Oliveira Abitante and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) - [2021] AATA 68

Oliveira Abitante and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 68 (29 January 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/2171
Re:Andreia Oliveira Abitante
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD
Date:29 January 2021
Place:Brisbane

I affirm the decision under review.
........................................................................
Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – Whether Applicant is of Good Character – Criminal History – Traffic Offences – Fraudulent Statements on Citizenship Application – Decision Affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Apire and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 193
Berryman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 421
Da Wei Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94
Gage and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 326
Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (2020) 379 ALR 395
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Mayes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 32
Re Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 19 AAR 148
SLNY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 344
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD
29 January 2021
INTRODUCTION

The applicant is a citizen of Brazil. She first entered Australia on 21 February 2010[1] on a student independent ELICOS sector visa (subclass 570) and was granted a permanent residence partner visa on 10 March 2016.
[1] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T2, page 16.
On 5 April 2017, the applicant lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral.
On 15 January 2019 the Department of Home Affairs invited the applicant to comment on her convictions. On 30 January 2019 she provided a response to this invitation to comment.
On 25 March 2019 a delegate of the Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent) made a decision to refuse the application for Australian citizenship.
On 18 April 2019 the applicant made an application to this Tribunal to review the decision of the delegate.
CRIMINAL AND TRAFFIC HISTORY
In evidence is the National Police Check History report dated 18 December 2018 which contains the applicant’s disclosable criminal history.[2]
[2] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T4.
On 4 October 2012 the applicant appeared before the Manly Local Court where she was found guilty of the offences of driving under the influence of liquor with middle range prescribed concentration of alcohol (PCA) and driving on a road while a licence is suspended.[3]
[3] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T9.
In evidence is the traffic history report of the applicant.[4]
[4] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T10.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 20 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (“the Act”) outlines the requirements for becoming a citizen:
Requirements for becoming a citizen
A person becomes an Australian citizen under this Subdivision if:
(a)the Minister decides under subsection 24(1) to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen; and
(b)if the person is required to make a pledge of commitment to become an Australian citizen -- the person makes that pledge.
Note: Sections 21 to 25 deal with the Minister approving the person becoming an Australian citizen. Sections 26 and 27 deal with the making of a pledge of commitment.
Section 21 of the Act provides for the application and eligibility requirements for citizenship:
Application and eligibility for citizenship
(1)A person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
Note 1: Subsections (2) to (8) deal with eligibility.
Note 2: Section 46 sets out application requirements (which may include the payment of a fee).
General eligibility
(2)A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(a)is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and
(b)is a permanent resident:
(i) at the time the person made the application; and
(ii) at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application; and
(c)satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and
(d)understands the nature of an application under subsection (1); and
(e)possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; and
(f)has an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and
(g)is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and
(h)is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.
(2A)Paragraphs (2)(d), (e) and (f) are taken to be satisfied if and only if the Minister is satisfied that the following apply:
(a)the person has sat a test approved in a determination under section 23A;
(b)the person was eligible to sit that test (worked out in accordance with that determination);
(c)the person started that test within the period worked out in accordance with that determination and completed that test within the period (the relevant test period) worked out in accordance with that determination;
(d)the person successfully completed that test (worked out in accordance with that determination) within the relevant test period.
Section 24 of the Act provides:
(1)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.
Note: The Minister may cancel an approval: see section 25.
(1A)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
(2)The Minister may refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen despite the person being eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (7).
(2A)If the Minister exercised the power under subsection 22A(1A) or 22B(1A) in relation to the person, the decision under subsection (1) of this section must be made by the Minister personally.
Identity
(3)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.
Note: Division 5 contains the identity provisions.
National Security
(4)If the person is not covered by subsection (4B), the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen at a time when an adverse security assessment, or a qualified security assessment, in respect of the person is in force under the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 that the person is directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of section of that Act).
(4A)If the person is covered by subsection (4B), the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen if the person:
(a)if subparagraph (4B)(b)(i) applies to the person:
(i)     has been convicted of a national security offence; or
(ii)    subject to subsection (4C), has been convicted of an offence against an Australian law or a foreign law, for which the person has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least 5 years; or
(b)if subparagraph (4B)(b)(ii) applies to the person -- has been convicted of a national security offence.
(4B) A person is covered by this subsection if:
(a)at the time the person made the application under section 21, the person:
(i)     is not a national of any country; and
(ii)    is not a citizen of any country; and
(b)either:
(i)     the person was born in Australia; or
(ii)    the person was born outside Australia and, at the time of the person's birth, the person had a parent who was an Australian citizen.
(4C)The Minister may decide that subparagraph (4A)(a)(ii) does not apply in relation to a person if, taking into account the circumstances that resulted in the person's conviction, the Minister is satisfied that it would be unreasonable for that subparagraph to apply in relation to the person.
(4D)To avoid doubt, subsection (4A) applies to a person who is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(8).
Person not present in Australia
(5)If:
(a)the person is covered by subsection 21(2), (3) or (4); and
(aa)the Minister is satisfied that the person did not satisfy the special residence requirement referred to in section 22A or 22B; and
(b)the Minister did not apply subsection 22(9) in relation to the person; and
(c)the Minister did not apply subsection 22(11) in relation to the person;
the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen at a time when the person is not present in Australia.
Offences
(6)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen at a time:
(a)when proceedings for an offence against an Australian law (including proceedings by way of appeal or review) are pending in relation to the person; or
(b)when the person is confined to a prison in Australia; or
(c)during the period of 2 years after the end of any period during which the person has been confined to a prison in Australia because of the imposition on the person of a serious prison sentence; or
(d)if the person is a serious repeat offender in relation to a serious prison sentence -- during the period of 10 years after the end of any period during which the person has been confined to a prison in Australia because of the imposition of that sentence; or
(e)if the person has been released from serving the whole or a part of a sentence of imprisonment on parole or licence--during any period during which action can be taken under an Australian law to require the person to serve the whole or a part of that sentence; or
(f)if the person:
(i)     has been released by a court from serving the whole or a part of a sentence of imprisonment; and
(ii)    has been so released because the person gave a security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, that the person will comply with conditions relating to the person's behaviour;
during any period during which action can be taken against the person under an Australian law because of a breach of a condition of that security; or
(g)if, in respect of proceedings for an offence against an Australian law in relation to the person:
(i)     a court does not impose a sentence of imprisonment on the person; and
(ii)    the court releases the person because the person gives a security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, that the person will comply with conditions relating to the person's behaviour;
during any period during which action can be taken against the person under an Australian law because of a breach of a condition of that security; or
(h)during any period during which the person is confined in a psychiatric institution by order of a court made in connection with proceedings for an offence against an Australian law in relation to the person.
Cessation of Citizenship
(7)If the person has at any time ceased to be an Australian citizen, the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen during the period of 12 months starting on the day on which the person ceased, or last ceased, to be an Australian citizen.
Statelessness
(8)However, subsections (6) and (7) do not apply to a person covered by subsection 21(8) (about statelessness).
FALSE ANSWER AND FALSE DECLARATION
On 4 October 2013, the applicant appeared before the Manly Local Court in respect of her driving offences. The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of driving under the influence of liquor with a middle range PCA and was fined $700 with costs of court of $83 with a licence disqualification. The applicant also pleaded guilty to the offence of driving on a road while her licence was suspended and was fined $800 with costs of court of $83 with another licence disqualification.
The applicant, in giving evidence, confirmed that she signed her application for Australian citizenship on 6 March 2017, she was able to identify her signature on the application. The applicant also confirmed that she had read the declaration on the application.
Question 39(a) on the form of application for Australian citizenship requires an applicant to answer “no” or “yes” to the following question:
Have you been convicted of, or found guilty of, ANY offences overseas of in Australia (include all traffic offences which went to court, including offences declared in your permanent residence application, and any "spent" convictions)?
The applicant answered “no” to Question 39(a). There is no question that the applicant has given a false answer to Question 39(a). During the hearing the applicant confirmed that she appeared before the Manly Local Court and pleaded guilty to the offences of drink-driving and driving while suspended. The applicant, in giving evidence remarked that she was fined more than $1000 and was unable to drive for 18 months. She also confirmed that her appearance in court was significant.
The applicant has claimed that she had made a mistake in answering Question 39(a). The applicant has sought to excuse the provision of a false answer by reason of the fact that English is not her mother-tongue. The applicant has also put forward cultural differences.
In February 2019 the applicant, in her submission, remarked that “[in other applications that] I have filled out in the past, traffic issues such as fines and demerit points were not considered as a criminal conviction (I think)".[5] During the hearing the applicant was asked about what other applications she was referring to, she answered: “You know, like, house applications, you know, when you’re going to rent a place or something like that”. The applicant also remarked: “Because what happens is, because I went to court, I thought I was done. I didn’t know that after it was still taken as a criminal offence, because I’ve done - paid all the fines and went to court and all that, I thought - I didn’t know how the law worked in Australia because I’m not from here, right.” The applicant in her letter has also stated that she had assumed that the question referred to serious offences and she considered that traffic offences were not serious offences and were instead “minor offences”.[6] Prior to the hearing the applicant reiterated that she had assumed that Question 39(a) in the citizenship instructions referred to "serious offences" and that she had read from the character summary section that traffic offences are considered to be “minor offences”.[7]
[5] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T12.
[6] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T12.
[7] Exhibit H.
In giving evidence before the Tribunal the applicant was taken to her statement where, at [4.1], she stated:
I first read the section as referring to offences that I was convicted or found guilty of, which I assumed were meaning serious offences.
However, before the Tribunal, the applicant has now accepted that traffic offences are serious offences. It was put to the applicant whether she did not regard her offences of drink-driving and driving while suspended as being serious, she answered: “No, that doesn’t mean that. Of course, I take the offences very serious”.
While English is the second language of the applicant, the applicant was able to answer questions before the Tribunal. When the applicant first arrived in Australia, she undertook a general English language course. The applicant had sufficient knowledge of English to be able to run a business in Australia since 2011. The applicant did not require assistance with English in order to complete the citizenship test.[8]
[8] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T5, page 179.
The applicant has provided an explanation that she “was reading from the character summary and notice that traffic offences are considered minor offences”.[9] Certainly the citizenship instructions state that traffic offences are minor offences.[10] The applicant had sufficient proficiency in the English language to enable her to notice that the citizenship instructions make reference to traffic offences. I do not accept her explanation that the applicant did not also comprehend Question 39(a) which makes express mention of “traffic offences which went to court” but was able to comprehend the reference to “traffic offences” in the citizenship instructions. Her explanation is not convincing. During the hearing the applicant gave evidence that she certainly remembered attending the court. The applicant stated that she “didn’t know that I was still being convicted, if that makes sense”. The applicant’s explanation does not in my view assist her and does not convince me why she gave a false answer to the question which required her to disclose “all traffic offences which went to court”.
[9] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T12, page 203.
[10] Exhibit A, T-Documents, T3, page 130.
While I accept that there are differences in the cultures of Brazil and Australia, I do not accept that there is any cogent evidence that cultural differences had any relevance to the fact that the applicant gave a false answer to Question 39(a). The applicant in her reply made it clear that her reliance upon cultural differences was not solely based on the fact that English is not her mother tongue.[11] The applicant has submitted that in Brazil traffic enforcement is not rigorous. While I accept there are cultural differences in the road rules in Brazil and Australia, there is no cogent evidence that these cultural differences explain why the applicant gave a false answer to Question 39(a) or continued to commit traffic offences. The applicant in her reply does not highlight any particular cultural difference that she regards as material.
[11] Exhibit L, [7].
The applicant has submitted: “the Respondent denies justice to the applicant by the pure fact of being unable to tick the right box in the citizenship application”. However, completing an application for Australian citizenship is not just a matter of ticking the right box in the application form. The preamble to the Act provides that Australian citizenship confers upon a person full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia. In Hocking v Director-General of the National Archive of Australia,[12] the High Court of Australia, in discussing the nature of the body politic of the Commonwealth, has recently emphasised inclusion in the membership of the “political community of the people in the body politic”.[13] An application to become part of the body politic of the Commonwealth and thereby assume the benefits as well as the responsibilities of an Australian citizen is a serious undertaking. An applicant is expected to carefully read the questions and provide truthful answers to those questions.
[12] (2020) 379 ALR 395.
[13] (2020) 379 ALR 395 at [212] per Edelman J.
The applicant has given a false answer to the unambiguous question which requires the applicant to “include all traffic offences which went to court” in her answer. The applicant was required to disclose all the “traffic offences that went to court” and she had failed to do comply with this simple request. The declaration in the application that was signed by the applicant required the applicant to “declare that the information I have supplied in this form is complete, truthful and correct”. I have concluded that the applicant is not of good character for giving a false answer to Question 39(a), and for making a false declaration by declaring that the information that she has provided is “complete, truthful and correct”.
TRAFFIC HISTORY

The traffic history of the applicant is in evidence.[14] The two offences of drink-driving and driving while her licence was suspended are included in the traffic history. The applicant gave evidence that after she was convicted, her licence was suspended for eighteen months. The traffic history discloses that the applicant had between 2014 and 2018 received infringement notices on four occasions for exceeding the speed limit. The last of these infringement notices in 2018 refers to the applicant exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 kph but less than 30 kph. The applicant in giving evidence admitted committing this offence by stated that she was driving at 120 kph in a 100 kph zone but the notice was issued for driving at a speed in excess of 20 kph. I have concluded that the applicant was driving in excess of 120 kph on that occasion and she has minimised the nature of her offence.
[14] Exhibit A, T Documents, T10, pages 193-195.
The applicant in her reply has submitted that her “character should be seen above her driving record”. However, this Tribunal has consistently emphasised that the traffic history of an applicant for Australian citizenship is a relevant consideration in considering the character of an applicant for Australian citizenship.[15] I respectfully adopt the observations of Senior Member Tavoularis in Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[16] concerning the danger to the community in the breach of traffic laws.
[15] Apire and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 193; Gage and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 326; SLNY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 344; Berryman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 421; Mayes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 32.
[16] [2017] AATA 1561 at [43]-[45].
I do not accept the submissions of the applicant that her actions “do not indicate consistent disregard of the traffic laws”.[17] Between 2012 and 2018 the applicant committed a number of traffic offences including four speeding offences, the use of a handheld mobile phone, driving under the influence, driving while her licence was suspended and riding a wheeled device over a median line. It is concerning that in 2018 the applicant received an infringement notice for exceeding the speed limit by more than 20 kph but less than 30 kph. It does not reflect well on the character of the applicant having committed this serious speeding offence after she had received a warning notice in 2017 from the Department of Transport and Main Roads. That speeding offence was also made after the applicant had made a declaration in her application for Australian citizenship in which she acknowledged that the responsibilities of citizenship include obeying Australian laws.
[17] Exhibit H, [6].
I find that the applicant was not of good character at the time of the decision of the delegate when having regard to her having committed this serious speeding offence after the delegate made the decision. The applicant in giving evidence disagrees with the observations of the police officer that were made concerning her drink driving offence. These observations were contained in the contemporaneous police report.[18] There is no plausible reason offered by the applicant why the observations of the police officer were false for a mid-range driving offence. I regard her evidence in this respect as a failure to accept personal responsibility for her actions and indicates that she was not of good character at the time of my decision.
[18] Exhibit I, Annexure A.
The applicant has submitted that “traffic offences are strict liability offences and its inherent consideration does not require any intended wrongdoing”. It is difficult to reconcile this submission with the assertion of the applicant that she is remorseful for her traffic history. The applicant can control the speed of the vehicle that she is driving.
The applicant in referring to her traffic history has submitted that the decision of the Tribunal should align with community values. The applicant relies upon the submission of the Australian Human Rights Commission that:[19]
Further, we submit that each of the traffic offences seen on its own is impotent in hinting at one’s character, the repetition thereof is this Tribunal’s concern.[20] The decision of this matter should align with community standards.[21] Australian Human Rights Commission noted (sic) that “it would be anomalous to hold naturalised citizens to a standard that is significantly more stringent that the standard expected of Australian born citizens”.[22]
However, the applicant is not in the position of being a naturalised citizen and the applicant has not indicated what “community standards” excuse her conduct. I do not accept that the traffic history of the applicant can be said to accord with community values.
[19] Exhibit H.
[20] Exhibit H citing Patel and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3466, [57].
[21] Exhibit H citing Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) preamble.
[22] Exhibit H citing AHRC, Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 [provision], 9.
It is certainly to the credit of the applicant that she accepted the advice of her legal representative to undertake a safe driving course. However, this of itself does not persuade me that the applicant is now of good character. The traffic offender intervention course was completed by the Applicant in August 2019 after she had received a warning letter.[23] It would have been more to the credit of the applicant if she had taken the traffic offender intervention course on her own initiative.
[23] Exhibit B.
CHARACTER REFERENCES
The applicant has provided character references in support of her application for Australian citizenship which refer to the business reputation of the applicant as well as her standing in the community. These character references can only be accorded limited weight because none of the persons who provided the references were called as witnesses before the Tribunal. The persons who provided these references made reference to traffic offences in their references but did not indicate that they are fully aware of the traffic history of the applicant. The persons who provided their references have not evidenced an understanding of the nature of the traffic history of the applicant. They have also not fully appreciated that the applicant had provided a false answer as well as making a false declaration in her application for Australian citizenship.
One character reference was provided by a solicitor who in her reference remarked:
From my business dealings with Burleigh Heads Massage I know that Andreia is known to do great business. She is a fine woman, and a single mother. She has always paid her invoices on time and she is friendly and upright.[24]
[24] Exhibit G.
In her evidence-in-chief the applicant had stated that she had conducted a business with a different name to Burleigh Heads Massage. During the hearing the applicant was asked about this reference from her solicitor and she asserted that Burleigh Heads Massage was not her business. The applicant and her legal representative have both asserted that the solicitor has made a mistake in her reference. However, ordinarily a solicitor who has had business dealings with the business would appreciate the significance of a business name. In the absence of further explanation, I do not accept that the solicitor who did legal work for the applicant was unaware of the name of the business that was being conducted by her client. This is because of the assertion of the applicant that the solicitor and herself “have conducted various business transactions together”.[25]
[25] Exhibit H, [136].
At the conclusion of the hearing the applicant was given the opportunity to raise whatever issues she thought were important, having regard to the questions which were raised before the Tribunal. The applicant has not filed a supplementary reference from her solicitor to explain what was said to be a mistake. The solicitor who provided this character reference was not called as a witness. It is difficult to appreciate why the applicant had filed the character reference of the solicitor with the Tribunal if it contained incorrect information.
CONCLUSION
I have previously mentioned that the applicant has permanent residency in Australia. Accordingly, my decision has no bearing on her entitlement to remain in Australia. Her son is also entitled to remain in Australia.
As previously stated, section 21(2) of the Act provides that:
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.
The Act does not define the expression “good character” however this expression was considered in Re Lachmaiya and Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 19 AAR 148 when reviewing a decision made under the former section 180A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). At 154-155, Deputy President McMahon stated:
“Good character” cannot have the meaning commonly attributed to it in criminal trials. In that context, it usually means absence of convictions or, at most, absence of adverse police notice. The distinction drawn in the two subparagraphs between criminal and general conduct supports the view that here, good character does not have the narrow criminal law meaning. There are many cases dealing with prohibited references to bad character and the effect on trials when evidence of that nature is allowed before a jury. In the present context, it is more likely that good character was intended to be given a broader meaning.
The Macquarie Dictionary defines character as:
1. The aggregate of qualities that distinguishes one person or thing from others;
2. Moral constitution, as of a person or people;
3. Good moral constitution or status;
4. Reputation;
5. Good repute; and
6. An account of the qualities or peculiarities of a person or thing.
In assisting the Minister to determine whether a person has a good aggregate of qualities, as distinct from a bad one, regard should be had to the structure and purpose of the legislation.
In Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422, Lee J remarked (at 431):
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 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…
Davies J remarked (at 427-428):
The drawing of a conclusion by a decision-maker as to whether he or she is satisfied that an applicant for a visa is of “good character” requires the exercise of a value judgment. There are no precise parameters which distinguish “good character” from “bad character”. Although, in general, “good character” can be readily recognised, in a particular case views may differ. It is for the administrative decision-maker, in whom Parliament has reposed the function of making that assessment, to arrive at a decision…
In Da Wei Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94, Deputy President Forgie explained (at 133):
It would seem, then, that the authorities are drawing attention to a person’s ability to know what society considers good, right and proper and to conduct him or herself in a manner that accords with society’s values.
I have previously mentioned why I have concluded that the applicant is not a person of good character having regard to her having provided a false answer as well as making a false declaration in her application for Australian citizenship.
I have also found that the applicant is not a person of good character after I have considered her conduct from 2012 when she was convicted of two traffic offences and until 2018 that she has no regard for the traffic laws of Australia.
Having regard to the considerable traffic history of the applicant and her conduct in providing a false answer and a false declaration in her application for Australian citizenship, I find that the applicant has not conducted herself in a manner that accords with society’s values. Her recent conduct in providing a false answer and declaration is not indicative of good character.
I have carefully considered the claim by the applicant that she is remorseful. The character references that refer to the remorsefulness of the applicant have done so in relation to the traffic history of the applicant.[26] As Lee J has explained in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs,[27] in considering whether a person is of “good character”, I have to consider not just the reputation of a person in the community. The character references certainly reflect that she has business and community associates that hold her in good regard. However, these character references do not contain an acknowledgement that the applicant has provided a false answer and made a false declaration in her application for Australian citizenship. These character references do not satisfy me that the applicant is remorseful for her conduct in providing her false answer and in making a false declaration.
[26] Exhibits D, E, F and G.
[27] (1996) 68 FCR 422.
I have previously given my reasons why I do not find that the applicant was a person of good character, either at the time of the decision of the delegate or at the time of my decision.
In giving evidence before the Tribunal the applicant indicated that she was a director of a company and her legal representative had indicated that she had done some work in relation to that company which conducted a massage business. I have previously indicated that another solicitor had in her character reference indicated that the applicant was associated with another massage business; however, the applicant had disclaimed any interest in that business. The applicant had stated that she was happy to provide company information, but no such information was filed by the applicant.[28]
[28] Transcript, page 16 at line 41.
In considering the question of character of an applicant for Australian citizenship it may be necessary to consider the conduct of an applicant as a director. I would recommend that the Department give consideration to the modification of the form of application for Australian citizenship, which is currently Form 1300t, to require an applicant to disclose whether the applicant has ever been a director of a company. This is because the conduct of an applicant as a director may have relevance in evaluating the character of the applicant.
There is no cogent evidence upon which I can find that the applicant does satisfy paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act either at the time of the decision of the delegate or my decision. Therefore, her application for Australian citizenship cannot be approved under section 24 of the Act.
DECISION
I affirm the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 50 (fifty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Dr P McDermott RFD

…………………………………………..
Associate
Dated: 29 January 2021

Date of Hearing: 26 November 2019

Final Submission Received: 4 March 2020

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Eva Zavaleta, CJM Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Eleanor Cannon, Clayton Utz

Date of Hearing:	26 November 2019
Final Submission Received:	4 March 2020
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms Eva Zavaleta, CJM Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Eleanor Cannon, Clayton Utz