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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by NKMR, with the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs as the respondent. The dispute centred on whether the applicant was a person of good character, a requirement for citizenship by conferral under the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, specifically Member Dr L Bygrave, was tasked with reviewing the Minister's decision to affirm the refusal of the applicant's citizenship application.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant met the good character requirement stipulated in paragraph 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). This assessment was to be guided by the principles outlined in the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement and Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 (CPI 15), which require a balancing of all relevant character factors, including those that might support an adverse conclusion and those that support a positive one. The Tribunal considered various aspects of the applicant's history, including his stateless background in Kuwait, experiences of persecution, arrival in Australia, period of unlawful residence, criminal convictions, employment, and character references.

The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's significant hardship in Kuwait as a stateless "Bedouin" or "Bidoon," including discrimination, denial of rights, arrest, detention, and torture, which led to mental health issues. It accepted that these experiences explained his use of false documents to depart Kuwait and seek protection in Australia. However, the Tribunal found significant difficulties with the applicant's subsequent conduct in Australia. It was satisfied that the applicant knowingly escaped immigration detention in 2001 and lived unlawfully in the community for ten years under a false identity, engaging in criminal conduct including driving offences and tax evasion. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant demonstrated genuine remorse or an understanding of the seriousness of his conviction for 32 counts of dishonesty offences involving over $48,000. The Tribunal concluded that these behaviours were inconsistent with the characteristics of a person of good character as defined by CPI 15.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant's application for citizenship was refused. However, the Tribunal noted that this decision did not preclude the applicant from reapplying in the future, should he be able to demonstrate that he meets the citizenship requirements over time.