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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by Mr Esa Najad, a Faili Kurd born in Iraq. Mr Najad arrived in Australia as an irregular maritime arrival and was granted a protection visa. His citizenship application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, who was not satisfied of Mr Najad's identity and good character. Mr Najad sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Najad's identity was established to the satisfaction of the delegate, and alternatively or additionally, whether he was of good character. The delegate's concerns regarding identity stemmed from inconsistencies in the information provided by Mr Najad about his background, including his parentage and citizenship. The delegate also considered that Mr Najad had not demonstrated good character, partly due to these inconsistencies.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the meaning of "identity" in the context of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007*. It adopted the approach that identity refers to the fundamental question of whether the applicant is the human being they claim to be, with the relevant background supporting their application, rather than a different individual. The Tribunal found that while there had been changes and inconsistencies in the information provided by Mr Najad over time, particularly concerning his upbringing and the identity of his parents, these did not prevent it from being satisfied as to his identity as the person applying for citizenship. The Tribunal also found that Mr Najad was of good character, noting that the assessment of good character must be contemporary.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision to refuse citizenship. It substituted a decision that the prohibition in section 24(3) of the Act did not apply to Mr Najad and directed the Respondent that the requirements of section 21(2)(h) were met. The application was remitted to the Respondent for consideration of the remaining requirements for the grant of Australian citizenship.