Mei and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned applications for Australian citizenship by conferral made by the applicants, Mei Mei and San Thein. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs refused these applications on the basis that the applicants' identities had not been sufficiently established, as required by section 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The applicants sought judicial review of this decision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Minister had erred in finding that the applicants had failed to sufficiently establish their identities, and whether the Minister had failed to make reasonable enquiries to obtain further evidence to support their identity claims. The court was required to consider the reliability and sufficiency of the documentary evidence and biometric data provided by the applicants, as well as the credibility of their unverified life stories.

The court found that while there was some evidence of San Thein's identity in Myanmar, it lacked sufficient identifying features. Mei Mei's evidence regarding her inability to contact a key witness, Dino, was found to be inconsistent and unconvincing, particularly her explanation for not attempting to contact Dino for a supporting letter. The court noted that the applicants had sought assistance from various organisations, including the Chin Refugee Committee Malaysia, UNHCR Malaysia, and Centacare, but these efforts had not yielded further documentary evidence. Crucially, the court observed that the applicants had not explored other avenues, such as making enquiries with the Burmese Government for identity documentation, despite the availability of such records according to country information. The applicants' explanations for not pursuing these avenues, including claims of fleeing the government and difficulties in communication due to civil unrest and government restrictions, were not considered sufficient to excuse the lack of effort.

The court affirmed the decision of the Minister, finding that the applicants had not discharged their onus to establish their identity to the required standard and had not demonstrated that the Minister had failed to make reasonable enquiries.