed to have received a Disability Support Pension for the last four or five years.

   [9] Ibid 47; 135.

   [10] Ibid 48.

5. On 13 November 2014, the Applicant submitted a Form 1300t-Application for Australian citizenship.[11] She attached documents issued since her arrival in Australia and a police clearance certificate from Pakistan.[12] She again claimed to be Bakht Bibi Hussaini, a forty-five-year-old citizen of Afghanistan.[13]

   [11] Ibid 22.

   [12] Ibid 40; 137.

   [13] Ibid 22.

6. A summary of the Applicant’s subsequent interactions with the Department follows:

   (a)On 13 August 2016, the Department requested identity documents issued to the Applicant overseas.[14] The Applicant responded by way of a Form 80-Personal particulars, a letter from her doctor outlining her medical conditions, and a Statutory Declaration dated September 2016 in which she stated:

   …I have no identity documents from my country of birth. I do not have a birth certificate, because at that time most of the babies used to born at home And I born at home too. And I was an orphan.

   I do not have taskera (National ID card). Because the way we fled our country, I did not make taskera and I have no one there to get me taskera.

   I do not have a marriage certificate because our marriage was just a traditional Afghan type marriage.[15]

   (b)On 27 August 2020, a delegate of the Minister wrote to the Applicant requesting original documents regarding her identity prior to arrival in Australia.[16] The Applicant responded with another Form 80 and a statement that claimed:

   …I have not any kind of identity documents from my country of birth. Because after my parents death those who were my guardian they did not register me for any kind of document. I did not see any kind of document which belong to me not before marriage or after. I am very sorry I can’t provide any document you ask for.[17]

   (c)On 2 December 2020, a delegate of the Minister wrote to the Applicant inviting her to comment on adverse information, based on discrepancies in the material she had previously provided to the Department. [18]

   (d)On 8 February 2021, the Applicant responded through her migration agent, disclosing that the identity she established upon arrival in Australia in 2009 was fraudulent, as were many other family claims (fraudulent identity claims).[19]

   (e)On 14 May 2021, a delegate of the Minister refused the citizenship application under s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).[20]

   [14] Ibid 11.

   [15] Ibid 63.

   [16] Ibid 66.

   [17] Ibid 88.

   [18] Ibid 89.

   [19] Ibid 113.

   [20] Ibid 7.

7. On 25 May 2021, the Applicant sought review of the refusal decision.[21]

   [21] Ibid 1-5.

   LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

8. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may apply to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. To be eligible for citizenship, a person must satisfy each of the eight general eligibility requirements under section 21(2) of the Act.

9. Section 21(2)(h) of the Act requires the Minister to be satisfied that the person applying for citizenship ‘is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.’ Under Section 24(1A) of the Act, the Minister (or a person delegated by the Minister under s 53 of the Act) must not approve the application if not so satisfied.

10. Section 52(1)(b) of the Act is the source of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Minister or a delegate under s 24 of the Act.

11. The importance of the good character requirement for citizenship applications was outlined by the Tribunal in Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931:

    The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home. The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts.  It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of State. The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few years’ time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.

    Citizenship Policy Statement and Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions

12. The term ‘good character’ is not defined in the Act. The Full Court of the Australian Federal Court has held it is to be interpreted broadly:  

    …Parliament clearly intended the term to be used in a broad way, and refrained from taking the approach adopted in the Migration Act of giving specific content to a character criterion…[22]

    [22] Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44, [60].

13. The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (Policy) (issued 27 November 2020) and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs) (reissued 26 February 2021) provide guidance for decision-makers exercising power under the Act. Although Ministerial or Departmental policy is not binding on the Tribunal, decision-makers undertaking merits review should generally apply such policy unless it is unlawful or ‘there are cogent reasons to the contrary.’[23]  The Tribunal has not identified any reason why the Policy and CPIs should not be applied, while being mindful of the need to consider the exercise of delegated powers based on the specific circumstances of each case.

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

14. Relevant to this application is Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15-Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15). While CPI 15 confirms that decision makers ‘should not apply policy inflexibly and should consider the merits of each individual case’, it provides the following guidance as to the meaning of the term ‘good character’, reflecting the judgment of the Full Federal Court:[24]

    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. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact while the latter is a review of subjective public opinion… A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character… Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.

    [24] Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422.

15. CPI 15 elaborates on the meaning of the term ‘enduring moral qualities’:

    The phrase ‘enduring moral qualities’ encompasses the following concepts:

    ·     characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;
    
    

    ·     distinguishing right from wrong; and
    
    

    ·     behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.

    The good character requirement necessitates consideration of an applicant viewed in a holistic way; that is, all aspects of his/her life may be relevant to consideration of character.

16. CPI 15 also sets out a non-exhaustive list of characteristics generally expected of a person of good character, noting that ‘as a general proposition, a person who is of good character would:’

    ·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;
    
    

    ·be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay tax, not be in dishonest receipt of public funds, and pay debts to the Commonwealth);
    
    

    ·not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example:
    
    

    ·intentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications;
    
    

    …
    
    

17. Under the heading ‘Community standards’, CPI 15 reflects that the Preamble to the Act can assist in identifying what the Australian community considers to be proper behaviour when assessing good character.[25] The Preamble defines Australian citizenship as follows:

    Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.

    The Parliament recognises that persons conferred Australian citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations:

    (a)by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people; and

    (b)by sharing their democratic beliefs; and

    (c)by respecting their rights and liberties; and

    (d)by upholding and obeying the laws of Australia.

    [25] Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304.

18. Under the heading ‘Weighing information’, CPI 15 sets out how an overall assessment of a person’s character may be made:

    In addition to the general principles of good decision-making set out in CPI 17 – Decision-making under the Citizenship Act, officers assessing whether an applicant is of good character should as a general proposition:

    ·     characterise the nature of any offence or behaviour

    ·     is the offence serious or minor?

    ·     did the offence harm other people?

    ·     who were victims?

    ·     is there a pattern of behaviour?

    ·     was it a one off incident?

    ·     were there extenuating circumstances?

    Consider any associations with people or organisations of concern.

    Consider any mitigating circumstances:

    ·     length of time since the offence was committed

    ·     age at time of offence

    ·     behaviour since completing prison sentence or obligations to court

    ·     remorse regarding their offending behaviour

    ·     community support (referee reports etc)

    ·     changes in the life of the applicant. For example, relocation away from people who had a negative influence, marriage or de facto relationship, children, treatment for addiction or mental illness.

    The decision-maker must weigh up all relevant factors to decide whether the applicant is of good character. The decision-maker must look holistically at applicant’s behaviour over time and reach a conclusion about the person’s enduring moral qualities.

19. The requirement for a holistic assessment of a person’s character has previously been discussed by the Tribunal:

    a decision about whether a person is of good character requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. It is true to say, however, that, despite the many good qualities possessed by a person, those qualities can be outweighed by a single adverse incident if it is of sufficient weight and seriousness.[26]

    [26] Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326 at [7].

    ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION

20. The issue for determination is whether the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.

    EVIDENCE

    Documentary evidence

21. The following documents were tendered into evidence;

    (a)Section 37 documents tendered by the Respondent numbering 284 pages;[27]

    (b)Applicant’s statement dated 20 September 2021;[28]

    (c)Statutory Declaration dated 27 September 2021 from Mr Muzaffar Jafari;[29]

    (d)Report of psychologist Mr Randolph Monteiro dated 25 September 2021; [30]

    (e)Statutory Declaration dated 27 September 2021 from Mr Ivor Marcel Pierre; [31]

    (f)Letter from the Alamdar Society of Victoria dated 24 September 2021;[32]

    (g)Statutory Declaration dated 28 September 2021 from Mr Ibrahim Ali Haidary; [33]

    (h)Letter from General Practitioner Dr Suzette Meshreky dated 22 September 2021.[34]

    [27] Exhibit R1.

    [28] Exhibit A1.

    [29] Exhibit A2.

    [30] Exhibit A3.

    [31] Exhibit A4.

    [32] Exhibit A5.

    [33] Exhibit A6.

    [34] Exhibit A7.

    Applicant’s evidence  

22. The Applicant adopted her statement as true and correct. She stated her real name is Aliya Khanum and not Bakht Bibi Hussaini.  She was born in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, and her husband is not missing or deceased as previously claimed. He lives in Pakistan with four of their daughters and a son. Two other daughters live in Australia, are married, and have children. Her eldest daughter, son-in-law, and their three children live with the Applicant. The other daughter, her husband, and their two children live nearby.

23. The Applicant said she came to Australia with their eldest daughter because her husband asked her to. She said people smugglers told her to falsely claim she was a widow from Afghanistan, because she would not be accepted if she disclosed her country of citizenship was Pakistan. The Applicant said the smugglers ‘cheated’ her by telling her to make these false claims and apologised for her ‘mistake’.

24. The Applicant said she has continued to use the false name Bakht Bibi while living in Australia, including in documents submitted with her citizenship application and subsequently. She claimed that she ‘wanted in [her] heart’ to notify the Department about her correct identity but did not know how. When challenged that she could have done so when previously lodging materials with the Respondent, she stated: ‘I didn’t know at that time…I haven’t asked…[or]…I didn’t understand that if I reveal the real name, if I understood I would do.’ The Applicant said she intends to change her Australian documents to her real name but has not done so. She continues to receive Centrelink payments in the false name.

25. In response to a question by Mr Amani, the Applicant said she accepted everything put to her by the Respondent about the fraudulent identity claims. During cross-examination by Ms Liddy, the Applicant agreed she used the fraudulent identity on arrival in Australia, in her 2014 citizenship application, in response to contact from the Department on 13 August 2016, and after further contact from the Department in August 2020. She agreed that she only told the truth after the Respondent discovered her deception and invited her to comment about adverse information in December 2020. The Applicant said she contacted her children in Pakistan who mailed her Pakistani Passport and identity card to Australia, which was then provided to the Respondent.[35]

    [35] Exhibit R1, 117-118.

26. The Applicant said the real name of the daughter who accompanied her to Australia in 2009 is Bibi Batool and not Ozra Safdari as previously claimed. She said this daughter had continued to use the false name Ozra Safdari while living in Australia[36] and obtained Australian citizenship in this name. None of the Applicant’s family in Australia or Pakistan were called to give evidence and did not provide statements.

    [36] Ibid 34-35; 41; 54; 59; 80; 114; 127; 131-134.

27. The Applicant agreed she has been overseas on multiple occasions since arriving in Australia, for a collective period of approximately 15 months.[37] She said the shortest trip was for approximately a month to visit a shrine and the person who accompanied her paid for their travel. The Applicant initially refused to disclose whether this person was male or female, but subsequently stated they were female. The Applicant claimed not to know the name of the person who paid for her travel or accompanied her. When challenged, the Applicant insisted she did not know their name and had not asked them what their name was. The Applicant said the longer overseas visits were to visit her family in Pakistan. The Tribunal notes this includes a three-month period in 2010, a five-month period in 2011, and a six-month period in 2013. When asked why she returned to Pakistan for extended periods if her safety concerns caused her to flee to Australia in 2009, the Applicant said it was to visit her other children. She said her family resides in a ‘military area’ in Pakistan with many security checkpoints, and her previous safety concerns related to the times she moved outside of this area to trade goods between Iran and Pakistan.  

    [37] Ibid 135.

1. When asked about the Pakistani Police Clearance Certificate in the fraudulent name Bakht Bibi Hussaini, the Applicant said ‘in Pakistan you can get anything if you pay money’. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing at this point to enable a private discussion between Mr Amani and the Applicant about her right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination. Upon resumption, the Applicant stated she paid a bribe to obtain the police certificate, but insisted it was genuine because she had not previously been in trouble with Pakistani police. 

   Evidence of Mr Muzaffar Jaffari

2. Mr Jaffari adopted his statement as true and correct. He said he had known the Applicant for 40 years and they lived next door to each other in Pakistan. Mr Jaffari came to Australia in 2012 and said his wife reconnected with the Applicant. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s ‘problems’ with immigration, he considered her to be of good character. During cross-examination, Mr Jaffari agreed he was aware since last year about the fraudulent identity used by the Applicant in Australia, but not about other false claims like the claimed death of her husband and the inconsistent details provided for her children.

   CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

   Applicant 

3. Mr Amani stated in written submissions that the Applicant’s identity has now been confirmed and she is a ‘person of good character and has no issues with the law…except for this matter’. During closing submissions, he said that notwithstanding the serious nature of the fraudulent identity claims, her ‘general reputation in the Hazara community is good.’ Mr Amani also submitted that ‘since the Department caught her, she’s come clean and been direct and honest, which should be given some consideration’. He said the Applicant had ‘relied on the advice and guidance’ of people smugglers and acted out of desperation ‘because of safety concerns in Pakistan’.

   Respondent

4. Ms Liddy highlighted the Applicant’s prolonged deception over a 12-year period. She said the Applicant’s fears of harm in Pakistan could not be reconciled with her multiple return visits for extended periods. She said little weight should be placed on psychologist Mr Monteiro’s report, which did not directly relate to the character concerns before the Tribunal. Ms Liddy said little weight should also be placed on Mr Jaffari’s evidence, which did not reflect a full understanding of the Applicant’s deception.

   CONSIDERATION

5. The health concerns referred to by the Applicant are unrelated to the character issue under consideration. The facts disclose she has intentionally maintained the fraudulent identity claims for 12 years, including in Statutory Declarations and statements,[38] as well as in official forms where she declared the information provided was ‘complete, truthful and correct in every detail.’[39] This gives rise to concerns she may have breached s 50 of the Act and s 11 of the Statutory Declarations Act 1959 (Cth).

   [38] Exhibit R1, 63; 86.

   [39] Ibid 31.

6. The Applicant has had plentiful opportunity since 2009 to correct her false claims but has not done so. Her explanations for the fraudulent information, namely that it arose from safety concerns about being returned to Pakistan, do not persuasively explain why she maintained this false narrative for such a long time, including after permanent residency was granted to her. It also does not explain why she returned to Pakistan for protracted periods of up to six months. The Applicant has only recently disclosed her true identity in response to the Department’s discoveries. Her conduct also pre-dates the medical and psychological conditions she now refers to, with the latter aggravated by stressors linked to the Respondent’s discoveries.[40] It is understandable that the Applicant’s mental health has been adversely affected by the unravelling of false identity claims she has maintained for the past 12 years. The Tribunal is satisfied that none of the medical or psychological conditions referred to in evidence[41] explain the Applicant’s persistent deception, which weighs heavily against her enduring moral character.

   [40] Ibid 43; 119.

   [41] Ibid 42-43.

7. The Applicant’s expressions of remorse do little to ameliorate the Tribunal’s concerns, particularly given the continuing nature of her misconduct. This is most recently evidenced by submission of a Pakistani police clearance report that was obtained with a bribe. The Tribunal does not accept her claim the information in this report is genuine because it is in a false name. Moreover, during her oral evidence, the Applicant stated that her general practitioner and others in the community only know her by the fraudulent identity. This indicates she has not taken meaningful steps since purporting to have ‘come clean’ about a year ago to correct her identity in the community.

8. It is of concern to the Tribunal that based on the fraudulent identity claims, the Applicant has been issued a Protection Visa, Australian travel documents, Medicare Card, Pensioner concession card, and received substantial taxpayer-funded support. Her claimed intention to remedy this by ensuring the documents are re-released in her correct name is an unfulfilled aspiration at best. Although beyond the scope of the reviewable decision, the Applicant’s oral evidence also gives rise to concerns that other members of her family in Australia may have similarly obtained documents, benefits, and perhaps citizenship in fraudulent names. It remains unclear to the Tribunal why submissions made by the Applicant’s lawyer on 1 February 2021, continue to refer to the Applicant’s eldest daughter as Ozra Safdari,[42] when the Applicant’s oral evidence is this is a false name and her daughter’s real name is Bibi Batool.

   [42] Ibid 114.

9. The Tribunal has considered the character references submitted on the Applicant’s behalf, most of which do not refer to her fraudulent identity claims.[43] Mr Jaffari’s evidence reflects an incomplete understanding at best about the extent of her deception of Australian authorities. None of the statement authors, except for Mr Jaffari, were called to give evidence. Little weight is placed on these character references.

   [43] Ibid 116; 128; 133-134.

10. Psychologist Mr Monteiro was not called as a witness and could not be cross-examined about his report. This centres on trauma purportedly experienced by the Applicant while on the people smuggler vessel conveying her to Australia, and ‘traumatic events of the past’. Mr Monteiro said he ‘had to ask her over and over to clarify matters of the past incidents’ and opined she may not have spoken freely because cognitive deficits or Hyperamnesia could have made her ‘confused about facts and stressful events.’[44] Absent any opportunity to question Mr Monteiro about his report, the Tribunal has several continuing concerns that diminish the weight placed on it:

    (a)The report is overly reliant on the Applicant’s self-reported claims. Although in the header of his report the Applicant is referred to as ‘Bakht Bibi Hussaini (Aliya Khanum)’, the rest of the report refers to her as Mrs Hussaini;

    (b)There is no reference to an interpreter being used during the consultation or when administering actuarial tests. At the current hearing the Applicant said she was illiterate, could not speak any English, and was totally reliant on an interpreter. There is reference in Mr Monteiro’s report to the Applicant’s daughter helping during the consultation, but she was not called as a witness and could not be cross-examined about her participation or any interpreter qualifications;

    (c)Some of the factual references in the report differ from the Applicant’s evidence. This includes Mr Monteiro’s reference to the Applicant contacting ‘some people who promised that they would take her and her eldest daughter to Australia by boat’.[45] The Applicant’s oral evidence, however, is that her husband recommended her travel to Australia and ‘spoke with agents who brought [them] here’. Mr Monteiro also stated she was concerned about ‘having abandoned her three daughters and a son in Pakistan,’ which is inconsistent with the Applicant’s oral evidence about how many children she has in Pakistan;

    (d)Mr Monteiro stated that in his ‘professional opinion [the Applicant], is an honest person, misguided by people who she believed were smarter as she is uneducated’. It remains unclear to the Tribunal how Mr Monteiro came to this conclusion, particularly given the persistence of her deception during the last 12 years.

    [44] Exhibit A3, 2.

    [45] Ibid 3.

11. Mr Monteiro’s report is of very limited probative value in helping resolve whether the Applicant is of good character. Little weight is placed on his report.      

    CONCLUSION

12. The Applicant intentionally provided false information about her identity and that of her family members on arrival in Australia and maintained this for approximately 12 years. Her conduct constitutes deliberate dishonesty in an official context and is inconsistent with maintaining the integrity of Australia’s migration system. The Applicant blames a range of factors for making the false claims, and for purportedly being unable to correct the record, which is not accepted. Her continuing use of the false identity, including when providing a Pakistani police certificate obtained with a bribe, diminish her claims about remorse and a longstanding intention to correct the record. She only ended her deception when immigration authorities discovered it. The Applicant’s conduct reflects adversely on her enduring moral qualities, which are not those expected of a person seeking citizenship. Insufficient time has elapsed since she disclosed her true identity in February 2021 to currently be considered of good character.

    DECISION 

13. The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.

I certify that the preceding 40 (forty) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision of Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

……………[sgd]…………………….
Associate

Dated: 7 January 2022

Date of hearing:	4 January 2022
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr Bilal Amani
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Amani Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Samantha Liddy
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers