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

This matter concerned applications for review of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs regarding citizenship by conferral. The applicants were Fariah and her two children, Jalale and Gamachis. The core dispute revolved around the Minister's satisfaction of the applicants' identities, a prerequisite for approving citizenship applications under section 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The applications were heard together by Deputy President Boyle of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the Minister was satisfied of the identity of each applicant, as required by section 24(3) of the Act, and how the Australian Citizenship Policy, particularly concerning the identity provisions and the treatment of children under 18, applied to the circumstances. A further issue arose concerning Gamachis, who had turned 18 between the lodging of the application and the Tribunal hearing, potentially altering his eligibility and the assessment of his case.

The Tribunal considered the definition of "permanent resident" and the Minister's broad power under section 24 to approve or refuse citizenship applications, even if an applicant is otherwise eligible. It was emphasised that the Minister must be satisfied of an applicant's identity, a requirement reinforced by the Australian Citizenship Policy and the National Identity Proofing Guidelines. The Tribunal noted that identity is not a static concept and must be considered historically and incrementally. The Policy also outlines specific considerations for children under 16 applying individually or with a responsible parent, including the best interests of the child.

The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision in relation to the first-named applicant, Fariah, finding that the Minister was not satisfied of her identity. However, the reviewable decisions concerning the second and third-named applicants, Jalale and Gamachis, were remitted to the Minister for reconsideration. This was due to the emergence of new information regarding Gamachis's age and the need for a separate assessment of each child's application, particularly in light of the refusal of the parent's application.