May and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) - [2020] AATA 5155

May and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 5155 (21 December 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2020/0490
Re:Etagu Seboka May
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:L M Gallagher, Member
Date:21 December 2020
Place:Perth

The reviewable decision, being the decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated
2 January 2020 to refuse the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral, is affirmed.
...................[sgd].....................................................
L M Gallagher, Member
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – eligibility – refusal of citizenship – whether Tribunal satisfied applicant was of good character – evidence of identity unsatisfactory – reviewable decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – ss 21, 21(1), 21(2)(h), 24, 24(1), 24(1A), 24(3), 52(1)(b)
CASES
Ater and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4677
Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256
BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574
CDNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 757
Confidential and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 144
Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310
Ghumaan v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 200
HJPB and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 5247
JLKJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] AATA 716
RRML and Minister for Home Affairs [2020] AATA 1654
Sakhi Zada and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 1729
VFWQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 230
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Ethiopia
(28 September 2017)
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Ethiopia
(12 August 2020)
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Citizenship Policy, at 1 June 2016 Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions – CPI 16, Item 4.4
REASONS FOR DECISION
L M Gallagher, Member
21 December 2020
THE APPLICATION

The Applicant seeks review of a decision made by a delegate of the Respondent on

2 January 2020[1] to refuse her application for Australian citizenship by conferral under

s 24(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act) (the Reviewable Decision).
[1] R1, T2, pages 8 to 16.
The basis of the refusal was that the delegate was not satisfied of the Applicant’s identity, applying s 24(3) of the Act.[2]
[2] R1, T2, page 15.
The application for review is made in accordance with s 52(1)(b) of the Act, which allows applications to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a decision under s 24 of the Act.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a 45-year old citizen of Ethiopia, who arrived in Australia on 24 June 2010 as the holder of a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa[3] granted on 25 May 2010.[4]
[3] R1, T26, page 281.
[4] R1, T15, pages 168 to 170 and R1, T27, page 283.
The Applicant has since been granted the following additional visas:
(a)2 March 2011 – Partner (Temporary) (Subclass 820) visa;[5]
(b)12 April 2013 – Partner (Permanent) (Subclass 801) visa;[6] and
(c)21 April 2018 – Resident Return (subclass 155) visa.[7]
[5] R1, T27, pages 283 and 285.
[6] R1, T27, pages 283 and 284.
[7] R1, T27, page 283.
On 14 July 2017, the Applicant applied for citizenship by conferral under s 21(1) of the Act.[8]
[8] R1, T2, page 8 and R1, T8, page 102.
On 4 August 2018, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, which later came to be known as the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), requested the Applicant provide a full birth certificate and other documents of identity from her country of birth.[9]
[9] R1, T8, pages 101 to 104.
On 7 January 2019, the Applicant provided a number of additional documents,[10] being:
[10] R1, T11, page 116.
(a)Applicant’s statutory declaration dated 7 January 2019;[11]
[11] R1, T11, pages 117 to 119.
(b)
Applicant’s Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia passport

(date of issue 27 January 2016);[12] and
(c)
Applicant’s People’s Democratic Republic of Ethiopia passport

(date of issue 31 January 2010).[13]
[12] R1, T11, pages 120 to 121.
[13] R1, T11, pages 122 to 127.
On 16 August 2019, the Department wrote to the Applicant requesting further information, as follows:[14]
The oldest document provided was issued on 31 January 2010, when you were

34 years old.
Please provide documents regarding your identity issued prior to 2010.[15]
[14] R1, T14, pages 139 to 145.
[15] R1, T14, page 142.
On 3 September 2019, the Applicant responded to the Department’s request dated
16 August 2019[16] and provided the following documents:
[16] R1, T15, page 146.
(a)
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland passport of Nicholas May

(date of issue 22 September 2000);[17]
[17] R1, T15, pages 148 to 160.
(b)Certified copy of an Entry of Birth of Nicholas May;[18]
[18] R1, T15, pages 161 to 162.
(c)Applicant’s Ministry of Interior Secured Criminal Record (Instant) issued by the Ethiopian Embassy in Cairo with translation dated 19 August 2008;[19]
[19] R1, T15, pages 163 to 166.
(d)Certificate of Divorce of Nicholas May and Martine Waghorn May dated 8 September 2008;[20]
[20] R1, T15, page 167.
(e)
Letter of the Australian Embassy in Cairo to the Applicant dated 25 May 2010 regarding the Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa sponsored by

Nicholas May;[21]
[21] R1, T15, pages 168 to 170.
(f)Auscorp Unit trust payslip of Nicholas May dated 15 September 2010;[22]
(g)Letter from Think Pink Realty to Nicholas May dated 26 October 2010;[23]
(h)Applicant’s National Police Certificate valid as at 2 November 2010;[24]
(i)Commonwealth Bank Smart Access statement for Nicholas May and the Applicant for the period 6 October 2010 to 6 January 2011;[25]
(j)Certificate of Marriage for Nicholas May and the Applicant dated 9 January 2011;[26]
(k)Western Australian Marriage Certificate registered on 13 January 2011;[27]
(l)Commonwealth Bank Complete Access statement for Nicholas May and the Applicant as at 16 February 2011;[28]
(m)Instruction to Payroll Officer of Nicholas May and the Applicant dated 16 February 2011;[29] and
(n)Australian Super Statement for Nicholas May dated 23 February 2011.[30]
[22] R1, T15, page 171.
[23] R1, T15, page 172.
[24] R1, T15, page 173.
[25] R1, T15, page 174.
[26] R1, T15, page 175.
[27] R1, T15, page 176.
[28] R1, T15, pages 177 to 178.
[29] R1, T15, pages 179 to 180.
[30] R1, T15, pages 181 to 182.
On 11 September 2019, the Department requested further information regarding her identity.[31]
[31] R1, T16, page 183.
On 17 October 2019,[32] the Applicant provided a letter from her former employer in Egypt dated 5 October 2019.[33]
[32] R1, T17, page 186.
[33] R1, T17, page 190.
On 27 November 2019, the Department wrote to the Applicant requesting she complete a new Form 1300t (Application for Australian citizenship).[34]
[34] R1, T20, pages 196 to 199.
On 11 December 2019, the Applicant provided the following documents in response to the Department’s request dated 27 November 2019:[35]
[35] R1, T23, page 205.
(a)Form 1300t (Application for Australian citizenship) dated 4 December 2019;[36]
[36] R1, T23, pages 206 to 224.
(b)Form 80 (Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment) dated 10 February 2019);[37]
[37] R1, T24, pages 258 to 275.
(c)
Statutory declaration of Hana Seboka Thorpe (the Applicant’s sister) dated

26 November 2019, together with a certified copy of the Western Australian Driver’s Licence of Hana Seboka Thorpe;[38]
[38] R1, T23, pages 243 to 244.
(d)
Statutory declaration of David James Thorpe (the Applicant’s brother-in-law) dated

26 November 2019 together with a certified copy of the Western Australian Driver’s Licence of David James Thorpe;[39]
[39] R1, T23, pages 245 to 246.
(e)
Statutory declaration of Alem Seboka Floysand (the Applicant’s sister) dated

2 December 2019, together with a copy of the Western Australian Driver’s Licence of Alem Seboka Floysand;[40] and
(f)
Statutory declaration of Ross Karl Floysand (the Applicant’s brother-in-law) dated

2 December 2019, together with a copy of the Western Australian Driver’s Licence of Ross Karl Floysand.[41]
[40] R1, T23, pages 250 to 252.
[41] R1, T23, pages 253 to 255.
On 2 January 2020, a delegate of the Respondent made the reviewable decision.[42]
[42] R1, T2, pages 8 to 16.
On 28 January 2020, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal seeking review of the Reviewable Decision.[43] In her application for review, the Applicant claimed the Reviewable Decision was wrong because:[44]
several factors have not been taken into consideration when the decision was made
[43] R1, T1, pages 1 to 7.
[44] R1, T1, page 5.
LEGISLATION AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
The Preamble to the Act states that:
The Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.
The Parliament recognises that persons conferred Australian Citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations:
(a) by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people; and
(b) by sharing their democratic beliefs; and
(c) by respecting their rights and liberties; and
(d) by upholding and obeying the laws of Australia.
Section 21 of the Act sets out the general provisions for the making of applications and eligibility for citizenship.
Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
Section 21(2)(h) of the Act provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person ‘is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.’
Further, s 24 of the Act provides:
(1)If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
…
(1A)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
Accordingly, under s 24(1A) of the Act, the Minister must not approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied that the person ‘is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application’, that being the requirement of

s 21(2)(h) of the Act (see [20] above).
Section 24(3) of the Act relevantly provides that:
The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.
‘Identity’ is not defined in the Act. The Australian Citizenship Policy (the Policy) relevantly provides the following guidance.[45] The Policy states, at Chapter 13:
The identity provisions prohibit the approval of a citizenship application in cases where the decision maker (the Minister or their delegate) is not satisfied of the person’s identity.
In addition to being a legislative requirement under the Act, the Australian community expects that decision makers will not approve a person for citizenship or give evidence if they are not satisfied of the person’s identity.
[45] As to the status of the Policy, see RRML and Minister for Home Affairs [2020] AATA 1654 at [105].
The Policy also refers to the concept of identity as described in the Attorney-General’s Department’s National Identity Proofing Guidelines (the Guidelines). Chapter 2.1 of the Guidelines provides:
2.1.1A person’s identity is not a fixed concept; it is highly dependent on context. It is some combination of characteristics or attributes that allow a person to be uniquely distinguished from others within a specific context.
2.1.2 A person’s identity in Australia (for the purposes of these Guidelines) is generally considered to be established at birth with the creation of a RBDM birth record that details unique information about an individual-such as name, date and place of birth, For people not born in Australia, their identity in Australia is generally established from personal details recorded on DIBP Australian immigration documents or records.
In its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC), the Respondent also refers to the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction[46] No 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (CPI 16), which provides further guidance at [4.4]:
[46] The Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions were published on 1 January 2019 to support the function of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).
When assessing a person’s identity, the Department relies on a combination of three elements, referred to as the three pillars of identity. Each pillar is made up of individual characteristics.
Table 3 – The three pillars of identity

Three pillars of identity Individual characteristics

Biometrics Personal identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person’s signature. Biometrics can be used for comparison, with, for example, facial images held by the Department or other domestic or international agencies.

Documents
Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar.
A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features.

Documents contain biodata, or personal information,
such as name, date of birth, nationality, and/or citizenship, and may also contain biometric information.

Life story A person’s life story is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. Officers should consider the events that happened to the person, and the information and detail correlating to the events.
A person’s life story may include descriptions of family composition, education, employment, countries of residence, countries visited, social footprint, and online presence.
Officers should not rely on a single pillar to establish a person’s identity. Considering a single pillar in isolation is generally inadequate for providing a reliable basis on which to establish a person’s identity. In order to comprehensively test and evaluate a person’s claims with regard to their identity, decision-makers should consider each pillar.
In most cases the consideration of the three pillars is embedded in the identity assessment process. The citizenship applicant is likely to be well documented, information provided to the Department will have remained consistent over a long period of time, and no inconsistencies or concerns will have been identified. Through their reliability and comprehensiveness, identity documents testify to important events in the applicant’s life story. Through personal identifiers contained in identity documents, the applicant’s biometrics held on departmental records are matched and confirmed.

ISSUE

The issue for review by the Tribunal is whether the Tribunal is satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act.
EVIDENCE
The matter was heard in Perth on 30 September 2020. The parties appeared at the hearing by telephone.[47] The Tribunal thanks the parties for their cooperation.
[47] Following the changes to national circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Tribunal’s policy is not to conduct in-person hearings as a temporary measure.
The Applicant was represented by Ms Meskerem Ashagrie of Desire Australia Pty Ltd, Migration Agents. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Applicant with the assistance of Mr Ghebremedhin Atsebaha, Amharic interpreter. The Applicant was the only witness. The Respondent was represented by Ms Sara Anicic from the Australian Government Solicitor.
The Tribunal received the following evidence:
(a)Applicant’s written submissions dated 11 May 2020 (A1);
(b)Applicant’s statutory declarations (x3), (together, A2), dated:
(i)26 November 2019;
(ii)10 March 2020; and
(iii)12 May 2020,
(c)The T documents (287 pages) (T1-T27) (R1); and
(d)Respondent’s SFIC dated 1 July 2020 (R2)
Subsequent to the hearing, and in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions, the parties filed written closing submissions.
The Tribunal has reviewed all of the material before it. The Tribunal is satisfied that all relevant evidence was before it and that both parties were provided an opportunity to address the evidence, either orally or in writing. Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the Tribunal will be analysed and referred to below.
The Applicant gave the following relevant evidence at hearing, including during

cross-examination by Ms Anicic:
(a)When she was in Ethiopia she had no form of identification prior to her Ethiopian passport issued in 1994.[48]
(b)She had no birth certificate because she was born at home.[49]
(c)She is unable to obtain a birth certificate or a Kebele card now because she no longer lives in Ethiopia and there is no one in Ethiopia who can represent her at the Embassy.[50]
(d)Any school related documents her parents may have had would have been destroyed when the family house burned down.[51] She is unable to have those documents re-issued as there is no one in Ethiopia who can represent her and make the attempt.[52] She asked her siblings for help but they said to her there is no one they know in Ethiopia who could assist.[53]
(e)She had no identity documents during the time she lived in Egypt as she lived there illegally.[54] By the end of 2009 she realised she had lost her Ethiopian passport in Egypt.[55]
(f)She had searched for her Ethiopian passport in 2009, and not before, as she was preparing to migrate to Australian on a spouse visa at that time.[56]
(g)None of her employers in Egypt from 1995 to 2008 had ever asked to see her passport.[57] (The Applicant then gave evidence that she was required to show a number of her employers in Egypt her Ethiopian passport).[58]
(h)She tried to contact her previous employers in Egypt for reference letters and was unsuccessful,[59] suggesting they had changed their telephone numbers.[60]
(i)As to how she obtained her Ethiopian passport, she was assisted by a person who knew her father.[61]
[48] Transcript, page 14 at [35]-[40].
[49] Transcript, page 15 at [10].
[50] Transcript, page 15 at [15]-[45].
[51] Transcript, page 18 at [20]-[40].
[52] Transcript, page 19 at [5].
[53] Transcript, page 19 at [10].
[54] Transcript, page 19 at [20].
[55] Transcript, page 19 at [45].
[56] Transcript, page 20 at [5]-[35].
[57] Transcript, page 20 at [10]-[25].
[58] Transcript, page 21 at [45] and page 22 at [5]-[40].
[59] Other than her most recent employer in Egypt, Ms Mehrez. See R1, T17 at page 190 and fn 33 above.
[60] Transcript, page 23 at [40]-[45].
[61] Transcript, page 24 at [35]-[40].
At hearing, Ms Anicic noted that the Applicant’s statutory declaration dated 26 November 2019[62] states she provided a number of documents in order to obtain her Ethiopian passport, including an application form, a photograph, an identity confirmation letter issued by a government employer, a personal statement and a statement from three witnesses.[63] When asked by Ms Anicic as to what attempts had been made to obtain the application form she completed to obtain her Ethiopian passport, the Applicant said:
(a)She had tried asking her siblings if they knew anyone in Ethiopia who could assist, but her siblings’ ‘country relatives are there, but they will not spare their time to cooperate with me.’[64]
(b)
She had sought advice from the Ethiopian Embassy in Australia who advised her that she needs a representative in Ethiopia to whom she could give power of attorney.[65] This advice was sought and obtained by telephone,[66] during the week that she applied for Australian citizenship.[67] The Applicant said she asked the Embassy questions about how she could obtain school or birth certificates.[68]

The Applicant said she contacted the Embassy ‘up to five times’ or ‘from three to five days’ and that she did not recall the dates of these telephone calls.[69]

The Applicant said she did not attempt to contact the Embassy by letter or email.[70]
[62] R1, T23, pages 247 to 249.
[63] Transcript, page 24 at [45] and page 25 at [5].
[64] Transcript, page 26 at [45] and page 27 [5].
[65] Transcript, page 27 at [10], [35]
[66]
[67] Transcript, page 27 at [30].
[68] Transcript, page 38 at [5]-[10].
[69] Transcript, page 37 at [30]-[40].
[70] Transcript, page 38 at [10]-[25].

When asked by Ms Anicic as to what attempts had been made to obtain the identity confirmation letter issued by her government employer or any of the three witness statements, the Applicant said she ‘tried to get, but didn’t find.’[71] When asked to elaborate, the Applicant said she had asked the Department of Immigration in Ethiopia on the telephone, who advised her she needed a representative as ‘all things could be done by being represented by someone.’[72] As to how she attempted to reach relatives in Ethiopia who could act as representatives, the Applicant said:[73]
What happened is, yes, I asked my brothers and my sisters if there could be anyone who can represent me. They told me someone who is a relative. I asked him to be my representative, but he said to me that he would not be available.
[71] Transcript, page 29 at [40]. See also transcript, page 38 at [45].
[72] Transcript, page 30 at [20].
[73] Transcript, page 39 at [10].
When asked by Ms Anicic as to what attempts had been made to obtain her school records, the Applicant said that she had tried to contact the school by telephone, the place had changed and ‘that one also was being represented by someone.’[74]
[74] Transcript, page 30 at [30]-[45].
As to whether the Applicant had attempted to contact the institution in Egypt at which she studied English for one year, the Applicant said she had a student identification card,

a copy of which she had sent to Australian Immigration but had since been inadvertently destroyed.[75]
[75] Transcript, page 31 at [35]-[45]. At hearing Ms Anicic noted to the Tribunal that while the Applicant did, in Part G of her Form 80, indicate that she had studied at an institution in Egypt (R1, T24, page 263), there was no other evidence that the Applicant had studied there (Transcript, page 32 at [15]).
When asked how she came to secure her employment as a housekeeper in Heliopolis in July 1995, the Applicant said it was through people that she knew. The Applicant said she was not required to obtain a police clearance for the role.[76] As to her subsequent housekeeping roles, the Applicant said she would live with her employer for the limited time she held that role, then would move into another job once the role became difficult.[77]

When she moved roles she was never asked to provide paperwork to the new employer.[78] The Applicant never held a bank account in Egypt nor did she receive any payslips.

Rather, she was paid a cash amount at the end of each month.[79]
[76] Transcript, page 33 at [5]-[35].
[77] Transcript, page 35 at [5].
[78] Transcript, page 35 at [45].
[79] Transcript, page 36 at [10]-[25].
The Tribunal raised with the Applicant the fact while that the employment history provided with her application for citizenship indicates that she was unemployed between March 2003 and February 2009, she indicated she had worked during that time.[80] The Applicant said that this was ‘maybe’ a mistake,[81] and there were no other mistakes in her application form.[82]
[80] R1, T23 at page 242 and transcript, pages 43 at [15]-[45] and 44 at [5]-[15].
[81] Transcript, pages 43 [35] and 44 [10]-[15].
[82] Transcript, page 43 [15]-[20].
When asked how she obtained her Egyptian criminal record certificate in 2008,[83] she said she provided her Ethiopian passport in Cairo and they issued the certificate.[84]
[83] R1, T15 at page 166.
[84] Transcript, page 37 at [20]-[25].
The Tribunal asked the Applicant a series of questions about her life story, in particular her marriage and her sisters. These questions produced the following evidence:[85]
[85] Transcript, pages 44 to 52.
(a)She does not remember exactly the year in which she met her husband, Mr May. The Applicant guessed it was between 2009 and 2010, but settled for ‘maybe’ 2008[86] once it was brought to her attention that she applied for a prospective marriage visa in 2008. The Applicant recalled that later that year Mr May divorced his then wife and she applied for her prospective marriage visa.
[86] Transcript, page 45 [25].
(b)
She does remember that her first contact with Mr May was via telephone.

The introduction was made by her sister Alem, who is married to Mr May’s friend (Mr Floysand).
(c)After they met on the telephone, the Applicant’s husband came to visit her in Cairo, although she cannot remember the year. The Applicant thought it might have been 2009.[87]
(d)
She cannot remember the years that her sisters’ marriages took place.

The Applicant thinks her sister Alem married Mr Floysand in 2001.
THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
[87] Mr Floysand (married to the Applicant’s sister, Alem) and Mr Thorpe (married to the Applicant’s sister, Hana) indicated in their statutory declarations that they first met the Applicant in Egypt in 2002 (R1, T23, pages 245 and 253).
The Applicant
The Applicant made the following contentions regarding her birth certificate, school related documents and Kebele card:[88]
[88] A Kebele card is an identity card issued in Ethiopia, by request, to persons aged 18 years and over.
(a)Birth certificate
– The Applicant stated in her statutory declarations dated

11 December 2019 and 10 March 2020 that she was born at home. The Applicant has no birth record or hospital issued documents. The Applicant was born during the Red Terror that forced people to hide to save their lives. Birth registration in Ethiopia was and still is very low. The Applicant’s sisters have confirmed the Applicant’s identity and birth history in their respective statutory declarations.

These declarations should be given weight given they were old enough at the time the Applicant was born. It is reasonable to accept the Applicant’s birth was not recorded and hence she is unable to provide documents in this regard.[89]
[89] A1, page 3 and Applicant’s written closing submissions at [1(a)].
(b)School related documents
– The Applicant went to primary school and high school between 1982 and 1994, a period in Ethiopia that was characterised by famine and war. The Applicant’s father was involved in the Oromo Liberation Front party that started armed struggle with the new ruling party in the early 1990s. The Applicant’s father was eventually captured and assassinated. The Applicant’s parent’s house was set on fire and her father was killed. Any school related document or record of the Applicant’s that her parents may have had was burnt with the house.

The Applicant’s sisters confirmed in their statutory declarations that the fire incident destroyed documents along with other family belongings.[90]
(c)Kebele card
– The Applicant turned 18 years old in 1993 while in high school during a period of political instability. This was a difficult time for the Applicant as she lost her father and her family home was burnt down by the government. The Applicant completed high school in July 1994 and fled from Ethiopia in April 1995.

The Applicant did not have the Kebele card issued after turning 18 as it was not compulsory. Even if the Applicant had a Kebele card issued in 1994, the year of issue would have been the same as her first passport, and hence it would not have documented her identity between birth and 19 years old. Therefore, it is likely that it may not have satisfied the relevant delegate in establishing her in any event.[91]
(d)It is (therefore) beyond the Applicant’s capacity to provide any identity document issued between birth and 19 years of age.[92] Further, a reasonable person would agree that a person on a tourist visa who needed to work illegally as a housemaid (risking potential abuse) in exchange for shelter, food and income is not likely to have a reason for any identity document issued.[93]
[90] A1, page 3 and Applicants’ written closing submissions at [1(b)].
[91] A1, page 3 and Applicant’s written closing submissions at [1(c)].
[92] A1, page 3.
[93] Applicant’s written closing submissions at [6].
The Applicant submitted that she had made reasonable efforts to obtain identity documents from Ethiopia, these efforts being:[94]
(a)contacting the education administration in her hometown of Ambo for information regarding her school records;
(b)contacting ‘Ethiopian immigration’ about a copy of her first passport;
(c)contacting the Ethiopian Embassy in Canberra for advice on options to have documents re-issued in Ethiopia.
[94] Applicant’s written closing submissions at [2].
The Applicant submitted it was likely to be beyond her capacity to appoint a power of attorney in Ethiopia, or to find witnesses to attest to her birth in the form of a statutory declaration given she has no connection or relationship with her remaining relatives in Ethiopia.[95]
[95] Applicant’s written closing submissions at [3] and [4].
In closing, the Applicant submitted:[96]
The findings show documenting vital information is a continuing challenge which is a government administration failure common to countries such as Ethiopia.

The failure raises doubt on whether the applicant would have been able to retrieve any old documents (including school documents) even if she had a Power of Attorney (or had another means) and whether if [sic] that would be possible in the future as well.
[96] Applicant’s written closing submissions at [8(d)].
The Respondent
At hearing, Ms Anicic put forward the following summary of the Respondent’s position in the present matter:[97]
Ultimately the position is that a certificate of Australian citizenship is a document of such fundamental significance in this country, that a higher level of satisfaction of identity is required. And this is not simply because of its status as an identity document itself, but also in relation to the integrity of the citizenship programme as a whole.
The authorities and the policy are clear in that where there is any doubt, then the tribunal should not countenance an outcome which would lead to a person being granted Australian citizenship where their identity is unclear. And that is reflected in the fact that there is an absolute prohibition in section 24 of the Citizenship Act on a person being granted citizenship where their identity is not established. That does not mean that a person who has not satisfied the tribunal to the requisite degree is a person of bad character, it just means they haven’t met the high bar required for satisfaction of identity.
The authorities are also clear that while a person from disrupted society is not expected to produce the same level of documentation as those from countries with bureaucracies like Australia, nevertheless, efforts must be made and evidence of those efforts must be put forward to the tribunal. This high level of effort is required because a grant of Australian citizenship is so important. And given the high significance of that citizenship, it is submitted that at the very least there must be evidence of effort having been made, and it is not sufficient to simply rest on an assumption that nothing is obtainable, or very little effort’s been made to obtain identity documents. Even evidence of being rebuffed by Ethiopian officials would be something that would go towards supporting identity.
[97] Transcript, pages 10 [35]-[45] and 11 [5]-[15].
The Respondent contended further, and more specifically, that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Ethiopia dated 28 September 2017

(the DFAT Report) state that birth certificates, Kebele cards, Ethiopian Certificates of Good Conduct and passports exist in Ethiopia.[98]
[98] R2 at [33]. The Respondent refers to paragraphs 5.24 and 5.29 to 5.38 of the DFAT report (now superseded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report on Ethiopia dated 12 August 2020).
The Respondent acknowledges that the Applicant has been consistent in respect of her name and date of birth. However, there are aspects of the Applicant’s documentation and her life story, which remain unclear and are relevant to her identity:[99]
[99] R2 at [34].
(a)
There is a lack of documentation which supports her identity since birth.[100]
[100] See also Respondent’s written closing submissions at [4]-[6].

The Applicant has not provided any identity documents from birth to 19 years old.[101] The earliest dated document that the Applicant declares she held was an Ethiopian passport (E425984) which she lost.[102] At hearing, the Applicant was unclear as to when she lost her Ethiopian passport and in what circumstances. The Respondent accepts this document was issued on 26 December 1994, when the Applicant was 19 years old. Even so, the Applicant’s explanations of her attempts to obtain evidence of this passport or the documents underlying it were unsatisfactory.
[101] R2 at [34.1]. See R1, T16 at page 183.
[102] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [7] and [9].

The Applicant’s own evidence indicates that there were a number of documents created and/or provided to the Ethiopian authorities in order for her obtain her Ethiopian passport.
(b)The Applicant claims that she did not have a birth certificate, a Kebele card or any other identity document part from the Ethiopian passport (E425984) before she left Ethiopia in 1995. The Applicant also claims that any other documents she held in Ethiopia, such as school certificates, were destroyed by a house fire. The Applicant said she had no documentary evidence to confirm that her house was burned.[103] The Applicant provided statutory declarations from her sisters and brothers-in-law which provided very limited information about the house fire,[104] but these witnesses were not called to give evidence at the hearing.[105]
[103]
[104] R1, T23 at pages 243 [3(g)], 245 [5(d)], 250 [8] and 253 [5(d)].
[105] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [12].
(c)The Applicant’s statutory declarations do not refer to any attempts to obtain documents from Ethiopia. The Applicant has only asserted that it was not possible to obtain such documents due to the changes in government administration and the weak recordkeeping systems.[106]
[106] R2 at [34.3]. See R1, T23, page 247 at [17].
(d)This represents a significant lapse of time from birth to 19 years old where the Applicant has not provided identity documents nor demonstrated any efforts to obtain such documents.[107]
[107] R2 at [34.4].
(e)
Given the loss of Ethiopian passport (E425984), the next document in time is the Ministry Applicant’s Ministry of Interior Secured Criminal Record (Instant) dated

19 August 2008. This document was issued when the Applicant was 32 years old. This is a significant 13-year period from 1994 to 2008 that is unaccounted for by any record whatsoever. The Applicant has not provided any identity documents of any employer references or records for this period, noting that the Applicant declared on her application form she was employed almost continuously from 1995 to 2008.[108]
[108] R2 at [34.5]. See R1, T24 at page 275 and Respondent’s closing written submissions at [15].
(f)This represents a significant period of the Applicant’s adult life to 32 years old that is unaccounted for in any documents.[109] And then essentially, the documents flow after that, just two years prior to arriving in Australia.[110]
(g)The Minister notes that whilst production of documentation to establish identity is not legally essential, where all such documents are not produced there will need to be a cogent and acceptable explanation as to why, in order for the Tribunal to reach a state of positive satisfaction of the identity of the Applicant. This is particularly so when there are significant gaps in time where a person’s identity is not supported by any records.[111]
(h)The Applicant has attended primary school, attended secondary school, attended a course in Egypt and worked as a housekeeper in Egypt for various employers.[112] Despite this, no educational certificates, educations records or employer records or references were provided, except for one short letter attesting to the Applicant’s employment in 2009 to 2010 just prior to her arrival in Australia.[113]
(i)
The majority of the evidence the Applicant has provided is from 2010 onwards,

by which point the Applicant was already in Australia, and that evidence is from only

10 years ago. With such little evidence, it is not possible to create a clear picture of the Applicant’s birth, through her life and to the present day. This is a significant lapse of time where there are simply no document to account for the Applicant’s identity or life story.[114]
[109]
[110] Transcript, page 11 at [40].
[111] R2 at [34.7]. See CDNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 757 at [9] (CDNB) and Ater and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4677 (Ater) at [66].
[112]
[113] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [18]. See R1, T17, page 190.
[114] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [19].
The Tribunal cannot be satisfied of the Applicant’s identity for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act having regard to the matters raised (at paragraphs [46] to [48]) above.[115] In this regard, the Tribunal should not countenance an outcome which could lead to citizenship where the identity of the Applicant is not clear.[116]
[115] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [20].
[116] R2 at [35]. The Respondent has cited numerous authorities on this point, namely Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256 at [38], cited with approval in HJPB and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 5247 at [38]; Ater at [71]; JLKJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] AATA 716 at [53]; and Ghumaan v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 200 at [52].
As to the Applicant’s attempts to obtain identity documents, the Respondent cited a number of authorities for the proposition that where an applicant has failed to avail himself of the opportunity to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist and which he has been advised to secure, and even where producing that evidence is not legally essential, the application ought to be rejected.[117]
[117] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [21] to [23]. See Confidential and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 144 at [34]; Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310 at [117]; and CDNB [2018] AATA 757 at [9].
In this context, the Respondent submitted further that:
(a)The Applicant did not provide any evidence in her three statutory declarations of attempts to obtain the documents destroyed in the house fire or other documents she held in Ethiopia.[118]
(b)
At hearing, the Applicant claimed that she telephoned, respectively and possibly on one occasion only, the education administration about obtaining school records,

the Ethiopian immigration authority about obtaining a copy of her first (Ethiopian) passport and the Ethiopian Embassy in Canberra. The Applicant’s evidence was that she did not send a letter or an email to any of these authorities.[119]
(c)The Applicant’s evidence also appeared to be that she did not contact other students, teachers or principals of her two schools. The Applicant’s evidence was unclear as to her attempts to obtain records of her studies in Egypt.
(d)At hearing, the Applicant gave evidence that when advised she would need a representative or a power of attorney to obtain identity documents, it was seemed that she only asked her siblings about who could represent her, and make enquiries with one relative (who declined due to unavailability) to represent her. The Applicant did not appear to have made any other attempts to identify a relative.[120]
(e)The Tribunal should also not accept the Applicant’s screenshot of a telephone call made at 6.46am of four minutes duration on an unknown date, which was filed along with the Applicant’s closing submissions.[121] This screenshot seems to have been filed in support of the Applicant’s submission that the Applicant contacted the Ethiopian Embassy in Canberra on 6 October 2010.[122] The Tribunal directions were only in respect of written closing submissions and it is not appropriate to supplement the Applicant’s case with new evidence after a matter has been heard and in circumstances where the Applicant is now unable to be cross-examined on this document. In any event, even if this evidence and the Applicant’s submission is accepted, it only shows that the Applicant telephoned the Ethiopian Embassy in Canberra on occasion, for a short telephone call some 10 years prior.[123]
(f)These attempts are insufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that the Applicant has made reasonable efforts to obtain identity documents.[124]
[118] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [24].
[119] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [25]-[26].
[120] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [28].
[121] Refer also to fn 66 above.
[122] See Applicant’s closing written submissions at fn 8 and fn 66 above.
[123] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [29]. The date of the call cannot be confirmed for reasons set out in fn 66 above.
[124] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [30].

As to the Applicant’s life story in respect of her employment and marital relationship,

the Respondent submitted that this story in unclear for the following reasons:[125]
(a)The Applicant’s employment history is set out in the Form 80. The Applicant’s evidence at the hearing seemed to be that each employment period specified in the Form 80 was not for a single employer but for, in fact, multiple employers.
(b)The Applicant also appeared to accept that she made a mistake in that there was a gap from April 2003 to January 2009 where the Applicant’s employment is unknown.[126] This is a significant period of time.
(c)The Applicant’s evidence was vague as to when she met her spouse, when her spouse visited her in Egypt and when her sisters were married.
(d)The Applicant’s submission appears to accept that the evidence before the Tribunal was vague and consistent.
[125] Respondent’s written closing submissions at [31]-[35].
[126] R1, T24 at page 275.
CONSIDERATION
The issue for review by the Tribunal is whether the Tribunal is satisfied, at the time of its decision,[127] as to the Applicant’s identity for the purposes of s24(3) of the Act.

For the Tribunal to be so satisfied, it would need to reach an affirmative belief as to the Applicant’s identity, rather than apply an evidentiary burden of proof, such as on the balance of probabilities.[128]
[127] See VFWQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 230.
[128] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 at [54].
The Tribunal takes guidance on this issue from the authorities considered by

Deputy President Boyle in Sakhi Zada and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 1729 (Sakhi Zada):
Identity
[36] Senior Member CR Walsh in Beyan at [38] noted:
…As submitted by the Minister, a Certificate of Australian Citizenship is a legal document of considerable significance and the Tribunal should not countenance an outcome which could lead to such a certificate being issued in circumstances where, as is the case here, the identity of the Applicant is far from clear.
(see also Al-Hussaini and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs[129] (Al-Hussaini) at [30]-[31])
[129] [2020] AATA 1267.
[37]In Confidential and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[130] (Confidential) the Tribunal found:
[130] [2013] AATA 144.
[34]I have concluded that the Minister has not been provided with any documentation to enable the Minister to form an opinion on the identity of the applicant. For this reason the application was, in my view, correctly rejected by the delegate.
[38]Deputy President Nicholson in Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[131] (Dhayakpa), commenting on Confidential, observed:
[131] [2015] AATA 310.
[117]Neither the Act nor the common law requires that identity can only be established by the production of documents appropriate to an established or undisturbed society.
The decision in Confidential is not an authority that documentation is a requisite for the Minister to be satisfied as to identity. I accept the submission for the applicant that the case merely stands for the proposition that where an applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist and which he has been advised to secure, the application ought to be rejected. The question here is whether the identity can be established to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.
[118]I am satisfied as to his identity. In my view in the most unusual circumstances of the applicant’s life, he has established it to the best of his ability.
[39]The approach taken in Dhayakpa has been followed by Tribunals in a number of cases (see YMPL and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[132]; [sic] Al Temimi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[133]).
[132] [2017] AATA 1458.
[133] [2014] AATA 97.
[40]In Sinnathamby and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[134]
[134] [2018] AATA 2579.

the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had lost his identity documents in the capsizing of a boat en route to Australia, but found that the inconsistencies in his other evidence and the bogus nature of some documentation provided in support of the citizenship application gave rise to a conclusion that he was not a person of good character.
[41]The Tribunal also notes the comments of Senior Member Puplick in

Al-Hussaini
:[135]
[135] [2020] AATA 1267.
[41]In Nguyen I came to a conclusion, affirming a denial of citizenship, in the following terms:
Citizenship of Australia is regarded as a special privilege when extended to those not automatically qualified. Earning it requires adherence not only to statutory requirements but also to the set of moral values and qualities related to honesty in dealings with the Government. These values and qualities are themselves a hallmark of good citizenship.
Citizenship cannot be awarded on the basis of false statements. There are no excuses for making false statements in this regard.
Equally, it is a hallmark of citizenship to take personal responsibility for one’s own actions and not cast them off onto the shoulders of others. Even persons who are not able to manage well in the English language can do this without resort to placing themselves in the hands of deceitful third parties.
[42] Similarly, in Fang, I said, in relation to the use of false documents:
An attack on the fundamental integrity of the immigration system is in effect, an attack on the interests of all Australians.
[42]Based on the evidence that has been presented, can the Tribunal be satisfied of the identity of the Applicant? If it cannot, the prohibition on the approval of the person becoming an Australia citizen under s 24(3) of the Act will apply and the decision under review must be affirmed.
(Original emphasis.)
One of the pillars of identity is reliable identity documents.[136] The Applicant would like the Tribunal to accept that:
[136] See [26] above.
(a)She has no birth record or hospital issued documents, as she was born at home.
(b)Her identity and birth history has been confirmed by her sisters in their respective statutory declarations.
(c)Her story regarding her family home having been set on fire and any school related records her parents may have had burned down with it has been confirmed by her sisters in their respective statutory declarations.
(d)She never had a Kebele card issued as it was not compulsory and in any event it would not have documented her identity between birth and 19 years of age.
(e)
It is beyond her capacity to provide any identity document between birth and

19 years of age, to appoint a power of attorney or representative or to locate witness who could attest to relevant matters.
(f)She has made reasonable attempts to obtain identity document from Ethiopia[137]
[137] See [43] above.
Essentially, the Applicant is seeking that the Tribunal accept her identity without any documentary evidence of identity from birth to age 19, and given the first Ethiopian passport was lost, through to age 32 when the Applicant’s criminal record was issued in August 2008.
The Applicant is also asking the Tribunal to accept the evidence provided by her sisters and their husbands without the Respondent having had the opportunity to test that evidence by way of cross-examination or the Tribunal putting any questions it may have had to those witnesses. In these circumstances only limited weight can be given to the declarations made in these statements. Rather, the Tribunal considers these statements to be evidence of what the Applicant says are the reasons for the lack of documentary identity evidence.
The Tribunal also notes the error across all three of the Applicant’s declarations regarding her date of arrival in Australia.[138]
[138] See Transcript, pages 7 [35]-[45] and 8 [5]-[10]. The Tribunal brought this error to the Applicant’s attention, who conceded the error, however offered no explanation regarding it having been made.
Other than documents produced after the Applicant arrived in Australia,[139] which were produced at the Department’s request, the only document the Applicant had to evidence her identity was her second Ethiopian passport, issued in 2010 and five months prior to her arrival in Australia.[140] There are no other documents before the Tribunal prior to the Applicant’s arrival in Australia to evidence her identity.
[139] See [8] above.
[140] R1, T11 at pages 120 to 127.
As documents to establish identity have not, in the Tribunal’s view, been satisfactorily produced, the Tribunal now turns to the Applicant’s explanations as to why this is the case, in particular her unsuccessful attempts to secure a power of attorney or representative.[141]
[141] See Respondent’s summary at [51] above.
It appears odd to the Tribunal that the Applicant remains adamant about her recollections regarding the events in her early life and her later measures taken to attempt to obtain the lacking identity documents. However, she struggled to remember key dates and details relating to the period during which she met and married her husband,

that her sisters were married and that she received visitors to Egypt prior to her marriage.

The Tribunal struggles to accept the Applicant’s evidence at hearing that she was unable to recollect key dates in her life story as she was unprepared to discuss them:[142]
[142] Transcript, pages 46 [30]-[45] and 47 at [5].
MEMBER: Okay, so Ms May – is she saying she can’t remember the year that Mr May came to visit her in Cairo?
INTERPRETER:        Sorry, I interrupted her, because she – okay, all this speaking, now I can’t remember exactly the year that he came to visit me. But maybe I kept it in my notes, the year.
MEMBER: All right, I’ll ask one more time. It’s really important for

Ms May to answer yes or no, that she’s indicated she cannot remember when she first met Mr May and she cannot remember that he came to visit her in Cairo, yes or no?
INTERPRETER:         Well, because I didn’t put in mind that I will be asking about this dating, I didn’t kept [sic] it in me, but I think I have a note of the date in my – - -
MEMBER: Well, can Ms May answer yes or no? I would suggest it’s not a question that someone ought to need to prepare for.

Mr Gabriel, if Ms May is unable to answer, she can simply say that she’s unable to answer. If she can’t say yes or no, then her evidence can be that she cannot answer when she first met her husband and she cannot answer when he first visited her in Cairo. So, Ms May’s options are yes, no, or she’s unable to answer.
INTERPRETER:        Maybe he came to visit me in 2009.
Given the significance placed on Australian citizenship,[143] the Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s submissions that at the very least there must be evidence of reasonable efforts having been made and that it is not sufficient to simply rest on an assumption that nothing is obtainable.
[143] See, for example, Sakhi Zada at [36] extracted at [54] above.
On this basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has exhausted all reasonable efforts to obtain identity documents in support of her application for citizenship.

For example:
(a)
The Applicant’s evidence is that her school burned down. She has been unable

(nor has she attempted at any level) to demonstrate that she has made reasonable efforts to locate records which would confirm her attendance at her school in Ethiopia, to obtain her records from the relevant authority, or sought confirmation from any authority or third party that the school burned down and when.
(b)The Applicant has provided a record of a phone call made to the Ethiopian Embassy in Canberra presumably (as it is not expressly referred to in her written submissions) in support of her claim that she had sought advice from the Ethiopian Embassy in Australia who advised her that she needs a representative in Ethiopia to whom she could give power of attorney. The shortcomings of this phone record are set out earlier in this decision.[144]
[144] See fn 66 and [51(e)] above.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentary evidence of identity nor has she provided any satisfactory evidence regarding the efforts she made to try and obtain this documentation.
Therefore, on the available evidence, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of the Applicant’s identity.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence before it, and for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied of the identity of the Applicant. Accordingly, the prohibition under s 24(3) of the Act applies and the Applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral must not be approved. The Reviewable Decision must therefore be affirmed.
DECISION
The reviewable decision, being the decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated
2 January 2020 to refuse the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral, is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 67 (sixty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
L M Gallagher, Member

...........................[sgd].............................................
Associate
Dated: 21 December 2020

Date of hearing: 30 September 2020

Date final submissions received: 27 October 2020

Advocate for the Applicant: Meskerem Lemma Ashagrie,
Desire Australia Pty Ltd

Counsel for the Respondent: Sara Anicic

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Transcript, page 28 at [25]. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that attached to the Applicant’s closing written submissions there is a printout of a phone record which appears to be of a four-minute call made to the Australian Embassy of Ethiopia in Canberra, ending at 11.27am. There is no record on the printout of the telephone number from which the call was made or the date of the call. The printout shows that the document was created on

6 October 2020. The Applicant refers to the call having been made on 6 October 2010, which the Tribunal presumes is an erroneous reference to the date of the document, rather than the date the call was made (Applicant’s written closing submissions, at [2]). It is also unclear whether this record relates to the Applicant’s evidence regarding her attempt to obtain a copy of her application form or other related documents

(see paragraph [35] and [51(e)]).

Transcript, page 39 at [30], R2 at [34.2]. See R1, T11 at page 117 (Applicant’s statutory declaration dated

7 January 2019) and A2, Applicant’s statutory declarations dated 26 November 2019 at [15] and dated 10 March 2020 at [3], [8] and [9].

R2 at [34.6]. The Tribunal takes the use of the word ‘not’ immediately prior to ‘unaccounted’ in [34.6] of

R2 as a typographical error in the context of that paragraph and has made the grammatical correction in [48(f)] above. See also Respondent’s written closing submissions at [16].

Respondent’s written closing submissions at [17]. See also A2, Applicant’s statutory declaration dated

12 May 2020 at [8]; R1, T24 at pages 263 and 275.

Three pillars of identity	Individual characteristics
Biometrics	Personal identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person’s signature. Biometrics can be used for comparison, with, for example, facial images held by the Department or other domestic or international agencies.
Documents	Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features. Documents contain biodata, or personal information, such as name, date of birth, nationality, and/or citizenship, and may also contain biometric information.
Life story	A person’s life story is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. Officers should consider the events that happened to the person, and the information and detail correlating to the events. A person’s life story may include descriptions of family composition, education, employment, countries of residence, countries visited, social footprint, and online presence.

Date of hearing:	30 September 2020
Date final submissions received:	27 October 2020
Advocate for the Applicant:	Meskerem Lemma Ashagrie, Desire Australia Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent:	Sara Anicic
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor