Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 211
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/733
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re WING TO LUNG Applicant
And
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr M J Sassella, Senior Member Date5 March 2003
PlaceSydney
Decision The tribunal affirms the decision under review. ..................[Sgd]................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP - Citizenship application - discretion re citizenship - "good character" – applicant’s failure to respond correctly to questions regarding offences on standard departmental form – applicant convicted of offences of goods in custody reasonably suspected of being stolen and obtaining money/valuable thing/financial advantage by deception - decision to refuse citizenship affirmed
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 ss 13(1)(a)-(j)
Mlinar and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Re (1997) 48 ALD 771
REASONS FOR DECISION
5 March 2003 Mr M J Sassella, Senior Member APPLICATION
1. This is an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the tribunal”) by Wing To Lung (“the applicant”). He seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (“the respondent”) dated 29 April 2002 (T2). In that decision the applicant was refused a certificate of Australian citizenship under s 13 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 [1](“the Act”) on the basis that he was not “a person of good character” as required by s 13(1)(f) of the Act.
[1] tribunal convened a hearing in this matter in Sydney on 16 December 2002. Mr M Xu, a migration agent, represented the applicant. Mr M Allatt of counsel represented the respondent. The tribunal heard oral evidence from the applicant. The tribunal had access to the following documentary evidence:
Exhibit TD1 – Section 37 Statement and associated documents (exhibits T1 – T9) provided by the respondent.
Exhibit A1 – Applicant’s submissions, 24 September 2002.
Exhibit A2 – Applicant’s letter to Mr Jack Rigg, undated.
Exhibit A3 – Applicant’s letter to “Edward”, undated.
Exhibit A4 – Applicant’s statement of facts and contentions, 15 August 2002.
Exhibit A5 – Freedom of Information determination of R Koopman, Legal Compliance Unit, Court and Legal Services, NSW Police, with attached criminal history, 13 August 2002.
Exhibit A6 – Statement by Mr B Law, 4 July 2002.
Exhibit A7 – Applicant’s letter to tribunal with attached certified copies of receipts of payments to Sutherland Court House.
Exhibit A8 – Applicant’s letter to tribunal, 13 August 2002.
Exhibit A9 – Statutory declaration of the applicant’s mother, Ms L Mac, 2 August 2002.
Exhibit A10 – Statement of Mr F K Tang, 23 July 2002
Exhibit R1 – Respondent’s statement of facts and contentions, 9 July 2002.
Exhibit R2 – Applicant’s letter to respondent’s representative outlining statements of applicant, 16 July 2002.
CHRONOLOGY
3. The applicant was born in Hong Kong on 28 May 1981 (T9/20).
4. The applicant first arrived in Australia as a permanent resident on 1 July 1997. (T9/21).
5. On 1 February 2001 the applicant was charged with 1 count of…
Continue reading Lung and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indi...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lung and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenou S Affairs [2003] AATA 211
- Case
- [2003] AATA 211
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court needed to address were primarily concerned with the interpretation and application of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. The court had to determine whether Lung's failure to correctly answer questions about his criminal history on the standard departmental form constituted an error serious enough to warrant the refusal of his citizenship application. Additionally, the court had to assess whether Lung's past criminal convictions, including offences related to goods in custody suspected of being stolen and obtaining money by deception, were sufficient to deem him of bad character under the Act.
In its reasoning, the court held that the AAT was correct in affirming the Minister's decision. It was found that Lung's omissions and misrepresentations on the application form indicated a lack of candour, which is a critical aspect of the "good character" requirement for citizenship. Furthermore, the court upheld that Lung's previous criminal convictions were relevant and substantiated the Minister's decision to refuse citizenship. The court held that the AAT's decision was not erroneous and thus affirmed the Minister's refusal of Lung's citizenship application.
Orders
Orders of the court
The tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.