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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applications of the First Applicant, a citizen of Myanmar, and the Second Applicant, his child, for Australian citizenship by conferral. The First Applicant's application was refused by the Department of Home Affairs on identity grounds under section 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth), and the Minister exercised discretion under section 24(2) to refuse the Second Applicant's application, despite the child meeting general eligibility criteria. The applicants sought review of these decisions by the AAT.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the First Applicant's identity could be established to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, and consequently, whether the discretion to refuse the Second Applicant's citizenship application should be exercised. This involved an assessment of the First Applicant's identity in accordance with the "three pillars" of identity (biometrics, documents, and life story) as outlined in the Citizenship Policy and National Identity Proofing Guidelines, and whether the evidence provided sufficiently addressed concerns about inconsistent information and a lack of supporting documentation from Myanmar. The Tribunal also considered the best interests of the child in relation to the exercise of discretion under section 24(2).

The Tribunal reasoned that while the First Applicant had provided inconsistent information and lacked primary identity documents from Myanmar, persuasive witness testimony and other documentary evidence, when considered holistically, established his identity. The Tribunal noted that the assessment of identity is an incremental process throughout a person's life, and that the absence of certain documents does not automatically preclude satisfaction of identity. Regarding the Second Applicant, the Tribunal found that the discretion to refuse citizenship should not be exercised, implicitly considering the best interests of the child in light of the First Applicant's established identity.

The Tribunal set aside the reviewable decisions of the Minister. It substituted decisions finding that the Tribunal was satisfied of the First Applicant's identity for the purposes of section 24(3) of the Act, and that the discretion under section 24(2) of the Act to refuse the Second Applicant's application should not be exercised.