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

The applicant, a citizen of Sudan who arrived in Australia in 2008, sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse her application for citizenship by conferral. The refusal was based on the applicant not meeting the good character criterion under section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The applicant had previously lived in a refugee camp for over ten years and provided documents, including a tuberculosis treatment card and a Kenyan driver's licence, during her citizenship application process. The Department of Immigration raised concerns about the authenticity of these documents, particularly the driver's licence, and the absence of the applicant's tuberculosis treatment records in the International Organization for Migration's database.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant satisfied the "good character" requirement for citizenship. This involved determining the meaning of "good character" as defined by the Act and relevant case law, which refers to a person's enduring moral qualities, honesty, and adherence to the law, rather than their reputation. The court had to assess whether the applicant's provision of a disputed tuberculosis treatment card and a purportedly not genuine Kenyan driver's licence demonstrated a lack of good character, considering the context of her background and potential illiteracy.

The court reasoned that while the provision of a bogus Kenyan driver's licence was a serious matter, it did not necessarily indicate wilful dishonesty on the applicant's part. Drawing on previous decisions, the court found that the provision of the document was inadvertent rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive the Department. The court concluded that the applicant's actions, in this specific instance, did not demonstrate a lack of enduring moral qualities that would disqualify her from meeting the good character criterion.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration. The court directed that for the purpose of this reconsideration, the applicant was to be considered as meeting the character criterion in section 21(2)(h) of the Act.