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

[2021] AATA 2845

NKMR and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2845 (12 August 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2020/4812

Re:NKMR  

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Dr L Bygrave, Member

Date:12 August 2021

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is affirmed.

..........................[SGD]....................................

Dr L Bygrave, Member

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – whether applicant is a person of good character – Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement] – Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 – applicant living unlawfully in the community – charged with criminal conduct – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) ss 21, 24

CASES

Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634

Re Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affair [2000] AATA 931

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement] (27 November 2020)

Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (reissued on 26 February 2021)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Dr L Bygrave, Member

12 August 2021

INTRODUCTION

1. The applicant, NKMR, is 43 years old. He was born in Kuwait and currently holds a resident return (subclass 155) permanent visa.

2. On 22 September 2016, the applicant lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral under section 21 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act). This application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) on 27 July 2020 on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the ‘good character’ requirement in paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act.

3. On 25 September 2020, the applicant made an application for review of this decision to the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).

4. The matter was heard by the Tribunal on 27 July 2021 by videoconference. The applicant was represented by counsel; he attended and gave oral evidence at the hearing with the assistance of an interpreter of the Arabic language.

   RELEVANT LEGISLATION

5. Subsection 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. Pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Act:

   If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

6. Subsection 21(2) of the Act sets out the following relevant general eligibility requirement for Australian citizenship:

   (2) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:

   …

   (h) is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application. [emphasis added]

   Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement] and Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15

7. The Act does not define the term ‘good character’. However, guidance can be found in the Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement] (the Citizenship Statement), which from 27 November 2020 replaced the policy guidance previously provided in chapter 11 of the Citizenship Policy.

8. The Citizenship Statement outlines the ‘overarching legislative requirements for the process of becoming an Australian citizen’ and refers to Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15) reissued on 26 February 2021 with the purpose to ‘identify the legal requirements, and related policy and procedures, that apply to the assessment of an application for Australian citizenship’ under the Act.[1]

   [1] Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement] and CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, section 1.

9. Although I am not bound to strictly apply the Citizenship Statement and CPI 15, these are government policies and should be considered unless there are cogent reasons not to do so: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2).[2]

   [2] [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634.

10. The Citizenship Statement sets out the rights and responsibilities of Australian citizenship, observing that:

    Australian citizenship is a privilege requiring a continuing commitment to Australia. Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations…

    Australian citizenship includes the right to:

    ·apply for an Australian passport and re-enter Australia freely;

    ·ask for consular assistance from an Australian consulate while overseas;

    ·vote in federal, state or territory, and local elections;

    ·vote in a Constitutional referendum or plebiscite;

    ·seek election to parliament;

    ·apply for children born overseas to become Australian citizens by descent; and

    ·apply for a job in the Australian Public Service or in the Australian Defence Force…

    The responsibilities of Australian citizenship include obligations to:

    ·obey the laws of Australia;

    ·vote in federal, state or territory, and local elections, and in a Constitutional referendum or plebiscite;

    ·defend Australia should the need arise; and

    ·serve on jury duty if called to do so.[3] [emphasis added]

    [3] Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement], section 3.2.

11. CPI 15 provides policy guidance on the interpretation and application of the good character requirement. The instruction sets out a framework for assessing an applicant; however, it ‘should not be applied rigidly or inflexibly’ and ‘should be exercised bearing in mind the facts of any particular case’.[4] This requires decision-makers to consider all relevant information and ‘be mindful that the requirement to be of “good character” does not mean a person must be of “perfect character”’.[5]

    [4] CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, section 3.1.

    [5] CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, section 3.1.

12. The decision of the Full Federal Court in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs is cited in CPI 15 as guidance to the definition of good character:

    Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words “good character” should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact while the latter is a review of subjective public opinion… A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character… Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character. [6] [emphasis added]

    [6] (1996) 68 FCR 422, 431-432.

13. CPI 15 states that the phrase ‘enduring moral qualities’ encompasses concepts such as characteristics that have endured over a long period of time, distinguishing right from wrong, and behaving in an ethical manner including conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.[7] This good character requirement necessitates considering an applicant ‘in a holistic way’ with all aspects of their life potentially relevant to deliberation of their character.[8] Thus, an applicant is of good character if they have demonstrated ‘good enduring/lasting moral qualities’ before and throughout the time they held a visa and their citizenship application process.[9]

    [7] CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, section 3.3.

    [8] CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, section 3.3.

    [9] CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, section 3.3.

14. The role of the character requirement in a citizenship application is explained by Deputy President Breen in Re Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs:

    The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home. The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts. It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of State. The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few years’ time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.[10] [emphasis added]

    [10] [2000] AATA 931 at [8].

15. CPI 15 also sets out a non-exhaustive list of characteristics of good character. Relevant to this application, a person of good character would:

    ·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;

    ·be honest and financially responsible (for example: pay tax); and

    ·not practice deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian government (for example: intentionally provide false personal information or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications; live unlawfully in the community; conceal criminal convictions; and give false names and/or addresses to police).[11]

    [11] CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, section 4.

16. Notably, CPI 15 states that the application of these principles should be considered in view of the facts of the particular case, and it is necessary to consider other information relevant to the applicant’s character. This may include their family life, employment and payment of taxes, community work, the time that has elapsed since their offending, expressions of genuine remorse for past wrong-doing, and any extenuating circumstances relating to their offences. CPI 15 articulates this process as follows:

    Ultimately, a decision-maker should weigh up all the factors relevant to an assessment of an applicant’s character, which might include a number of factors some of which support reaching an adverse conclusion about a person’s character and some of which support reaching a positive conclusion about a person’s character.[12]

    [12] CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, section 4.

    EVIDENCE

17. The circumstances of the applicant relevant to the characteristics of good character outlined in the Act and CPI 15 are his:

    ·arrival in Australia in 1999 and subsequent detention in immigration;

    ·period of unlawful residence in the Australian community between 2001 and 2011;

    ·offences in 2010 related to convictions in 2012;

    ·driving offences;

    ·employment and contribution to the Australian community; and

    ·character references.

    The applicant’s arrival in Australia

18. The applicant provided three statutory declarations dated 13 May 2020, 10 July 2020 and 2 July 2021 that set out his childhood and experiences in Kuwait, and his arrival in Australia by aeroplane in 1999. Further details about these circumstances were also outlined in the delegate’s decision record for the applicant’s protection (class XA) visa dated 18 May 2012.

19. In his statutory declarations and oral evidence, the applicant explained that he was born in Kuwait as a stateless ‘Bedouin’ or ‘Bidoon’ and consequently, he was subjected to discrimination, denied citizenship and had no access to health care, education, employment or identity documents.[13] The applicant said that he attended school until he was 12 years old and then assisted his brother to sell honey.

    [13] Exhibit T, pages 102 and 155.

20. In Kuwait, the applicant experienced being arrested by police, and detained and tortured on several occasions between 1993 and 1997. In 1999, threats from an ‘influential family’ were made towards the applicant, and he feared he would be arrested and tortured.[14]  

    [14] Exhibit T, page 150.

21. The applicant subsequently departed Kuwait in 1999 on a fraudulent Saudi Arabian passport that he destroyed on route to Australia. When he arrived in Australia, he was refused immigration clearance and detained in detention. He then lodged an application for a protection visa using false identity documents from Kuwait; his application for a visa was refused, both initially and on review.[15]

    [15] Exhibit T, pages 147-148.

    The applicant’s unlawful residence in the Australian community

22. In July 2001, the applicant escaped from immigration detention. He told the Tribunal at his hearing that he did not plan this escape but saw other detainees escaping through a fence and decided to follow them. He said that, by this time, he had spent a long time in detention, he had been on a ‘hunger strike’ and his mental health had deteriorated.[16]

    [16] Oral evidence of the applicant, 27 July 2021.

23. From 2001 to 2011, the applicant assumed the identity of ‘Saad Mohsen Al-Rafia’ and resided unlawfully in the Australian community. He obtained a driver’s licence, accommodation (initially, shared and later, on his own) and casual employment doing construction work and painting for three or four days at a time where he was paid cash-in-hand. The applicant said he was able to afford rent, living and car expenses from his employment and financial assistance ‘from friends’.[17] He did not pay taxes to the Australian government.

    [17] Oral evidence of the applicant, 27 July 2021.

    The applicant’s offences of fraud

24. In the period from 2001 to 2011, the applicant held alias identities and documents in various names. His criminal record is set out in a report from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (the ACIC) dated 26 May 2020 and includes the following offences:

    ·Downing Centre Local Court, 23 April 2012. Offences: 32 counts of Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception-T1. Result: Bond s 9: 2 years.[18]

    [18] Exhibit T, pages 142-144.

25. In his statutory declaration dated 9 July 2020, the applicant stated that he obtained a ‘fake identity’ because of a ‘desperate need to live’ and:

    …as a refugee at the time and the pressure I was under I seeked a way to life. I would not have done so if it was not the only option for me at the time as I feared to be sent back to detention where no future awaited me.[19] [reproduced as in original]

    [19] Exhibit T, page 169.

26. The applicant further wrote in his statutory declaration on 2 July 2021 that he committed his crimes ‘as a result of being stateless’ and explained that:

    …the fact that I did not hold valid identity, a drivers [licence] and basic Australian work rights, this meant that I was already labelled as a criminal. This explains the reason why I had multiple counts of identity fraud, theft and financial crime. It is important to note that I am highly remorseful for my consequences. My state of mind during this devastating period of my life was at an inadequate level, subsequently my decisions and my thinking processes were highly irrational. I was just trying to survive as a member of society.

    …the only way to do this within the Australian public was to hold fake identity, and given false information in order to obtain credit. In spite of these circumstances, I still deeply regret the crimes that I committed.[20]

    [20] Exhibit A1.

27. NSW Police records filed by the Minister’s legal representative shows the details of the applicant’s offences was ‘Dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception-T1’ and that, under the name of ‘Saad Mohsen Al-Rafia’, the applicant used fraudulent credit cards on 32 occasions in 2010 to purchase items and gift cards to the total value of $48,619.27.[21] The applicant was apprehended by police in 2011 and, when his false identity and unlawful residence was realised, he was returned to immigration detention.

    [21] Exhibit R1, pages 22-33.

28. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant acknowledged he used false credit cards to purchase gift cards. He said ‘a friend’ who knew he had escaped from immigration detention gave him a false credit card and ‘forced’ him to use the card to buy gift cards.[22] He variously stated that he denied ‘many of the charges’; was advised by the lawyer in 2012 to plead guilty; only used a false credit card on ‘four or five’ or ‘maximum eight’ occasions; was ‘forced’ to commit fraud because he ‘needed money’ and ‘was scared’; and regretted his offending even though it happened because of his ‘situation’ of feeling ‘depressed’ and ‘not well’.[23] He accepted that he did not seek medical or psychological assistance until 2011, when he returned to immigration detention.

    [22] Oral evidence of the applicant, 27 July 2021.

    [23] Oral evidence of the applicant, 27 July 2021.

29. The applicant was also asked at the hearing about his declarations of offences in forms he provided to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department). In his application for Australian citizenship lodged in 2016, the applicant declared he had convictions and stated ‘I was charged with fraud (use of fake name when in detention centre) before 2012…I was given a good behaviour bond…’.[24] In a ‘Form 80’ lodged on 20 March 2020 setting out his personal particulars for character assessment, the applicant did not declare any convictions or offences but noted that he had received a ‘good behaviour bond’ for ‘incorrect filling of application form’ and not mentioning ‘previous name Saad Alrafia’.[25] The applicant told the Tribunal that, as he had been held in detention when he attended Court in 2012, he believed that the Department knew about his past offences and he did not understand that he was required to provide this information again.

    [24] Exhibit T, page 38.

    [25] Exhibit T, page 112.

    The applicant’s driving offences

30. The ACIC report dated 26 May 2020 listed three driving offences in 2005 and 2006 when the applicant held a driver’s licence in the name of ‘Saad Mohsen Al-Rafia’. These offences and Court results included ‘Drive on road etc when licence cancelled’ – fined and disqualified from driving for 12 months; ‘Drive on road etc when licence refused’ – s 10 bond, Court costs and disqualified from driving for 12 months; ‘Drive while disqualified from holding a licence’ – fined and disqualified from driving for two years, s 9 bond. [26]

    [26] Exhibit T, pages 142-144.

31. Driving records filed by the applicant also show he committed driving offences including using a mobile phone when not permitted, disobeying traffic lights and road signs, and speeding on five occasions from 2014 to 2018.[27]

    [27] Exhibit A10.

    The applicant’s employment and contribution to the Australian community

32. The applicant was granted a protection (class XA) visa in May 2012 and, from this time, he has resided in the Australian community. He told the Tribunal that he has not been employed and has been in receipt of the disability support pension since he left immigration detention.

33. Reports from a senior psychologist at STARTTS (NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors) dated 17 July 2017, 22 November 2017 and 15 March 2018 verified that the applicant has been diagnosed with depression and anxiety, and has accessed clinical services since June 2011. The report on 15 March 2018 outlined the applicant’s ‘lost sense of identity and belonging due to his long-term separation from his family’ and supported his application for Australian citizenship to ‘give him [the] ability of travel and get reunited with his family’.[28] This is also stated in a medical letter by the applicant’s treating forensic psychologist on 8 December 2017, which noted that his ‘narrative’ of his flight from Kuwait was shown by ‘evident symptoms of acute distress, grief and loss, and Post Traumatic Stress’, and:

    Otherwise, he appears to be adjusting well to his post-detention life in Australia, has achieved a healthy state of inner stability, and a positive present and future focus.[29]

    [28] Exhibit T, pages 69-70.

    [29] Exhibit T, page 68.

1. The applicant has held titre de voyage documents since 2013, and he has travelled to Saudi Arabia in 2015 and to Turkey in 2020. At the hearing, he said that he travelled with ‘a friend’ who paid for these holidays and related expenses.[30]

   [30] Oral evidence of the applicant, 27 July 2021.

2. The applicant provided statements that he has undertaken volunteer work in the Australian community, donated blood and made financial donations to various not-for-profit organisations.[31] He provided documents and receipts to show financial donations he made in 2019 and 2020.[32]

   [31] Exhibit A1.

   [32] Exhibit A9.

3. Although the applicant did not discuss his family situation at the Tribunal hearing, he declared information about his parents and siblings who live in Kuwait in his Form 80 filed with the Department on 20 March 2020, and filed a birth certificate that showed he has a son who was born in January 2021.

   References in support of the applicant

4. CPI 15 states that information such as character references provided by people who know the applicant must be considered when assessing good character under the Act. In relation to the weight to be attributed to character references, CPI 15 notes that decision-makers ‘should not attribute less weight to a character reference merely because the text does not contain an explicit statement of support for the applicant acquiring Australian citizenship’.[33]

   [33] CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, section 14.1.

5. In 2017, the applicant lodged letters of support from representatives of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia and the Islamic Centre. These letters described the applicant as a ‘man of integrity, generosity of spirit and good character’ and an ‘affable young man who enjoys a very good reputation and is of good character’.[34]

   [34] Exhibit T, pages 61-62.

6. The applicant provided three statutory declarations to the Department in July 2020 to support his application for citizenship. Each of these documents acknowledged that the applicant had criminal offences and explained this was ‘unintentional’, due to ‘stress, too much pressure and hardship knowing he has stateless status’, and ‘during his period of depression when he was afraid of being caught and returned to detention’.[35] These statements also described the applicant as ‘kind, generous, honest and reliable’, of ‘very good character with noble values and good ethics’ and an ‘honest, trustworthy and dependable person’.[36]

   [35] Exhibit T, pages 172-173 and 175.

   [36] Exhibit T, pages 172-173 and 175.

7. Prior to the Tribunal hearing, the applicant filed a further six statutory declarations dated in May 2021. These acknowledged the applicant’s criminal offences without providing any detail, and described him as ‘loyal, honest, considerate and supportive’, of ‘very good moral character’, a ‘good friend and respectable person’, always ‘polite and respectful’, and of ‘impeccable character’.[37] Two of these statutory declarations also set out that the applicant is married with ‘an infant son’ and is ‘family-oriented’.[38]

   [37] Exhibits A2-A6.

   [38] Exhibits A4 and A7.

8. In a statutory declaration dated 11 May 2021 and oral evidence at the hearing, Ms ‘H’ (migration agent) described assisting the applicant with the process of his application for citizenship and submitted reasons for why he is a person of ‘very good character’.[39] She told the Tribunal that she was aware that the applicant had been charged with ‘fraud’ but was unaware of the detail of his offending.[40]

   [39] Exhibit A7.

   [40] Oral evidence of Ms ‘H’ (migration agent), 27 July 2021.

   CONSIDERATION

9. The sole issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the applicant satisfies the requirements of good character in paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act. Guided by the Citizenship Statement and CPI 15, I now weigh all the factors relevant to his character.

10. Based on the evidence, I accept that the applicant experienced extreme hardship in Kuwait as a person who was a stateless Bidoon and consequently, denied rights of citizenship, and arrested, detained and tortured on several occasions prior to departing Kuwait in 1999. I also accept, based on the evidence in reports written by the applicant’s psychologists and summarised in paragraph 33 above, that these experiences have led to the applicant experiencing depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress.

11. Due to these experiences in Kuwait, I can understand why the applicant – as a stateless person aged 21 years old – used false identity documents to depart Kuwait and travel to Australia. I agree with the assessment of the Minister’s delegate on 18 May 2012 that, based on the applicant’s situation, he was ‘a person to whom Australia [had] protection obligations’ for the grant of a protection (class XA) visa.[41]

    [41] Exhibit T, page 165.

12. However, I have significant difficulties with the following aspects of the applicant’s behaviour in relation to considering whether he is of good character for the purpose of his application for Australian citizenship.

13. On the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal, I am satisfied that the applicant knowingly and deliberately escaped from immigration detention in 2001 and then lived in the Australian community for ten years under a false identity and using fraudulent documents. Despite telling the Tribunal at his hearing that he did not know about Australian ‘law and rules’, I am satisfied that the applicant (using the identity of ‘Saad Mohsen Al-Rafia’) had at least three convictions in Court in relation to driving offences in 2005 and 2006. I am also satisfied that he worked for cash-in-hand and did not pay taxes in the period from 2001 to 2011.

14. I find these behaviours by the applicant – living unlawfully in the community, not abiding by the law in Australia, giving false names to police and not paying tax – are explicitly described in CPI 15 as being inconsistent with the characteristics held by a person of good character.

15. Regarding the applicant’s conviction by the Court in 2012 of 32 counts of ‘dishonestly obtain financial advantage etc by deception’ in 2010, I am not satisfied that his explanations for his offending behaviour in either his statutory declaration dated 2 July 2021 or his oral evidence to the Tribunal demonstrate an understanding of the seriousness of his offending and genuine remorse. I find his explanations provide no justification for him using fraudulent credit cards on 32 occasions to purchase items and gift cards totalling more than $48,000.

16. While I have regard to the penalty of the Court, which was to apply a section 9 bond for a period of two years, I am satisfied that not only did the applicant live unlawfully in the Australian community from 2001 to 2011, he also committed serious offences in 2010 that led to convictions by the Court in 2012. I note that the applicant and his migration agent provided oral evidence to the Tribunal regarding his declaration of convictions in his Australian citizenship application in 2016 but did not declare offences in his Form 80 in 2020. I accept the applicant’s explanation that, as he was in immigration detention when he attended and was convicted by the Court in 2012, he believed the Department knew about his offending history.

17. I find the applicant’s convictions in 2012 for his offences committed in 2010 are not consistent with the expectation set out in CPI 15 that a person of good character would respect and abide by the law in Australia and be honest. While I accept a considerable length of time has passed since this offending, I give this less weight in view of my finding that the applicant has demonstrated a limited understanding of the seriousness of his offences of using false credit cards for financial advantage.

18. Finally, I consider the applicant’s behaviour since 2012 when the Australian government granted him a protection (class XA) visa, having regard to his particular case and all available information about his character. I note that, aside from several driving offences, he has not committed any other serious offences. I also note, as set out in paragraphs 38 to 41, the applicant has provided character references that describe his positive attributes as a person, a community member and, more recently, as a father. While I place some weight on the statutory declarations that refer to the applicant’s offending in the past and outline positive characteristics, I find none of these statements show that the applicant has disclosed to the referees the serious nature of his 2012 convictions. Indeed, this was confirmed by the oral evidence of the applicant’s migration agent that she was aware he had been convicted of ‘fraud’ but did not know the detail of his offending.

19. There is no evidence of the applicant being employed and, since 2012, he has been in receipt of disability support pension. I accept and place weight on reports from STARTTS and the applicant’s forensic psychologist in 2017 and 2018 that described the applicant’s difficult personal circumstances as a stateless person and requested citizenship be granted so he could travel to see his family. However, while I accept the applicant remains stateless, the evidence of his psychologists that he is unable to travel is not consistent with his titre de voyage documents and his confirmation to the Tribunal that he travelled overseas to Saudi Arabia in 2015 and Turkey in 2020. I place less weight on these reports in view of these inconsistencies.

    CONCLUSION

20. Weighing all the relevant evidence and my findings set out above, I am not satisfied at this time that the applicant meets the requirements of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act.

21. This conclusion does not preclude the applicant from making an application for Australian citizenship in the future. It may be that with the passage of time, he will be able to demonstrate that he meets the requirements to be granted Australian citizenship.

    DECISION

22. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 55 (fifty -five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr L Bygrave, Member

...............................[SGD]................................

Associate

Dated: 12 August 2021

Date(s) of hearing:	27 July 2021
Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms Michelle Yu
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Mr Robert Walker-Stambuk, The Immigration Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Max Gao, Australian Government Solicitor