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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by Mr Okafor. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs refused the application, and Mr Okafor sought review of that decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The sole issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Okafor satisfied the "good character" requirement for citizenship under paragraph 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Okafor possessed enduring moral qualities indicative of good character, notwithstanding his criminal history. This involved considering his convictions for importing cocaine in 2004, for which he received a 10-year prison sentence with a non-parole period of six and a half years, and domestic violence offences in 2017 involving his second wife. The Tribunal also had to consider whether these convictions could be considered "spent" under relevant legislation, and whether the Applicant's personal circumstances, including his family life and financial support for his children, were relevant to the assessment of his character.

The Tribunal applied the established legal principles for assessing "good character," which focus on a person's enduring moral qualities rather than their reputation. It noted that this assessment involves a value judgment by the decision-maker and that past convictions, even serious ones, do not automatically preclude an applicant from demonstrating good character if they have reformed. However, the Tribunal found that Mr Okafor's cocaine importation offences were too serious to be considered spent convictions under Commonwealth law, as the term of imprisonment exceeded 30 months. Furthermore, even if they were ordinarily spent, the citizenship application process is exempt from this, allowing for their consideration. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the evidence before it, Mr Okafor did not satisfy the good character requirement.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning Mr Okafor's application for citizenship was refused. The Tribunal noted that this did not preclude him from making a future application, as the passage of time might allow him to demonstrate that he meets the good character requirement.