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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, brought by the Applicant against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. The core dispute revolved around whether the Applicant had satisfied the requirement of being of "good character" as stipulated by paragraph 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). The decision was made by Mr A. Maryniak KC, a Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant had demonstrated "enduring moral qualities" and thus met the definition of good character. This required the Tribunal to form an evaluative judgment and an affirmative belief that the Applicant was a person of good character, considering his behaviour over time and his capacity to distinguish right from wrong and behave ethically in accordance with Australian societal rules and values.

The Tribunal found that while inconsistencies regarding the Applicant's siblings could be attributed to administrative errors by previous advisors, significant and long-standing inconsistencies concerning a purported second son, "Ali Reza," could not be similarly excused. The Applicant had provided conflicting accounts regarding this individual, including stating he was deceased after initially claiming him as a son. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant's explanation for including "Ali Reza" – that he was advised to do so by people smugglers and other asylum seekers to potentially sponsor them in the future – adequately explained the substantive and prolonged inconsistencies. The Tribunal concluded that these inconsistencies, particularly in how they were handled during the citizenship application process and the hearing, meant the Applicant had not satisfied the good character requirement.