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

This matter concerned an application for citizenship by conferral by NMGM, an Afghan citizen, before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs had not been satisfied of NMGM's identity, which prohibited the approval of his application. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence presented, including documentary evidence from Australia and Pakistan, biometric evidence, and oral testimony from witnesses, in light of the Citizenship Procedural Instructions concerning the assessment of identity.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether NMGM had established his identity to the requisite standard of satisfaction, as mandated by section 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if it was reasonably satisfied of NMGM's identity, considering the nature of the evidence and the potential consequences of a mistaken finding. The Tribunal also had to assess the weight to be given to various documents, including Australian-issued identification and a Pakistani marriage certificate, and to evaluate inconsistencies in the evidence, such as the discrepancy in DNA test results concerning one of NMGM's children and the admission that an older child listed as biological was, in fact, a nephew raised by NMGM.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Briginshaw v Briginshaw* (1938) 60 CLR 336, which dictates that a tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of the truth of a fact before it can be found, and that reasonable satisfaction is not achieved through inexact proofs or indefinite testimony. The Tribunal noted that while NMGM had provided Australian-sourced documents and Pakistani visas, these were not considered strong links to primary identity documents from Afghanistan. The Pakistani marriage certificate, though listing NMGM, his wife, and three children, was problematic as it was issued in 2015 and contained factual inaccuracies regarding the parentage of one child. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of scientific explanations for DNA discrepancies, such as human chimerism, but noted the lack of expert opinion on this matter.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the inconsistencies and the nature of the evidence presented were insufficient to satisfy the requirement of NMGM's identity. The decision under review was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the delegate with a direction to reconsider the application, implying that further evidence or a different approach to assessing identity might be required.