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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, brought by KQSS against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant had satisfied the 'good character' requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, represented by Senior Member Chris Puplick AM, was tasked with reviewing the refusal of the applicant's citizenship application.

The Tribunal was required to determine the meaning of 'good character' in the context of citizenship by conferral, and specifically, whether the applicant's history of unlawful presence in Australia, coupled with other factors, demonstrated the enduring moral qualities necessary to meet this requirement. The Tribunal considered the applicant's periods of unlawful status, his attempts to regularise his position, his expressions of contrition, his lack of criminal convictions, and his contributions to the Australian community.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal drew parallels with a previous decision, DCXT, noting similarities in the duration and nature of unlawful presence, missed opportunities to regularise status, and the eventual grant of permanent residency. While acknowledging the applicant's remorse, lack of criminal record, community contributions, and positive character references, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not yet demonstrated the "enduring moral qualities" indicative of good character. The Tribunal was not positively persuaded that the applicant met the requisite standard, concluding that more time was needed to build confidence in his sustained demonstration of these qualities.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the good character requirement for Australian citizenship by conferral.