Mowahedi and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) - [2025] ARTA 608

Mowahedi and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 608 (26 May 2025)
Applicant/s:  Ali Mowahedi
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:                2024/6122

Tribunal: General Member S Evans
Place:Sydney
Date:26 May 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...............[SGD].........................................................
General Member S Evans
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – refusal of citizenship – whether identity requirement under paragraph 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) is met – alternative identity – facial image examination – Tribunal not satisfied of applicant’s identity – reviewable decision affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
CASES
BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865
GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 3245
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI)Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION

Ali Mowahedi (the Applicant) seeks review of a decision of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent) made on 1 August 2024 to refuse to approve his application for Australian citizenship by conferral (the reviewable decision). The grounds for the refusal were that the delegate was not satisfied of the Applicant’s identity.
For the reasons that follow, the reviewable decision will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant first arrived in Australia on 8 November 2010 via boat as an unlawful non-citizen. The Applicant was detained on Christmas Island. During an entry interview conducted 15 November 2010, the Applicant declared himself Ali Mowahedi, born in 1993 in Daykundi, Afghanistan.[1]
[1] T-Documents (‘T’), T8, p.66.
The Applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA)(Subclass 866) visa which was granted on 20 July 2011.[2] On 1 October 2015 the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.[3] On 3 March 2018 the Applicant was granted a Resident Return (Class BB) visa which he continues to hold.[4] On 26 July 2019 the Respondent department requested that the Applicant provide a completed Form 80 – Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment (Form 80) and documents to support his claimed identity.[5] ] On 2 September 2019 the Applicant provided a completed Form 80.[6]
[2] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, p.2.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] T6, p.36-41.
[6] T7, p.45-62.
On 13 December 2023 the Applicant was sent an invitation to comment on adverse information relating to his character and his identity by a delegate of the Minister.[7] The delegate held information suggesting the Applicant was not an Afghan citizen, but that he may have had an alternative identity in Iran, namely Ali Barbarestani, born in December 1985 in Mashhad, Iran. The Applicant was provided a copy of Ali Barbarestani’s birth certificate.
[7] T8, p.63.
The delegate observed that the names of Ali Barbarestani’s Iranian parents on the Iranian birth certificate – Mohammad Hassan and Sakineh Barbarestani - bore strong similarities to that of his own claimed parents – Hassan and Sakina Mowahedi. Sakineh and Sakina also appear to share the exact same date of birth in August 1965.[8]
[8] T8, p.68.
The Applicant was also provided with images: his Titre de Voyage issued on 13 February 2018 in his claimed identity and an image of Ali Barbarestani in Iranian military uniform during compulsory military service.[9] The delegate claimed that the images were confirmed to be of the same person by a specialist in facial image comparison. It was put to the Applicant that when he arrived in Australian in 2010, he declared his year of birth as 1993, and indicated he was aged 17, ‘which was likely an attempt to secure a favourable visa outcome by misleading the Department as to your true age’.[10]
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
It was also noted that since arriving in Australia on 9 November 2010, the Applicant had failed to produce any Afghan identity documentation to support his claimed identity.[11]
[11] Ibid.
The Applicant was also asked to comment on having previously remitted finances to a person residing in Mashhad, Iran, named Faizah Barbarestani. The delegate noted the name closely resembled the Applicant’s declared sister, Faizah Mowahedi, who was suspected to be his sibling.[12]
[12] Ibid.
ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED
The issue to be determined is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied of the Applicant’s identity in accordance with subsection 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)(the Act).
LEGISLATION AND POLICY
Subsection 24(1) of the Act provides that if a person makes an application under section 21 of the Act, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Section 24(3) of the Act provides:
The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.
Note: Division 5 contains the identity provisions.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 (which is the Bill that became the Act) explained that:
There may be cases where identity is unclear or cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. In these circumstances the Minister cannot approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
The judicial precedent on identity has been summarized in BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865 at [32]:
Ultimately, the concept of “identity” is about an assessment of whether the repository of the power to confer citizenship is satisfied the human being who is the individual applying for citizenship is the person they say they are, with the relevant background to their citizenship application they rely on, and not a different human being with a different background which may affect their citizenship application. The historic use in documents of different names that appear to all be attributed to an applicant may clearly be relevant to this assessment. But use (or ascription, even without knowledge, to a person) of a different name may in a given factual circumstance say nothing about identity. Take for example the common situation of a person changing their name when they marry. There may not be documentary proof of this name change, for a variety of reasons, in any given circumstances. But the name change may not affect the proposition that the person has a single identity, rather than being two different human beings, or a human being with an entirely different background to the one they rely upon in their citizenship application. The Minister’s submissions acknowledged this to some extent.
The above approach was endorsed and applied by President Kyrou in GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 3245 at [12]:
Section 24(3) of the Act does not require the Minister – or the Tribunal in performing its review function – to exercise a discretion. Instead, it requires that the Minister make an evaluative judgment and form an opinion about a person’s identity. If the Minister is satisfied of a person’s identity, the Minister is not required by s 24(3) to refuse to approve them becoming an Australian citizen. That section prompts a binary choice; the Minister is either satisfied of the applicant’s identity or the Minister is not.
The Department’s guidance on assessing identity is set out in CPI 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (CPI 16).
CPI 16 identifies three pillars of identity which are to be relied upon when assessing a person’s identity: biometrics, documents and life story. Each pillar is made up of individual characteristics.[13]
Biometrics: Personal identifiers which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person’s signature.
Documents: Documents contain biodata, or personal information, such as name, date of birth, nationality, and/or citizenship, and may also contain biometric information. Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar.
Life story: A person’s life story is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. It includes 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.
[13] Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI), Chapter 16 - Identity, s 4.4.
CPI 16 explains that it is not sufficient to be satisfied of a person’s identity at one point in time. Rather, identity should be verified incrementally throughout a person’s life by assessing a person’s identity from birth.
Combining and fact checking the Three Pillars of Identity against each other provides a strong evidence‑base to establish an identity.
The level of risk associated with the service being applied for determines the type of evidence required to assess a person's life story. For example, a citizenship application is likely to require more evidence than a visitor visa. In some cases, officers may determine that not all of the pillars of identity are necessary to establish a person's identity.
In some cases, one pillar of identity may be given more weight than others.
The Attorney-General’s Department National Identity Proofing Guidelines (2016) are referred to in CPI 16 as a resource which serves as a benchmark for identity related services and standards within the Department. The proofing guidelines provide a set of recommended processes and requirements which are aligned to international standards.
The Tribunal is not bound by departmental policy including the CPIs, but policy will usually be applied in the absence of cogent reasons not to.[14]
[14] See Re Drake and Minister for Immigration, and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645 per Brennan J, which was cited with approval in Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Gray (1994) 33 ALD 13, 30 per French and Drummond JJ.
EVIDENCE
The tazkera is a one-page official identity certificate which is the primary form of identification for Afghan citizens. The document is normally a necessity to gain access to some public services and a supporting document for the issuing of other documents from the authorities. A tazkera is not issued automatically, but upon application.[15] In his statement of 10 July 2024, the Applicant confirmed having never held a tazkera or primary identification document.[16] He claimed to have been unsuccessful in acquiring relevant alternative identity documentation, despite having made ‘every effort’ to do so.
[15] T16, p.209.
[16] T16, p.124.
The Applicant said the Afghanistan embassy in Canberra was unable to issue him a tazkera as ‘it does not have a connection with the present Afghani government’.[17] The Embassy has, however, provided a proof of status document dated 5 March 2024.[18] The proof of status confirms that the Applicant is the son of Hassan Mowahedi and a citizen of Afghanistan with a date of birth of 31 December 1993. The Applicant accepts the document is distinct from a tazkera and does not prove his identity.[19]
[17] Ibid.
[18] T16, p.204.
[19] T16, p124.
The Applicant said that following the refusal of his citizenship application, he asked his family for any other documentation that could help establish his identity. He said he also asked for photographs taken before he arrived in Australia. His family told him that neither documents or photographs were available.[20]
[20] T16, p.125.
On 14 July 2024, the Applicant provided the department a copy of his purported father’s Afghanistan passport. The passport – issued 15 September 2018 - is in the name Hassan Movahedi, born 21 March 1957.[21] In his written statement of 20 January 2025, the Applicant claims he was unaware his father held either a passport or a tazkera until recently. Consequently, he did not consider he was eligible to obtain a tazkera or Afghani passport. The Applicant writes:
“Living as an Afghani in Iran, we place great importance on safeguarding our identity documents, as they are the primary proof of our identity. Due to the fear of losing these documents and the significant challenges involved in obtaining replacements, we often keep them hidden and refrain from sharing them with others.
If the Afghan embassy in Canberra were able to issue passports, I would have applied. However, I was informed that there is no definitive timeframe for receiving a passport, as the embassy is currently not connected to the Afghan government.”
[21] T17, p.234-236.
The Applicant’s evidence was that he provided the Respondent a copy of his father’s passport within a week of receiving it. After pressing his father, he told the Applicant he had a 50-year-old tazkera in poor condition and sent him a photo of the document. The Applicant has provided a certified translation of the tazkera, which records his father’s name as Mohammad Ali Hassan with an approximate birth year of 1957 or 1958.
A forensic examination report dated 6 November 2023 was produced by the Facial Image Examination Unit comparing photos of the Applicant and Ali Barbarestani. Six images were considered – three of the Applicant and three purportedly of Ali Barbarestani. One of the three images of Ali Barbarestani – taken from his birth certificate – was unable to be considered due to the poor image quality.
The forensic examination report acknowledges that a ‘limitation’ affected the examination process which prevented the examiner from expressing full support that the images represent the same person. However, the report concludes that there were indications that the photos of the Applicant and Ali Barbarestani, including the photo of Ali Barbarestani wearing an Iranian military uniform, represented the same person.
In his statement of 10 July 2024 the Applicant says inconsistencies in the photo of Ali Barbarestani in Iranian army uniform suggests the photo had potentially been altered in some way. He also observed ‘obvious differences’ in appearance, including the Applicant having a more curved nose, less pronounced chin and less prominent ears than the man in the photograph. Even if there are similarities in appearance, the Applicant maintains he has never worn an Iranian military uniform.[22]
[22] T16, p.124-128.
The Applicant has previously declared a sister named Faizah Mowahedi. The Applicant accepts that for one or two years after arriving in Australia he sent money to a person known as Faizah Barbarestani in Mashad, Iran.[23] The Respondent submits that Faizah Barbarestani is likely the Applicant’s declared sister.
[23] T16, p.127.
The Applicant gave evidence Faizah Barbarestani was his girlfriend when he left Iran. Their relationship began when he was 15 years old. Contrary to the formal courtship structure in the Applicant’s culture, their relationship was informal. The Applicant stopped sending Faizah Barbarestani money because she wanted a more serious relationship and more money. Evidence of their contact is no longer available as it was held on a phone he no longer in his possession.[24]
[24] Ibid.
The Applicant claims that he has regularly transferred funds to his family via his father and brother since his arrival in Australia, but no longer possesses a record of doing so.[25]
[25] Ibid.
CONSIDERATION
I now turn to considering the evidence as it relates to the three pillars of identity.
The Applicant contends he has provided adequate identity documents to establish identity and has been consistent in respect to his name and date of birth.
It is not in question that the Applicant has provided Australian identity documents such as his driver license. He has also produced statements from individuals who have known him for many years in Australia and have not observed inconsistencies which may cast doubt on his identity. These documents support him having consistently presented as Ali Mowahedi, including to government agencies. However, the documents are not feeder documents[26] with an unbroken chain linking to a primary official identity document.
[26] CPI, Chapter 16: Identity, s 11.1 – Feeder Documents.
The only foreign issued identity documents are the Applicant’s purported father’s passport issued in 2018, and a translated copy of his tazkera. Both documents contain variances in what the Applicant has previously submitted, including the spelling of his father’s name and his place and date of birth. In my opinion, the variances are in and of themselves explicable, as contended by the Applicant. The Respondent submits the documents do not preclude the possibility that the Applicant’s purported father is also an Iranian citizen, but there is no probable evidence to support this being the case.
CPI 16 provides that the onus is on the Applicant to provide information or evidence to support their identity.[27] The Applicant returned to Iran in December 2018, visited his parents and siblings and attended a family wedding. He has not been able to provide documents related to his identity or family life prior to his arrival in Australia, or evidence of having attempted to do so. The Applicant provided a copy of his purported father’s tazkera in January 2025 and passport in July 2024. His explanation for producing these documents so recently is questionable given the application for citizenship was lodged in October 2015.
[27] T21, p.281.
The Applicant contends that the threshold of satisfaction for identity for Hazara nationals has been established in case law to consider the particular challenges experienced by stateless Hazaras. He contends that his father’s passport is positive proof of his family name and identity and ought to be assigned significant weight. Noting that the provision of a tazkera is not a pre-requisite for establishing identity, he argues that on balance he has provided adequate identity documentation.
Having regard to the difficulties of obtaining documents in circumstances where his family are residing illegally in Iran and accepting that days and dates of birth are not regarded as important or officially recorded in Afghanistan, I do not agree with the Applicant that the sum of the identity documents provided are sufficient to establish his identity. Overall, the documentation is of little value in establishing the Applicant’s identity.
Regarding the Applicant’s life story, inconsistencies and discrepancies exist in the Applicant’s file including differences of spelling of the Applicant’s family members names and dates of birth. The Applicant says that the discrepancies can be attributed to factors including his age and lack of legal representation during the initial entry interview, inadequate translation and not being able to contact his family to confirm their details. He contends that the discrepancies are explainable and ought not be assigned any weight.
The Applicant has sought to address the similarities with he and the alternative identity Ali Barbarestani. The strong similarities between his father’s name Hossein and Ali Barbarestani’s father’s name Hassan is a specifically western error as the two names are considered fundamentally different middle eastern culture. That both the Applicant and Ali Barbarestani’s mothers share the same birthdate – 23 August 1955 – is a coincidence. In any event, the Applicant does not know his mother’s birthdate as she has no identity documents.
When he transferred money to his family, the Applicant said it was always transferred to his father and brother. He accepts he transferred money for several years to Faizah Barbarestani, who he claims was his girlfriend at the time.[28] The Applicant has declared a sister Faizeh Mowahedi. He denies Faizah Barbarestani is his sister, attributing the similarities in their names, and his ex-girlfriend sharing the same surname as the person the Applicant is suspected of being, as coincidence.[29]
[28] T16, p.124-128.
[29] Ibid.

If he was Ali Barbarestani, the Applicant said he would not leave information which may lead to his prior identity. In any event, where coincidences exist, their occurrence is not statistically remote. He argues the discrepancies and similarities identified by the Respondent are explicable and unremarkableand should be given little weight.
The Applicant submits his ability to refute the Respondent’s proposition that he is an Iranian national known as Ali Barbarestani, is limited as he has not had access to the primary documents or the sources upon which the Respondent’s case was made. It cannot be ruled out that the Respondent has ‘cherry picked’[30] evidence that support the proposition he is also known as Ali Barbarestani.
[30] Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, p.18 [64].
The Applicant takes particular issue with the photograph of the man in Iranian military uniform identified as Ali Barbarestani. The broader context of the photograph - including the date, location and other identifying information necessary to establish the link between the photograph and the name – has not been provided to the Applicant. Without context, he contends his capacity to answer allegations or provide explanation is curtailed.
As it stands, the Applicant contends the facial recognition report is ‘fraught with errors’ [31] and subject to high risk. The subject in the matched image shares a circumstantial likeness to the Applicant, exacerbated by the poor resolution, poor lighting and the ‘cultural distance of the assessor from the subject’s race’.[32] As the forensic expert responsible for the report was not put forward as an expert witness, the Applicant argues the report’s findings should be given very limited weight.
[31] Ibid.
[32] ApIbid.
More generally, the Applicant points to what he says are ‘well-documented’ [33] issues relating to the reliance on facial recognition reports. Factors influencing face matching accuracy include the quality of images, with the accuracy of face matching performance dramatically being reduced by low quality images. The Applicant contends the photo purported to be Ali Barbarestani in Iranian military uniform is low-resolution and there is no clear association with Ali Barbarestani and the person in the photo. There are unusual light patterns which raise the possibility of the photo having been manipulated. The Applicant says that the cumulative effect of considering these concerns is that the risk of an error is particularly high.[34]
[33] Ibid p.22.
[34] Ibid.
The Applicant cannot rely on biometrics to establish his identity. In my view, the documents do not provide a reliable basis on which to establish the Applicant’s identity. The two feeder documents provided both relate to his purported father. The Applicant’s explanations for the absence of documents or the evidence of having attempted to obtain documents or photos are not compelling.
The Respondent has suggested that the Applicant has an alternative identity, Ali Barbarestani. The reasons given by the Respondent include similarities in names and birthdates between Ali Barbarestani’s relatives and those provided by the Applicant of his own. When considered individually, the explanations provided are strained. When taken together, they are extremely unlikely.
The Applicant has argued that the forensic report has serious shortcomings. I am not required to determine whether the photos of Ali Barbarestani represent the Applicant. The Respondent does not argue that the photos represent the same person and acknowledges the qualified conclusions of the forensic unit. However, in my opinion the findings are reasonable and cast significant doubt on the Applicant’s identity.
As I am not positively satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity, the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the reviewable decision of 1 August 2024.
DECISION
For these reasons, the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the reviewable decision of 1 August 2024.

Date(s) of hearing: 7 April 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant: S. Mason

Solicitors for the Respondent: J. Kirstenfeldt

Date(s) of hearing:	7 April 2025
Solicitors for the Applicant:	S. Mason
Solicitors for the Respondent:	J. Kirstenfeldt