Mendoza v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an appeal by Mr Mark Anthony Dela Cruz Mendoza against the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to refuse his application for citizenship by conferral. The refusal was based on the ground that Mr Mendoza was not a person of good character at the time of the decision, as required by section 21(2)(h) of the *Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). This assessment stemmed from Mr Mendoza's conviction for common assault in 2013 and his failure to disclose this offence on his citizenship application.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Mendoza possessed the requisite "good character" for citizenship. This involved interpreting the meaning of "good character" in the context of the Act, considering judicial interpretations and relevant government policy. The Tribunal also had to assess whether Mr Mendoza's conduct, including the domestic violence incident and his subsequent disclosures and explanations, demonstrated enduring moral qualities consistent with the values of Australian society.

The Tribunal reasoned that "good character" refers to a person's enduring moral qualities, distinguishing right from wrong and behaving ethically. It noted that the Citizenship Policy outlines characteristics of good character, including truthfulness and not practising deception or fraud with government bodies, such as by concealing convictions or providing false information. In this case, Mr Mendoza had been convicted of common assault involving domestic violence, where he grabbed his wife by the neck and pushed her face downwards, causing her pain and fear. Furthermore, he failed to disclose this conviction on his citizenship application. The Tribunal found that Mr Mendoza's explanation for not disclosing the offence, suggesting it was "settled by lawyers," and his lack of a clear explanation for a COPS report indicating a "repeat" history of domestic violence, demonstrated a lack of acceptance of personal responsibility and a failure to be truthful.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr Mendoza was not a person of good character at the time of the Minister's decision. Mr Mendoza's appeal was dismissed, and the delegate's decision to refuse his citizenship application was affirmed.