Matini and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) - [2025] ARTA 2075

Matini and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 2075 (15 October 2025)
Applicant/s:  Mhd hivroun Matini
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2024/4096

Tribunal:General Member S Evans
Place:Sydney
Date:15 October 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...............[SGD]......................
General Member S Evans
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – Refusal of citizenship – Whether applicant is of good character under section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – Criminal offending – Tribunal not satisfied Applicant is of good character at time of decision – Decision affirmed
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] 2 ALD 634
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs[1996] FCA 663
Secondary Materials
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 - Assessing good character under the Citizenship Act
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION

Mhd hivroun Matini (the Applicant) arrived in Australia in August 2016. On 27 September 2023 he lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral. On 20 June 2024 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Respondent) refused to approve the Applicant becoming an Australian citizen having found he did not satisfy the good character requirement in paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act). The Applicant seeks review of the decision at the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
For the reasons that follow, the reviewable decision will be affirmed.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICY
Subsection 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. Subsection 24(1) of the Act provides that if a person makes an application under section 21 of the Act, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Subsection 21(2) of the Act sets out the general eligibility requirements for Australian citizenship. Relevant to this application, paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act stipulates that the Minister must be satisfied that a person is of good character at the time of the decision to be eligible to become an Australian citizen.
The Federal Court in BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 considered in detail the meaning of ‘good character’ including the state of satisfaction required (citations omitted):[1]
54. Section 21(2)(h) requires the Minister to form a judgment as to whether he or she is satisfied that the applicant for citizenship is of good character. The word “satisfied” in that context is not amenable to the application of an evidentiary burden of proof, such as balance of probabilities. That is for at least two reasons.
First, the decision is an administrative decision to which the rules of evidence are inapplicable and the evidentiary burden of proof inapposite. Second, the matter of which the Minister must be satisfied, the applicant’s good character, is not a fact to be proved but an opinion requiring an evaluative judgment. A standard of proof, such as balance of probabilities, is incapable of application to such an opinion…
55. The absence of an evidentiary burden of proof does not mean that there is an absence of a legal standard of satisfaction. In the context of s 21(2)(h) of the Act, satisfaction requires that the decision-maker reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character. It is not sufficient for the decision-maker to believe that there is a chance that the applicant is a person of good character; equally it is not necessary for the decision-maker to have a high degree of confidence that the applicant is a person of good character…
[1] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574.
The term ‘good character’ is not defined or qualified by the Act. Its meaning was considered by the Full Federal Court in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Irving) in the context of the power of the Minister to refuse to issue a visa. Lee J said:
Unless the terms of the Act and Regulations require some other meaning be applied, 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.[2]
[2] Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 1660.
The Respondent department’s citizenship policy provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the good character requirement. The Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 Assessing good character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15) identifies the legal requirements and related policy and procedures that apply to the assessment of an application for Australian citizenship. The Tribunal is not bound to strictly apply policy, but as it is government policy it should be considered unless there are cogent reasons not to do so (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2).[3]
[3] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] 2 ALD 634.
Informed by the discussion in Irving, subsection 3.3 of CPI 15 provides that:
A decision-maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout the time the applicant held a visa, and during the time their citizenship application was lodged and processed.
The policy specifically calls for decision makers to consider an applicant in a holistic way; that is, all aspect of their life that may be relevant to consideration of character.
A person’s enduring moral qualities encompass:
- characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;
- distinguishing right from wrong; and
- behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
CPI15 also states that it is necessary to consider any other information that is relevant to a person’s character, such as information provided by an applicant about their family life, expressions of genuine remorse for past wrong-doing, and the time that has elapsed since the wrong-doing.
EVIDENCE
The Applicant lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral on 27 September 2023. Where asked if he had been convicted of or found guilty of any offences, he responded in the affirmative. He disclosed that he had been taken into custody on 17 January 2020 and released on 5 August 2020. He said that he ‘was sentenced on 9 September 2020 with a community correction order of 175 hours and 3 years good behaviour bond.’[4]
[4] T 31.
On 27 February 2024 the Applicant was provided with an excerpt of his Criminal History Check which stated on 9 September 2020 he had been convicted of Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical harm (personal)-T2 and Assault occasioning actual bodily harm-T2 for which he was sentenced to a 3-year Community Correction Order (CCO).[5] He was invited to provide further information regarding his character
[5] T7, 77-79.
The victim of his offending was the Applicant’s then girlfriend. In a statutory declaration dated 12 March 2024, the Applicant wrote he recalled that around December 2019 he received a call from the victim to talk about where their relationship was headed.[6] He said he answered the call on a day where he was ‘going through lots of pressure at my workplace and I proceeded to go meet with her, we began communicating about where our relationship is going.’
[6] T 85.
The Applicant writes that ‘the conversation escalated’ and both he and the victim became aggressive towards each other. He says that for the first time in his life he felt outside of his body and ‘was feeling unimaginable rage and was unable to control [his] actions’. He expressed shame at being unable to control himself ‘and making such a mistake’. He writes that he could not remember exactly what happened but recalled pushing the victim away from him and they both started screaming at each other. He writes that he asked someone who was walking by to call an ambulance and he left and went home.[7]
[7] T8, 83-87.
The Respondent has received documents under summons from Campbelltown Local Court including the New South Wales ODPP Agreed Facts (agreed facts). The agreed facts provide detail of the Applicant’s offending which the Respondent submits was not disclosed by the Applicant.
The agreed facts state the victim was 19 years old at the time of the offence. The Applicant first met the victim in December 2019. On 30 December 2019, the Applicant called the victim to ask if they could meet. They met at a set of stairs leading to a park. The Applicant talked about things that had been upsetting him. He attempted to kiss the victim but she turned away from him and moved further along the bench away from him. The Applicant became angry and explained to the victim he was annoyed that she recently laughed at one of his co-worker’s jokes. The Applicant reportedly raised his voice and said he would kill the co-worker.
The victim got up to leave but the Applicant grabbed her bag and phone. She tried to take them off the Applicant so that she could leave. The Applicant grabbed the victim’s forearm. The victim wanted to get her belongings so she could leave. Whenever she tried to get her belongings, the Applicant would grab the victim and push her back. She started crying and the victim convinced the Applicant to allow her to make a call to her friend, who was also the Applicant’s sister. He gave the victim her phone back and she called the Applicant’s sister to tell her what was happening. The victim waited for the Applicant to look away and when he did, she ran. The Applicant dropped the victim’s belongings and chased her before tackling her to the ground. He held down on the ground and told her to stay calm. She got up and began to scream and cry. The Applicant picked up the victim holding her with his arms around her and carried her back to the bench. The victim resisted and he kept telling her to stop screaming and crying and to breathe. The victim told the Applicant that he was scaring her, and he stopped walking and held the victim on the ground. The victim said she recalled losing consciousness briefly.
Shortly after, the victim walked away screaming and limping with the Applicant following her. The victim caught the attention of a teenage male and asked him to help and also to call the police.
The teenage male followed the victim and the Applicant, trying to keep the Applicant away from the victim. The Applicant gave the victim her phone back. The victim called a friend asking for her friend to come and help her. The victim heard the Applicant talking to his sister’s husband, telling him words to the effect of the victim was really sick, he did not know what was happening and to come and help him.
The victim was approached by a female stranger who pretended to know her before pulling her aside and offering to call the police. The victim told the female to get the Applicant away from her and asked her to call her friend. The next thing the victim recalled was being treated by ambulance officers. She told the ambulance officers she was scared and had been assaulted by her boyfriend.
Hospital staff reported that the victim’s injuries were consistent with the physical altercations reported between the parties.
After speaking to the victim, police attended the Applicant’s home on 31 December 2019. The Applicant told them that he and the victim were not in an intimate relationship, and the victim had had experienced a ‘mental health episode’ during which she fell over.
The agreed facts also provide a timeline of the Applicant’s contact with the victim between 31 December 2019 and 11 January 2020. The nature of the contact between the Applicant and the victim includes phone calls, text messages and in person communication. The Applicant had threatened to kill the victim and himself, and sent photographs of evidence of having self-harmed.
At the hearing the Applicant was questioned about the offending by the Respondent’s representative. He initially indicated that he had not signed the agreed facts, and gave evidence that he had marked-up changes to the agreed facts which he provided to his lawyer. When it was pointed out that the submissions in mitigation made on his behalf confirmed he had pleaded guilty and signed the agreed facts, he conceded he had signed the agreed facts.[8]
[8] ST p 36.
Nonetheless, the Applicant maintains that when he signed the agreed facts he did not know he was agreeing to everything that was stated in the document. He noted it was the first time he had been involved in the criminal justice system and his English language skills were less proficient.
When taken through details of the offending as recorded in the agreed facts, the Applicant took issue with some aspects of the offending as recorded. He denied threatening to kill the victim. The Applicant’s evidence was that contrary to the agreed facts, he did not push the victim to the ground, but had pushed her because she was hitting him. On that basis, he was advised to plead guilty to assault.
The Applicant’s evidence was that a few days after the incident at the park, the victim visited him at the café where he worked. She came with a friend and presented him a gift for his birthday. While she was sat at a table in the café, she ran to the bathroom because she was not feeling well during which she dropped a drink.
Regarding the threats that he would kill the victim, or that they would both die, the Applicant said he did not recall saying anything about death. He said that much of what was reported in the agreed facts was not in written messages that could be seen by others. He initially denied that he had cut himself and sent images of his injuries to the victim, but later gave evidence he may have done so.
The Applicant was asked to attend Liverpool police station on 16 January 2020. He was taken into custody and was held in custody until 5 August 2020. After his release from custody, the Applicant completed the 175 hours of community service, after which he has maintained paid employment.
The Applicant has provided statements of support attesting to his good character. Hasan Mohammad Hasan Hawatmeh was the Applicant’s neighbour for five years. He writes he and the Applicant have been close friends since they met. He finds the Applicant to be a trustworthy and reliable person who has a kind heart. He speculates that transitioning into a new country has contributed to the offending which he refers to as an ‘isolated event’. Mr Hawatmeh said that he was shocked when he heard about the incident but that the Applicant has acknowledged his mistake and takes responsibility for it.[9]
[9] T 88
Dahlia Abdul Rahman is a friend of the Applicant who provided a statutory declaration dated 10 March 2024. Mr Rahman believes the Applicant is honest, respectable and generous. He was shocked when the Applicant’s mother contacted him to advise that he had been arrested for assault in 2020. Mr Rahman said the Applicant has shown nothing but resilience in helping his mother recover from surgery, while working to support his younger sister as while their father was caring for his mother. He writes that the Applicant also performed volunteer work.[10]
[10] T 89-90
Salim Kreich has known the Applicant since December 2022. He has found the Applicant to be well presented and respectful. Mr Kreich has employed the Applicant at his company since November 2023. He writes the Applicant has performed exceptionally well in the role and was recently promoted.[11]
[11] T 91
CONSIDERATION
The issue to be determined is whether the Applicant meets the requirements of good character in paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act. In order to meet the requirement, I must be positively satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at this time.
The Applicant’s offending is particularly serious as it was committed in a public space. The Applicant was both the instigator and escalator of the incident and he used physical force to restrain the victim. CPI 15 provides that behaviour that causes harm to others or negatively affects another individual is inconstant with a finding of good character.
By way of mitigation, the Applicant was 19 years old when he arrived in Australia in August 2016. He said he had never ‘seen life’ when he arrived in Australia, and he noted the offending occurred just a few years after he arrived. He said he did not feel accepted in Australia and found it hard to find friends. He felt like he was not doing anything, his application to become a pilot had been rejected and he was experiencing financial difficulties at the time of the offending.
In the email accompanying the statutory declaration, the Applicant wrote that the 2020 incident, for which he feels shame and embarrassment, has never been repeated. He says that had learnt to control his feelings to prevent something similar forever happening again. He is determined to build a healthy and normal life for himself. He was assessed in an undated report prepared by NSW Corrective Services as being at low risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R).
The Applicant said he comes from a respectful and hard-working family. He has adapted quickly to life in Australia and has achieved a lot in the relatively short time he has been here. He is now fluent in English and obtained paid employment, though he claims to have experienced difficulty maintaining employment because employers often ask for criminal history checks. However, he says is determined to continue improving himself to grow and to strive for excellence.
The Applicant submitted that he is not inclined to be violent, and he has not been in trouble before or after the offending. Contrary to what he wrote in the statutory declaration, the Applicant concedes he did have difficulty controlling his anger. The Applicant said that being able to control his feelings requires him to understand why he feels the way he does and not allowing anger to control him. He has found he can manage his anger effectively by staying close to his family and seeking advice from his father. He gave evidence of having sought help from a psychiatrist in 2023, and received confirmation that he had secured an appointment in September 2025.
I acknowledge that the Applicant has expressed remorse for his offending. The Applicant continues to dispute some of the agreed facts and in explaining the specific details of what occurred, he indicated that some aspects of what occurred were not fully understood by the Court. It is not open for the Tribunal to go behind the conviction and I do not have the benefit of the sentencing remarks.[12] Despite the inconsistencies in some of his evidence, and the continued dissonance between his recall of the offending and some of the agreed facts, I accept that the Applicant’s remorse is genuine.
[12] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202
The Applicant sincerely acknowledged his offending conduct was unacceptable and has paid a high price for his offending. He spent almost 8 months in custody, was required to perform community service and subject to a community corrections order for 3 years. He also experienced shame at not being able to control himself. I accept he is determined to ensure he does not reoffend in the future.

The offending which led to the charges and conviction occurred over a relatively brief period of time. It remains the Applicant’s only appearance before the courts. Nonetheless, the actions which led to his convictions were not isolated but occurred during a series of events over 12 days.
The time that has passed since the Applicant’s offending is considered a mitigating factor. In this case, the Applicant’s obligation to the court ended relatively recently in 2023.
CONCLUSION
Considering the Applicant’s overall circumstances, I am of the view that the Applicant has the capacity to make a worthwhile contribution to the Australian community. I am satisfied he has learnt from his offending and the consequences. However, the offending is considered serious and limited time has passed since the conclusion of the community correction order.
Meeting the good character requirement requires me to be positively satisfied that the Applicant is of good character. Weighing all the available evidence, I am unable to make a finding of good character at this time. Consequently, he does not satisfy paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act. It follows that the reviewable decision will be affirmed.
DECISION
For the reasons set out above, the reviewable decision is affirmed.

Date of hearing:

5 September 2025

Applicant:

In person

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Charlotte Saunders,

Australian Government Solicitor