Omot and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) - [2025] ARTA 1753

Omot and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 1753 (11 September 2025)
Applicant/s:  Ojulo Omot
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:                2024/8983

Tribunal:General Member S. Fenwick
Place:Melbourne
Date:11 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

......................[SGD]........................
General Member S. Fenwick
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – whether applicant is of good character – multiple driving and drink driving offences – whether sufficient time has elapsed since offending – decision affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) ALD 634
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 1660
Secondary Materials
Citizenship Procedural Instructions
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND

Mr Omot applied to the Tribunal on 4 November 2025 for review of the decision of a delegate of the Respondent Minister refusing the grant of Australian citizenship by conferral. This decision was based on a finding that the Applicant is not eligible to become an Australian citizen as he is not of good character, under s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).
Mr Omot is a 41-year old national of Ethiopia who has lived and worked in Australia since arriving as a refugee in 2016. He has a wife and child interstate, and intends to soon reunite with them.
The Applicant made his first application for Australian citizenship in 2023. This was refused on the basis that he was at that time subject to an ongoing community corrections order. Mr Omot subsequently reapplied in 2024, and he acknowledged at this time his history of criminal offending. The Applicant has two convictions in 2021 and two convictions in 2023 for driving while intoxicated, breach of alcohol interlock condition, and drive while disqualified. Mr Omot is not entitled to seek the issue of a driving licence until some time in 2027.
The Applicant represented himself and lodged a bundle of documents including personal statements (AB). The Respondent lodged documents under s 37 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (T documents), Supplementary T documents (ST), a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC), and a bundle of material obtained under summons (RB).
LEGISLATION
The general eligibility criteria for the grant of Australian citizenship by conferral are set out in s 21(2) of the Act. To be eligible, a person must satisfy the Minister, among other things, that they are of good character at the time of the decision (s 21(2)(h)). The Act provides further that citizenship must not be approved unless the eligibility criteria are satisfied (s 24).
The phrase ‘good character’ is not defined in the Act, and as it involves a discretionary value judgement, should be understood within the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statutory provision itself (BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 (BOY19)). The inquiry goes more to a person’s enduring moral character than their public reputation (Irving v Minister of State for immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1996) FCR 422). It is not necessary that a decision as to character be based only on a high degree of confidence, but a decision must be based on more than belief (BOY19).
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 – Assessing good character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15) embraces some of these judicial observations. Use of policy as a guide to decision making is beneficial as an aid to consistency, where the policy is not inconsistent with the legislation (Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) ALD 634).
CPI 15 includes the observations that a person need not be of perfect character to satisfy the standard, and a person may become of good character, but a decision must be reasoned and evidence-based [3.1]. As a general proposition, CPI 15 notes, a person of good character would be law-abiding and honest, and consideration should be given to their life circumstances [4].
In respect of criminal offending, CPI 15 recommends assessment of the seriousness of an offence [12.1]. While some traffic offences may be considered of minor significance, repeat offending and disregard for the law may be relevant. Consideration should be given to whether there are ongoing obligations arising from offending, and if a pattern of behaviour can be observed [12.2].
CPI 15 also identifies that there may be relevant mitigating factors such as progress with rehabilitation, or demonstration of remorse [14.1]. In cases of serious offending, it proposes that a significant amount of time may have to pass before a decision-maker may be satisfied the person is of good character.
ISSUES
The single issue that I must consider is whether Mr Omot is of good character at the time of this decision.
EVIDENCE
The Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check Certificate for Mr Omot (T8) sets out the following convictions and penalties:
(a)July 2021: convictions for drive under the influence and breach of alcohol interlock condition in 2020, resulting in a 12 month Community Corrections Order (CCO) including 50 hours unpaid community work, a fine of $500 and licence cancellation with disqualification for four years; and
(b)February 2023: convictions for drive under the influence and drive whilst disqualified in 2022, resulting in a 12 month CCO and licence cancellation with disqualification for four years.
Mr Omot was also previously charged with exceeding prescribed concentration of alcohol in 2017, for which no conviction was recorded (RB, 47). This resulted in licence cancellation and disqualification for 11 months.
The recorded concentrations of alcohol in respect of the above conduct or offending were as follows: 2017 – 0.119% (RB, 47); 2020 – 0.202% (RB, 132); and, 2022 – 0.166% (RB, 72). A CCO Assessment Outcome Report, dated 13 February 2023 (RB, 60) observes that Mr Omot stated his way of celebrating was to drink, but that he last consumed alcohol on 23 August 2022. The Applicant was referred for drug and alcohol assessment and treatment, and had completed a Road Trauma Awareness Seminar. He was assessed as accepting responsibility for his actions, and as a low risk of general offending.
A description of the 2020 incident in a statement by the informant (RB, 132) indicates that Mr Omot collided with two other vehicles causing damage, and that his own vehicle flipped during the collision. The Applicant was taken to hospital for observation. A statement by the informant in respect of the 2022 incident (RB, 72) indicates that Mr Omot collided with a concrete barrier before crossing three lanes and colliding with a concrete barrier in the middle of a freeway, coming to rest across other lanes.
In a statement dated 14 March 2025 (AB), Mr Omot states, in summary:
(a)he is deeply regretful for his 2022 offending which was reckless and a breach of trust, but was due to a lapse of judgment;
(b)it was a life-changing wake-up call and he is committed to ensuring it will never happen again;
(c)he has taken positive steps to address the issue including education and professional guidance, and using alternative forms of transport;
(d)at the time of the offending he was traumatized from multiple responsibilities including arranging medical care for his mother overseas, which led him to alcohol use; and
(e)he has an action plan with goals including higher education and developing skills in counselling.
In an earlier letter to a magistrate, apparently in relation to the same offending (RB, 65), Mr Omot expresses similar sentiments. He states that he has undertaken the Traffic Offender Program, which ‘drove home the truly dangerous nature of my conduct’. Mr Omot states that he is lucky he did not kill someone. The Applicant also states that until the incident he had not drunk ‘for years’ and that it was just a single night when he drove under those conditions.
The materials include the following documents:
(a)a letter from SECADA Drug & Alcohol Recovery Support dated 7 February 2023 noting the completion of intake and comprehensive assessment, and the completion of three counselling sessions and development of an Individual Treatment Plan (RB, 63);
(b)certificate of completion for Road Trauma Awareness Seminar, in conjunction with the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, dated 17 January 2023 (RB, 64);
(c)letter of engagement from SECADA dated 13 March 2025 confirming Mr Omot’s self-referral in late 2024, the completion of two counselling sessions (with a further scheduled session to come) (AB);
(d)further correspondence from SECADA dated 10 February 2025 confirming the self-referral, and stating that Mr Omot ‘has engaged well and demonstrated an ability to reflect on the historical consequences of his alcohol use, including his mental health and his previous drink driving behaviours’;
(e)Diploma of Mental Health, issued 1 October 2024 by the Hammond Institute Pty Ltd (AB);
(f)Application Summary for Bachelor of Psychology, academic year 2025, at Chisholm Institute (AB); and
(g)letters of support from a neighbour and housemate attesting to his good character (T12).
In his evidence, Mr Omot detailed his education and work experience. He stated that he had a Diploma of Community Development and certificate in trauma counselling, and had worked in a refugee camp in Kenya before moving to Australia. After arriving in Queensland, Mr Omot stated that he moved to Melbourne as he had an Auntie living here, and went on to work for some years in the caravan manufacturing industry. He intends to obtain qualifications in psychology.
He stated that he had drunk due to being traumatised, and had not drunk since 2020. On the last instance, he was pressured to drink with friends after being given a lift to a party. He slept and when he awoke his friends had gone and, accordingly, he chose to drive home in the early hours of the following day. He stated he has taken ‘major steps’ including becoming an office holder in a national and international community association, and does not want anyone else to have the same experience.
Mr Omot explained that his family live in Queensland because his wife’s brothers are there. He intends to move to be with them shortly, although they have lived apart for many years. Despite this he has regularly spent time with them. While he has recently been interviewed for a counselling job, he stated this work could be done if he moved interstate. The Applicant stated that he still works in the caravan industry, although I note his application for his bachelor degree studies records him as unemployed.
Mr Omot was taken through his driving conduct and offending history. He accepted he was a P-plate driver in 2017 and knew that he was not permitted to drink. I understand him to accept that he may have consumed more than the three beers he reported upon interview, based on his blood alcohol level. Mr Omot stated that he undertook an alcohol program and regained his license.
The Applicant agreed that his next driving misconduct in 2020 involved a very high level of intoxication. The reason he obtained an interlock device charge on this occasion was because the vehicle he chose to drive had not yet had a device fitted, although a device was fitted to his previous vehicle. He agreed that his license was suspended for four years.
Mr Omot was then cross-examined as to how he came to be driving at all within the next two years, his next offence being in 2022. The Applicant explained that he had purchased a car in anticipation of regaining his licence. It was put to him that this was not a credible explanation and that it must be inferred he had driven while unlicensed on other occasions. Mr Omot responded that he took public transport to work and the car ‘sat around’. Mr Omot was asked further details around the registration of this car which did not yield any particularly clear answers, but he confirmed it was registered.
CONSIDERATION
Mr Omot submitted that his past bad conduct had ‘just happened’ however he was happy with his life in Australia. He understands the consequences for ‘doing things’ but that he understood the causes of his alcohol use and driving misconduct. The Applicant contended that he had undertaken multiple relevant steps by way of rehabilitation, had stopped drinking totally, and changed his friends. Mr Omot submitted that he wishes to be a good mentor for his daughter, who is now in Year 7.
The Respondent contended that the Tribunal should weigh several matters in the Applicant’s favour, however it remains the case that insufficient time has passed since Mr Omot’s offending to find him of good character. It was contended that despite the Applicant’s eloquent expression of remorse, his evidence about the latest offending was evasive. It was unclear, for example, why the Applicant had purchased a vehicle. It was also contended that Mr Omot was only remorseful for those matters known to the Tribunal, and there may be additional misconduct that remained undeclared. In short, due weight should be given to the gravity of the offending and the consequences that could have flowed from it.
In written submissions (RSFIC), the Respondent submits that the 2020 and 2022 offending both carry relatively substantial penalties, including imprisonment for up to two years. Accordingly, this should be considered serious offending under CPI 15. It should also be seen as repeated and reckless misconduct. The submissions note that it is now three years since the most recent offending, and a year since the expiration of the latest CCO. Nevertheless, the Tribunal should not find that the Applicant can demonstrate good character. The respondent also contended that Mr Omot had failed to be entirely truthful in making limited references in his citizenship applications to his offending, a matter that he accepted in his evidence.
I must first give consideration to the nature of Mr Omot’s offending and other relevant conduct. I consider that the Applicant has engaged in multiple instances of high-range drink driving over a number of years. I am not prepared to accept the Respondent’s invitation to assume that Mr Omot’s misconduct has been more frequent. There is not sufficient evidence to come to this conclusion. However, the circumstances, particularly of the 2020 and 2022 incidents, are sufficiently serious and concerning to conclude that his conduct should be considered very serious, and reflects a pattern of disregard for the law.
I also consider this to be a reasonable finding taking into account what might be considered aggravating features. These include driving while intoxicated as a probationary driver, knowing that this conduct was illegal, his subsequent driving in contravention of an interlock condition, and his further driving while disqualified. Each of these matters raise concerns about Mr Omot’s capacity to abide by the law and to respect the legal process that he underwent on these occasions.
The community-based outcomes indicate that the courts have treated the Applicant with some leniency, however I consider this is outweighed by the substantial periods of suspension that have been imposed. Although Mr Omot is no longer under a court order as such, his current license suspension has some time yet to run which I consider to be a relevant factor.
I accept that there are important factors in mitigation of the seriousness of Mr Omot’s offending and other driving misconduct. Mr Omot has undertaken relevant, required rehabilitation and training, and has apparently recently undertaken additional counselling. However, I also have no evidence before me as to the nature and extent of any underlying cause of his alcohol-related offending. This makes proper assessment if his rehabilitation problematic. If indeed it remains a matter of poor judgment, the Applicant appears to have the basic tools required to monitor himself and manage any past tendency to drink.
Mr Omot also appears to be undertaking relevant and related further education which should help reinforce the lessons he appears to have learned. I am somewhat uncertain as to the nature of Mr Omot’s family and domestic arrangements, but accept that he declares his wish to continue to be a positive parenting model. His employment, should he indeed move interstate, may be at least temporarily interrupted.
The Respondent, I consider, has correctly highlighted that there may be an argument that a good amount of time has passed since the last offence. What I am concerned about in this matter is Mr Omot’s repeated and quite serious breaches of the law, and the fact that he is not permitted to regain his license for some years. I am concerned also about the fact that his past offending involved breaches of important conditions intended to make the community safe from repeat misconduct.
For these reasons, I am unable to reach a positive state of satisfaction as to Mr Omot’s good character.
DECISION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision herein of General Member S. Fenwick

...............................[SGD].................................
Associate
Dated: 11 September 2025

Date of hearing:
20 August 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Other Party:

Ojulo Omot, Self Represented

Rogan O’Shannessy