Kuron and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)

[2019] AATA 747

Kuron and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 747 (17 April 2019)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2018/1092

Re:Mr Noel Kuron

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Ms Anna Burke AO, Member

Date:17 April 2019  

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Delegate dated 22 May 2017, refusing Mr Kuron’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral; and remits the matter to the Minister for reconsideration in accordance with a Direction from the Tribunal, pursuant to
s 43(1)(c)(ii) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) that the applicant is a person of good character for the purposes of the Act.

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

Ms Anna Burke AO, Member

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – refusal of approval for Australian citizenship by conferral – whether the applicant is not of good character – whether the application for citizenship made by the applicant should be approved – decision under review set aside.

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Cases

Re Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Re Mana v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2016] AATA 639
Re Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94
RE Safar and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2015] AATA 503

Secondary Materials

Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Citizenship Policy (1 June 2016)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms Anna Burke AO, Member

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1. On 28 November 2006 Mr Kuron arrived in Australia on a Refugee visa Subclass 200.

2. On 20 November 2014 Mr Kuron lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral.

3. On 22 May 2017 a delegate of the Minister, under section 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act), refused Mr Kuron’s application for citizenship. In the decision the delegate states:

   I am satisfied that the offences you are found guilty of would ordinarily be considered to be non-serious. However they are a concerning matter and they are part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour - repeatedly in breach of traffic rules and laws - which would suggest that you are not of good character… I am satisfied that these offences are part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour which would suggest that you are not of good character. This weighs against you being a good character. I give this factor considerable weight my assessment of whether you are of good character.

   You claimed the offences happened when your car was in your friends’ possession. You however have not provided any evidence supporting that it was your friends, not you, who have committed the offences. You also have not provided any strong evidence that you have attempted to appeal these 4 offences that you were found guilty of, should you have not committed them. …Without this evidence I find your claims … lack of credibility and are unconvincing. Instead I find you have not taken responsibilities for your own behaviour evolving around these 4 offences. This weighs against you being of good character. I give this factor some weight in my assessment of whether you are of good character.

4. Mr Kuron has applied to this Tribunal for review of the Delegate’s decision.

5. At the hearing, Mr Kuron was self-represented and Mr Adam Cunynghame, of Sparke Helmore, appeared on behalf of the respondent Minister.  Mr Kuron gave evidence under oath.

6. Mr Kuron is a 24 year old Sudanese national, who arrived in Australia as a 12-year-old with his three sisters and one brother. He advised the Tribunal that:

   ·he had been raised by his older sister as he had lost his parents at the age of eight;

   ·when he and his siblings first arrived in Australia they lived in Wagga Wagga as they knew people there;

   ·he and his elder sister had issues when they arrived in Australia, as he did not appreciate the sacrifices she had made for him, but their relationship was now good;

   ·he attended primary school and secondary school in Wagga Wagga and then they moved to Sydney where he continued his secondary education;

   ·he did not like school in Sydney or Wagga Wagga; he just enjoyed playing sport;

   ·he relocated to Melbourne to reside with his aunt and uncle to complete his VCE, and following that he commenced studying aerospace engineering at RMIT;

   ·at the end of his first year of university he was missing his family in Sydney and he needed to relocate to help them financially;

   ·after a year in Sydney he relocated back to Melbourne, as he had got involved with the wrong crowd and needed to distance himself from them. He was living with relatives in Melbourne;

   ·he has had various jobs including fruit picking, retail, trolley manager at Glen Waverley and work on construction  sites.  He is now pursuing a modelling career but also wishes to return to his university studies;

   ·he advised he has an agent for his modelling and is getting fairly regular work, at a minimum fortnightly, such as photoshoots, Melbourne fashion week, and Sydney fashion week. His agent had suggested he could get work overseas and that is one of the reasons he requires Australian Citizenship so he can get a passport; and

   ·in his spare time he has played a lot of sport, AFL and basketball, but following an injury has not been able to continue with organised sport.  He goes to the gym regularly to keep in shape as it is very important for his modelling career.

   ISSUE FOR THE TRIBUNAL

7. The issue for the Tribunal is whether the applicant is of good character.

   
   
   

   LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY BACKGROUND

8. Section 21(2) of the Act sets out the general eligibility criteria for a person to become an Australian citizen.

   General eligibility

   A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:

   (a) is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and

   (b) is a permanent resident:

   (i) at the time the person made the application; and

   (ii) at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application; and

   (c) satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and

   (d) understands the nature of an application under subsection (1); and

   (e  possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; and

   (f) has an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and

   (g) is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and

   (h) is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.

9. Section 24 of the Act provides, in part:

   24 Minister's decision

   (1) If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

   (1A) The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
   
   ....

10. Section 25 of the Act provides, in part:

    (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.

11. The term “good character” is not defined by the Act. However, guidance is provided by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Citizenship Policy issued by the Minister in 2016 (the Policy). The stated role of the Policy is to provide guidance on the interpretation of, and the exercise of powers under, the Act and the Australian Citizenship Regulations 2007.

12. Chapter 11 of the Policy deals with good character. Importantly, it is expressly stated at the outset that it is not Departmental policy for decision-makers to be bound by a checklist. Rather, decision-makers are to look at the merits of each case and turn their minds to the issues of character until they are satisfied, on a reasoned basis, whether the applicant is, or is not, of good character.

13. Reference is made to the definition of “good character” given by Lee J in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 (at 431-432):

    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 to 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 whilst 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.

14. The Policy also refers to Re Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, where Deputy President Breen discussed the role of the character requirement in a citizenship application (at para 8):

    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 the 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 year’s time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.

15. To assist decision-makers, the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of the characteristics of good behaviour, which is set out below:

    an applicant of good character would:

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

    ·be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay their taxes, and not be in dishonest receipt of public funds)

    ·be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments, for example:

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

    oinvolvement in a bogus marriage

    oconcealment of convictions that could lead to the cancellation or refusal of a visa or citizenship

    oinvolvement in Centrelink or Australian Tax Office fraud

    ogiving false names and/or addresses to police

    ·not to be violent, involved in drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without licence or insurance)

    ·not to be associated with others who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour, or others who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia

    ·not to have evaded immigration control or assisted others to do so, or been involved in the illegal movement of people

    ·not to have committed, been involved with or associated with war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide

    ·not to be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant

    ·not to be involved in or providing assistance to, or reasonably suspected of being involved in or providing assistance to, terrorist organisations or acts of terrorism overseas or in Australia and

    ·not to be the subject of any verifiable information causing character doubts.

16. The Policy also provides guidance on weighing up the character decision. It points out that the assessment of whether an applicant is of “good character” requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. More weight is to be given to serious offences.

17. The Policy further states:

    In weighing up the various factors, the decision maker must not apply their own personal standards, but must apply community standards. Having regard to the words of the Preamble, and the pledge to be made if citizenship is approved, decision makers are asking themselves:

    ·would a person of good character have behaved the way the applicant did

    ·what is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law

    ·has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia’s community standards

    ·does the applicant share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties.

    (a)The policy makes reference to Deputy President Forgie decision in Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94, to demonstrate this point:

    In the context of the Act, loyalty to Australia, a belief in a democratic form of government, a respect for the rights and liberties of all Australians and obedience to and observance of the law are values that are regarded as significant. An assessment of a person’s character will need to have regard to them. They are not values that can be assessed in the abstract. Instead, they are measured in part by what a person says, in part by what a person does and in part by what a person is heard to say and seen to do.

    EVIDENCE

18. The evidence before the Tribunal included three sets of documents provided pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, referred to as the “T documents”, the “Supplementary T documents” and the “Further Supplementary T documents”. Mr Kuron provided two character references.

19. The following table has been derived from Mr Kuron’s records as outlined in a VicRoads Complete Demerit Points extract dated 31 August 2018:

Date

Nature of Offence

10  May 2013

Exceed speed limit by less than 10 km/h

24 August 2013

Exceed speed limit by less than 10 km/h or more but less than 15 km/h

20 January 2015

Exceed speed limit by 15 km/h or less

14 October 2015

14 October 2015

Exceed speed limit by 15 km/h or more but less than 25 km/h

Exceed speed limit by 15 km/h or more but less than 25 km/h

15 October 2015

Exceed speed limit by 15 km/h or more but less than 25 km/h

18 October 2015

Exceed speed limit by 15 km/h or more but less than 25 km/h

21 October 2015

Exceed speed limit by less than 10 km/h or more but less than 15 km/h

1. The following table has been derived from Mr Kuron’s records  as outlined in a National Police History Check dated 7 April 2017:

Court	Date	Nature of Offence	Sentence
Goulburn Local Court	6 Jan 2016	Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period – 1St off	Fine:$1,500 Disqualification – Driver – 2 years
Blacktown Local Court	17 Nov 2015	Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended – 1st off Not comply P2 licence condition not display P plates Driver or rider state false name or home address	Fine:$600 Disqualification – Driver – 12 Months Fine: $100 Fine: $300

1. Mr Kuron told the Tribunal that he accepted he had numerous driving offences but disputed several of the offences attributed to him. He could recall receiving speeding fines in Melbourne but did not accept all the fines attributed to him in Victoria. He could not identify who these fines were imposed on but he recalled the majority of his fines had occurred whilst driving his aunt’s car and he had signed documentation accepting he was the driver at the time.

2. Mr Kuron explained that he had not been going out much in Sydney over the Christmas period in 2015, as his licence was suspended and it was a time of year people spent with their families. He accepted and clearly remembered the offence for which he was charged in Blacktown on 17 November 2015. He said that he had gone to pick the car up as it was five minutes from his home and everyone else was drunk. He said that whilst he did drink he never drank and drove. The Tribunal noted none of Mr Kuron’s offences related to drink driving. He recalls being pulled over and trying to use his brother’s licence as it was his brother’s car but he accepted the charge and went to court and pleaded guilty to the offence.

3. Mr Kuron was adamant that he was not driving when the second offence listed against him took place. He stated he was not at court in Goulburn on 6 January 2016 as he had already returned to Melbourne, having flown down on the 27 December 2015. He did not accept he was involved in any way with the incident police recorded on 21 November 2015 on the Hume Highway Goulburn. He said a friend had borrowed the car and he was completely unaware of the charges and suspension until he tried to transfer his licence from NSW to Victoria in 2016. He was advised by VicRoads that he could not transfer his licence as it had been suspended in NSW. He stated he was not in court on 6 January; nor in Sydney on 18 January 2016 driving along Canterbury Road, Canterbury, where the police recoded they pulled over a vehicle for a random drug test.

4. A police report of 20 November 2015 states:

   The accused was attempting to fasten his seatbelt at the time… was asked who the vehicle belong to, to which she replied that it belonged to a friend. When asked the friends name, …..turned around and looked at the accused, who said “Noel”… then turned and faced police and said “Noel”… appeared to be very nervous and evasive at this time. The accused was asked who the vehicle belong to, to which he replied “A friend”. The accused was asked if this friend knew he had the vehicle, to which he replied ”Yes”. The accused further stated he had borrowed the vehicle that morning. During further questioning the accused finally revealed that the vehicle belonged to him, and he lied because police were asking too many questions.

5. A police report of 18 January 2016 states:

   OWN: Noel Kuron… Police signalled the DR to pull the VEH into the LOC. Once stopped at the LOC police conducted checks on the VEH which revealed the VEH’s registration was suspended due to fine default. Police submitted the DR to a random breath test which had a negative result and then inform the driver that the VEH was suspended. The DR was unaware of the VEHs status as when he borrowed the VEH from the OWN who did not mention it. Police informed the DR the VEH could not be driven from the LOC until the OWN of the VEH had made payments towards the fines.

6. Mr Kuron said he had asked his friend to provide a statement to support his claims but his friend was not willing to do so. Mr Kuron was asked to provide any other evidence which corroborated his claims, such as plane tickets/boarding passes or bank statements indicating where he was on various dates but he provided no documentary evidence.

   CONSIDERATION

7. Mr Cunynghame contended that Mr Kuron’s offences clearly weighed against his being of good character.  He argued that Mr Kuron had exhibited negligence on the roads by driving at excessive speed without a valid license.  Mr Cunynghame argued that Mr Kuron could not be considered of good character as he had committed multiple driving offences which demonstrate that his offending is part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour, resulting in the suspension of his license on two occasions for significant periods of time.

1. Mr Cunynghame indicated that Mr Kuron’s denial and explanation of the convictions found in the Goulbourn Court on 6 January 2016 was implausible and that he had provided no other evidence or statement from any individual which corroborated his claims.  Mr Cunynghame argued that it was obviously the same car that had been involved in both incidents in NSW and the Tribunal should accept the police statement of the incident on 6 January 2016.

2. Mr Cunynghame argued that Mr Kuron’s behaviour was inconsistent with the Policy, as he had obviously not respected and abided by the laws of Australia nor had he demonstrated good conduct through his actions of excessive speeding and driving without a licence. Mr Cunynghame argued that these actions could cause significant harm to others.

3. Mr Cunynghame took the Tribunal to the matter of Safar and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2015] AATA 503 where Member Webb found:

   This case does not simply turn on Mr Safar’s traffic offences, although those are concerning in themselves. The important point is that his flagrant disregard for law and for community safety, and his lack of insight, point to aspects of his character that are not consistent with a person who is of “good character” for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.

4. Mr Cunynghame argued that Mr Kuron had provided no evidence that he had taken steps to rehabilitate himself, or that he had learned from his past behaviour.  In addition, a reasonable amount of time had not passed since his last offence to demonstrate he had enduring moral qualities which would make him a good citizen in the eyes of the populous. Furthermore, Mr Kuron had failed to provide evidence which demonstrated that he upheld the values of the Australian community or indicated he was willing to make a positive contribution to the country.

5. Mr Kuron supplied two character references which attested to his good character.

   Mr Toyin Abbas, Youth Development Officer, City of Yarra wrote on 20 August 2018 that:

   I have supported Noel on various Youth Services’ programs and observed him to be humble, diligent, caring, compassionate dedicated and always willing to support others.

   Noel agreed he had problems with the law while he was in NSW and decided to relocate back to Victoria. I have continued to support Noel in my role via various youth programs and he has transitioned well to further his studies and also ventured into professional modelling as a career.

   Mr Ali Ahmed, CEO, Youth Activating Youth Inc. wrote on 21 November 2018 that:

   I wish to state that Youth Activating Youth Inc supports Noel Evelino Kuron. He has been Volunteering on Weekdays after work for the past two months. He is often involved with organising events, workshops and sport activities whilst working full time Model IMG and People Agency. The work Mr Noel does with YAY and young people is quite inspirational. He is developing skills that will contribute to his personal and professional development. Noel has been supporting our organistaion ethos of reduce disadvantages within our community and promoting equal access for disadvantage youth.

   Mr Noel character and attitude are extremely positive and he has an easy-going outlook and friendly personality. … He has been of tremendous help and I believe young people can learn a lot from the mistakes he has made. Noel is a changed man who is a positive influence on young people. He serves as a great role model for young people currently experiencing issues in the African community.

   Noel is looking to make a positive change. Given his involvement with YAY, he is on track to become a contributing member of society.

6. Mr Cunynghame argued that these references made no reference to any specific offending and should be given little weight.

7. Mr Kuron said his life had been difficult, having been orphaned at 8, coming to Australia at 12, and being raised by his sister.  Mr Kuron said he had felt hurt and saddened to see his younger sister going through the same difficulties as he had. Mr Kuron said that these offences had been committed when he was much younger and in a bad place. It was now over 3 years since these offences had been committed, and he had committed no offences since then.  He had learned a great deal in this time: and he was now a changed person. He was working within his community, leading by example, with African youth to show you can have a better life, and to show that you can make mistakes but learn from them. Now he wants to be a productive, contributing and respected member of the Australian community, someone whom his community can be proud of.  He wants to give kids advice to follow their dreams, as he has done with his modelling and studies. He argued he was focussing on the future, showing by example that you can change as a person and that everyone deserves a second chance.

8. The Tribunal noted that at the time of the refusal of citizenship the delegate of the Minister found that Mr Kuron’s offending was  part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour; that he had taken no responsibility for his behaviour; that he had provided no evidence of rehabilitation; that he had provided no character references; that he had provided no information regarding his current circumstances, employment or status in the community; and that a reasonable amount of time had not passed to establish a pattern of good behaviour.

9. However, at the Tribunal hearing Mr Kuron did acknowledge his past traffic offences accepting responsibility for several, but not all, of the offences attributed to him, arguing that he was young at the time and in a bad place. The Tribunal notes that speeding and driving whilst suspended are serious offences but they are at the lower end of traffic offences, being described by the delegate of the Minister in her decision “as ordinarily be considered to be non-serious”. The Tribunal notes that, tragically, all too often young males in Australia are prone to commit the same offences. The Tribunal also notes that at no stage has Mr Kuron been charged with speeding above 25 km/h or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

10. At the Tribunal hearing Mr Kuron provided a good account of his current circumstances: that he was employed on a regular basis by a modelling agency and was about to resume his tertiary education. Additionally, he provided evidence that he was playing an active role as a volunteer within his community, demonstrating that he was leading by example, that one can make mistakes but learn from them and build a better future.

11. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Kuron’s pattern of behaviour of ignoring the laws of Australia by continually breaching driving regulations is serious. The Tribunal did not accept Mr Kuron’s evidence that the last offences were not attributable to him, as there was no corroborating evidence to verify his assertions to the Tribunal. Mr Kuron provided a screen shot of details of a flight booking from Sydney to Melbourne dated 28 December 2015 but the document clearly states “We saw you did not complete your flight booking to Melbourne” so this did not corroborate Mr Kuron’s assertions. Therefore, the Tribunal took into account all the offences attributed to Mr Kuron.  The Tribunal finds that these offences were serious.

12. The Tribunal does not find a parallel with the matter of Safar cited by Mr Cunynghame as Mr Safar had taken no responsibility for his actions, had been convicted twice for drink-driving and for excessive speeding of 112 km/h in a 60 zone; and had additional proceedings for offences underway at the time of his hearing.

13. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal provided Mr Kuron with the opportunity to furnish references from his current employers and to provide any corroborating evidence to substantiate his claims that he was not present in Sydney on 20 November 2015. Mr Kuron provided statements from Ms Sinead Hargraves director of People Agency and Mr Triann Marcs, Men’s Division IMG models; both testify to Mr Kuron’s good character.

14. On 14 March 2019  Ms Hargraves wrote:

    It is with no hesitation that I write this testimonial for Mr Noel Kuron.

    I met Noel in June 2017 and he was signed with our Agency in July, 2017.

    He was studying Aerospace Engineering at RMIT and eagerly writing music in his apartment. We saw a very passionate individual ready to make something great of his life.

    Noel’s interviewing skill and all-round great personality made it a very easy decision for us to hire him and he was one of the first five models to be on our books and immediately showed us consistent enthusiasm, punctuality and care for his position and career with us. His responsibilities grew very quickly within our company and as did his attitude.

    He is a young man with conviction and his actions speak louder than words. Over the past 18 months, thanks largely to his efforts our Agency can pride itself on reliability, honesty and commitment.

    As his Mother Agent we sent him to interview with IMG ( one of the world’s leading modelling agencies based in Sydney and they too added him to their books immediately.

    We are in constant contact with IMG on how he is performing when in Sydney and his client’s just keep rising to a higher calibre. The next step for Noel and his modelling career would be to go international.

    IMG have offices internationally and have expressed interest for Noel to be placed in some of their offices in New York and Paris but at the moment this all depends on his Visa status.

    Noel was a natural and had the perfect confidence and attitude towards modelling. He has always shown a will to teach and support others so we decided to give him the opportunity to work as a teacher at some of our workshops with our newly signed models and we have seen wonderful results.

    Noel put his degree on hold to focus on his modelling career that was taking off but endeavours to revisit the degree when modelling has earned him enough savings.

    Noel always has a future (dependent on visa) here at People Agency as one of our highest earning models on our books.

    This is someone with a ‘can do’ attitude, a young man that can make a significant contribution to our community and to this country

15. On 14 March 2019 Mr Marcs wrote:

    It is with great pleasure that I write this character reference for Mr Noel Korun as I have known him for 1.5 years.

    IMG have signed Noel Kuron in 2018 and believe he has great potential nationally and internationally as a model. In my experience, Noel is professional individual who constantly receives positive feedback from our clients in Sydney including, Iconic, PE Nation, AKIRA, and emerging new menswear designer, COMMAS.

    Noel is one of the most dedicated and hardworking people I’ve had the pleasure of working with in any capacity. He is also compassionate, kind and eager to succeed as a professional model.

    IMG models is the World’s leading modelling agency, focused on the management of its clients through finding the best opportunities to suit. We truly believe in Noel career as a model with us and strive to work alongside him in Australia.

16. The Tribunal finds that Mr Kuron’s offences were serious, as any breaches of road laws essentially puts at risk the safety of the community. However, sufficient time has passed since these offences, which were “not ordinarily considered serious”.  In addition, the offences had occurred some three years ago and in the interim Mr Kuron has established a pattern of good behaviour, as clearly articulated in the references provided by his current employers and should not be denied the ability to apply for Australian citizenship.

    DECISION

17. The Tribunal sets aside the decision of the Delegate dated 22 May 2017, refusing Mr Kuron’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral and remits the matter to the Minister for reconsideration in accordance with a Direction from the Tribunal, pursuant to
    s 43(1)(c)(ii) of the AAT Act that the applicant is a person of good character for the purposes of the Act.

I certify that the preceding 47(forty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms Anna Burke AO, Member.

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

Dated:   17 April 2019  

Dates of hearing:	14 February 2019
Date of final submissions:	1 April 2019
Applicant:	Self-Represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Adam Cunynghame
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers