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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by a Sudanese national. A delegate of the Minister refused the application, finding that the applicant was not of good character. The applicant sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criterion of being of good character at the time of the decision, as stipulated by section 21(2)(h) of the *Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). This involved considering the applicant's extensive criminal record, which included numerous driving offences, fraud, obstruction of public officers, domestic violence charges, and breaches of bail and restraining orders. The Tribunal also had to assess the significance of the passage of time since the offending behaviour and the applicant's claims of rehabilitation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's offending history was prolonged, varied, and significant, demonstrating a consistent failure to abide by the law. It noted that the applicant had engaged in dishonesty, including providing false personal identifiers to police and defrauding the Commonwealth. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's contention that the passage of time alone was sufficient to establish good character, particularly as some of his false statements were made recently in the context of the citizenship review. The Tribunal applied the principles that an assessment of good character requires consideration of both the nature of the offending and how an individual engages with their history and others over time, both subjectively and objectively.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the application for Australian citizenship, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated that he was of good character.