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

[2021] AATA 1619

PBMH and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1619 (1 June 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2019/4615

Re:PBMH  

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member M O'Loughlin

Date:1 June 2021

Place:Adelaide

The decision under review is affirmed.

..............................[Sgnd]..........................................

Member M O'Loughlin

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP - application for citizenship refused by the Minister under s 24(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act – whether Applicant is of good character pursuant to s 21(2)(h) of the Act – Decision under review affirmed.

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Cases

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931

Secondary Materials

Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 1 June 2016.

Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 27 November 2020.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member M O'LOUGHLIN

1 June 2021

1. On 19 April 2017, the Applicant sought a grant of Australian citizenship by conferral.

2. On 29 July 2019, pursuant to s 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the “Act”) a delegate of the Minister decided to refuse the Applicant’s application for citizenship.

3. On 31 July 2019, the Applicant applied for a review of the Respondent’s decision by this Tribunal.

4. The Applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence on 28 May 2020 by video link.

   BACKGROUND

5. The Applicant was born in Albania on 3 September 1987. He is a citizen of Albania.

6. It is generally uncontroversial that he came to Australia via Italy in April 2011 using an Italian passport in a false name.

7. He applied for a protection visa which application was refused on 23 December 2011.  He pursued review of that decision, but was notified that he had not been successful in his application for review.

8. He applied for a Partner visa which was granted in September 2015. He has been a permanent resident of Australia since the grant of that visa.

   ISSUES

9. Pursuant to s 21(2)(h) of the Act the Tribunal, as decision maker, must be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character if this application is to succeed.

10. The Respondent has contended that there are 3 matters that weigh against a finding that the Applicant is of good character.  The Tribunal summarises them thus:

    (i)That the Applicant entered Australia using a photo substituted passport;

    (ii)That there was a lack of candour in the Applicant’s subsequent application for a Protection visa which was partly reflected in the delay before he clarified his identity; and

    (iii)That the Applicant has associated with persons who have been convicted of identity theft.

11. Broadly speaking, the Applicant accepts that he used a photo substituted passport to enter Australia but says that he did so for good reason.

12. The Applicant does not accept that there was a lack of candour in his application for a Protection visa or any unnecessary delay in his clarification of his identity.

13. Further, the Applicant does not accept that he is associated in any relevant way with persons who have been convicted of identity theft.

    EVIDENCE

14. The Applicant’s evidence in chief was largely contained in two statutory declarations, a copy of one dated 1 September 2017, appearing at page 97 of the T Documents (which were tendered and marked Exhibit R1) and the other dated 20 December 2019[1]. Both statutory declarations were adopted by the Applicant as his evidence. There were some other statements and representations made by the Applicant in the tendered documents and the Applicant supported the documents with oral testimony.

    [1] Exhibit A4.

15. The Applicant was born in Albania on 3 September 1987.

16. He and his father had worked for a munitions company in Albania and they were both wounded in the Gerdec explosions which occurred on Saturday, 15 March and continued until Sunday, 16 March 2008. The Tribunal understands that these explosions occurred during the disposal of obsolete munitions.

17. The Applicant’s evidence was that he was injured in those explosions as was his father who lost an eye[2]. He said that he sought compensation for himself and his father but that far from being compensated he was questioned by a person he believed to be a government official and was then subjected to threats to his life.

    [2][2] Exhibit R2, page 30.

18. The Applicant’s evidence was that by 2011 he decided he could no longer live in Albania. He decided to go to Italy to escape the attention of the authorities.

19. He travelled to Italy using his Albanian passport and he had other Albanian identity documents with him.

20. His evidence was that at that time he did not have a firm plan of what to do after he got to Italy, as his main priority was to leave Albania.

21. The evidence was that he went to a village in the north of Italy. He found many Albanians living there and decided that it was not safe, and he should go somewhere further away from Albania.

22. He said that he decided to come to Australia.

23. He chose Australia in part because he has a sister here but also because he understood there is an established Albanian community and he had made contact with some Albanian groups in Australia on social media.

    Use of the photo substituted passport

24. The Applicant said that he believed it would be difficult to come to Australia on an Albanian passport and so he decided to obtain a false passport. He asked members of the Albanian community in the village and was able to buy an Italian passport in a false name.

25. He did not explain why he believed that it would be difficult to come to Australia on his Albanian passport.

26. The Applicant gave evidence that he arranged to have the photograph of the passport holder changed to a photograph of himself.  He conceded under cross examination that he knew that this was illegal. He also agreed that he knew it was illegal to use a passport that had been altered in this way.

27. He said that he had gone to Italy with about €4000. He said that the passport cost about €2500 and his airfares were about €500. He said that the money that he took was in cash.

28. He gave evidence that he had gone to Italy with no intention of returning to Albania, but that he had been unable to bring more of his possessions than would be appropriate for a short trip because to do so would betray his intentions.

29. His evidence was that he went from Italy to France by train then flew to Dubai and then to Australia.

30. He told the Tribunal that before he left Italy he posted his Albanian passport and identity documents back to his family in Albania.

31. It is not controversial that the Applicant entered Australia using the photo substituted passport in a false name.  

32. He arrived in Australia on 23 April 2011 and he believes that it was Easter.

33. The Applicant gave evidence that his sister, who was living in Adelaide, is married and he was reluctant to seek her help because he did not wish to impose on her and on her husband.

34. He said that he had not contacted his sister before arriving in Adelaide although she was aware that he would probably be coming.  He had not told her when he would be arriving.

35. He said that he did not make arrangements to meet anyone when he arrived in Adelaide.  He did not advise any of his social media contacts or anyone else.

36. He was not able to explain why he did not tell anyone he was coming.

37. He said that when he arrived in Adelaide he took a taxi from the airport to a sports ground in the eastern suburbs where he hoped to meet a group of young Albanian men who sometimes played soccer there. He had made contact with this group on social media.

38. He said that they were indeed there when he arrived.  He approached them and made himself known to them.

39. One of these men knew his sister and was able to get her telephone number for the Applicant.

40. He said that he then spoke to his sister and she came to meet him.

41. The Applicant said that he did not want to be a burden on his sister and she did not ultimately need to provide him with accommodation or substantial assistance. Two men in the group were sharing a house in a southern suburb and they were able to offer him a room.

    His clarification of his identity

42. The Applicant said that he applied for a Protection visa at what he believes was the earliest opportunity.

43. He said he made the application on about 13 July 2011.   That was 81 days after he arrived.

44. He said that he did not do it earlier because he wanted to make the application in his own name rather than under the name that was on his photo substituted Italian passport.

45. He said that first he had to retrieve his Albanian passport and identity documents from Albania, where he had sent them before he left Italy.

46. He said that he had sent his identity documents to Albania because he did not want to be caught with them when using the photo substituted passport.  He said it was safer not to have the Albanian identity documents in his possession.

47. The Applicant gave evidence that he applied for a protection visa as soon as he reasonably could after his Albanian identity documents were sent to him.

48. The Applicant said that after he cleared customs in Australia he did not use the false name either officially or unofficially.

49. He further gave evidence that he had been advised in relation to his protection visa application by Mr D, a migration agent who was also an Albanian interpreter.

50. The Applicant said that he applied for a protection visa and he identified the application documents as including the form 866B[3].

    [3] A copy of this is at Exhibit R2, pages 2-11.

51. The Applicant said that the document was interpreted to him by Mr D. who asked him questions and filled out the document using his responses.

52. The Applicant said in cross examination that the same approach was taken when preparing the form 866C[4].

    [4] A copy of this is at Exhibit R2, pages 12 – 26 inclusive.

53. The Tribunal observes that both applications were made in the Applicant’s name.

    The Applicant’s association with persons who have been convicted of identity theft

54. In respect of the third contention, the Applicant was asked if his parents had ever been convicted of identity fraud.  He said that they have not.  The Tribunal accepts this evidence.

55. The Applicant also gave evidence that no other member of his immediate family has been convicted of identity fraud. 

56. He was asked about paragraph 18 of his statutory declaration dated 1 September 2017[5]. That paragraph refers to a couple from Albania who travelled to Australia using the Applicant’s parents’ passports.

    [5] Exhibit R1, page 98.

57. The Applicant confirmed that these two people are not members of his immediate family and that he has no contact with them.  When asked about the connection between his family and these two people, he said that one of the persons is the brother of his sister’s husband.  He says he does not associate with the couple and does not consider them to be part of his family.

58. He gave evidence that he views the couple as having done harm to his family and he does not associate with them.

59. The Applicant restated that he has no firsthand knowledge of the incident in which his parents’ identity was stolen, as he had explained in his statement dated 20 December 2019[6].

    [6] Exhibit A4, para 11.

    Other evidence re character

60. The Applicant also gave evidence to the Tribunal about his work in Australia which he said is in land division, by which the Tribunal understands he means subdivision and development, in the course of which work he retains a range of subcontractors.

61. The Applicant also denied that he has any criminal convictions in Australia or elsewhere.

    Cross-examination

62. Under cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that he has a brother who lives in a suburb of Adelaide and a sister who lives in a different suburb of Adelaide.

63. The Applicant was asked about his protection visa application.  He said that at the time of his visa application he did not speak English and he believed that there may have been a protection visa application in the name under which he came to Australia.

64. He agreed that 2 applications appear to have been made on the same documents and that at page 61 of Exhibit R2 there appears to be a further copy of the application which had been lodged on or about 13 July 2011 and re-lodged in August.

65. He was referred to his statutory declaration at page 97 of Exhibit R1. He agreed that the period of 45 days referred to in that declaration was not accurate.  He agreed that it was 81 days between his arrival and the first lodgement of his application.

66. He was asked about the process of obtaining the false passport under which he came to Australia.

67. He confirmed the evidence in his statutory declarations that he had gone to Italy from Albania and had stayed for a while in villages around Venice and Treviso.

68. He said that there are many Albanians living in Italy and that in the relatively short time he was there, one of his Albanian acquaintances offered to help him get documents.  The Applicant insisted that he did not know the person who helped him very well – he was a friend of a friend.

69. He said that he no longer knows the person who helped him get the passport or the person who introduced them.  They were casual acquaintances.

70. The Applicant explained that his priority was to get out of Italy and that he took help that was offered. He denied that he went to Italy specifically to get the passport that he eventually used to come to Australia.

71. He conceded that he knew that it was illegal to travel on a forged passport but said that it was what he needed to do to be safe.

72. The Applicant agreed that he used the forged passport to get from France to Dubai and that his visa had been arranged by the same person who arranged his passport and transportation arrangements.

73. The Applicant said that he would probably have been safe in Dubai.  He had not been directly threatened in Italy or France, but he did not feel safe there.

74. He was asked about his Albanian documents and said that he had sent the Albanian passport back to relatives in Albania before he arrived in Australia although he could not say why he did that. It was put to him that he did that so that he could maintain his false identity, with which he ultimately agreed.

75. He said that he came to Adelaide because he knew his sister lived in Adelaide and he had been in contact with a group of Albanians in Adelaide as well.

76. The Applicant said that his sister had been in Adelaide since the early 2000’s and that he had been in contact with her about once a month since then.  He said that he had told her that he would be leaving Albania and he had said that if he did he would try to come to Australia. 

77. He said that he had not told her that he was coming to Australia before he left.

78. Despite that, he saw his sister on the day he arrived although it had always been his intention not to burden his sister by his presence. 

79. The Applicant was pressed on the “implausibility” of his history of having arrived in Adelaide, taken a taxi to an eastern suburb and met a group of Albanians at a sports ground without any arrangements having been made to do so.

80. He maintained that that was what he had done and that he had not wished to be a burden to his sister when he arrived.

81. The Applicant said that one of the men from Albania who he met on the day of his arrival offered him a room which he took.  His sister offered him accommodation, but he was happy to stay with his new friends.

82. It was put to him that those arrangements had been made before he came to Australia, but he denied that.

83. In relation to the question of the Applicant clarifying his true identity to the department, he was asked about the circumstances of him filling out his application for a protection visa. 

84. His evidence was that Mr. D, an interpreter and migration agent, went through the document question by question and filled in the form as he went.

85. The Applicant was also asked about another surname that he had in Albania.

86. The Applicant agreed that the other surname did not appear in the relevant part of the form 866C[7].

    [7] Exhibit R2, page 12.

87. The Applicant said that he does not remember being asked that question at the time of filling in the form.  He was pressed on this question but insisted that if Mr. D had asked him if there was another surname he would have said so.  The Applicant said that he changed his name using official documents in Albania, which could presumably be searched, and that it would have been pointless to deny it.

88. He was asked why he had not put his sister in the form at the appropriate place on page 4 of the form 80 that appears in Exhibit R2 (beginning at page 32). It was put to him that he did not put his sister on the form because it may have harmed his protection visa application.  He denied that and said that he does not believe that the question was put to him in that way.  He understood that he was being asked about relatives in Albania. 

89. He said that he did not understand that he was being asked about relatives in Australia and that in any event, he would probably not have mentioned his sister anyway because she had married and become part of her husband’s family.

90. The Applicant said that he did not check that the form was correct before he signed.  This is perhaps not surprising as he had said that he spoke very little English at the time.

91. When asked about his use of the false passport to enter Australia he agreed that it was a fraudulent document but asserted that he did not use it in the context of an application to the DIAC, now the Department of Home Affairs.

92. He gave evidence that after he entered Australia he did not use the name on the photo substituted passport.

93. The Applicant was asked about the identity fraud that was perpetrated on his parents.  He thought that that was in about 2001 or 2002.  His parents had to speak to the police about it and he was worried.

94. The Applicant agreed the people convicted of the fraud were Mr and Mrs X.  Mr X is the Applicant’s sister’s brother in law - he is the brother of her husband. He said that the couple live in Adelaide.

95. He gave evidence that he does not have anything to do with them although he does know them by sight.

96. He agreed that the couple attended his wedding but he did not speak to them.  There were about 190 people at the wedding.

97. It was put to him that in his declaration at Exhibit A4, at paragraph 11, he had said he has no dealings with them.

98. The Applicant explained that because the Albanian community in Australia is relatively small, there were people there who would not have attended his wedding otherwise.  He said that he told his brother in law that he should ask his whole family and did not believe he could exclude any specific members of his brother in law’s family.

99. The Applicant said that he does hold some antipathy towards the Mr and Mrs X.  He said that he would not have specifically invited them, but he could not tell his brother in law not to bring his brother Mr X.

100. The Applicant gave evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, that on 19 July 2011 the Department of Immigration and Citizenship sent a letter to the Applicant’s address, directed to the name on his photo substituted passport – his false name.  That was a letter seeking information about the Applicant’s Protection visa application[8]. In that letter it notes that the Applicant is also known by two names, his real name and the false name on his photo substituted passport.

     [8] Exhibit R2, page 44.

101. As to the Applicant’s credibility the Tribunal finds the Applicant was generally truthful about uncontroversial matters but was unconvincing in relation to the circumstances in which he obtained the photo substituted passport, his motivation to leave Italy, the timing of his decision to come to Australia, and the circumstances in which he made contact with the group of Albanian men on the day of his arrival.

1. The Tribunal does not rely on the Applicant’s unsupported evidence in these matters.

   Evidence of Mrs K

2. Mrs K is the Applicant’s wife. She adopted the contents of her statutory declaration of 25 October 2019[9].

   [9] Exhibit A5.

3. She said that she and the Applicant met in April 2012 on a night out in Adelaide.  They married in May 2013 and have 2 children.

4. She gave evidence that the relationship is strong and that her husband is supportive and gets along well with her family. She also said that she is not aware of any of the Applicant’s associates having been convicted of any crime.

5. She said that a refusal of citizenship would put huge stress on her and the children given the slightly less secure nature of his presence in Australia as a permanent resident rather than a citizen.

6. She also said that there had been some issues when travelling overseas which she thought would not have occurred had her husband been a citizen.

7. Under cross examination, Mrs K said that she knew that her husband had used a photo substituted passport to get into Australia because he told her so at some time within the first year of their relationship, when they had started living together. She was unable to be more accurate than this.

8. She said that she believes that the Applicant felt threatened in Albania and this was why he used the photo substituted passport.

9. She said her husband was not comfortable discussing his past in Albania.

10. Mrs K understood that her husband had not ultimately been granted a protection visa but was not sure why.

11. She said that her husband has a close relationship with his sister, which had become closer since the Applicant had been in Australia.

12. She was asked about Mr X, who she understood to be her sister in law’s brother in law, and whom she had met face to face but with whom she had never had a conversation.  She thought that the last time she had seen him had been at her wedding.

13. She said she had seen him a number of times, particularly at Albanian community gatherings, but neither she nor (as far as she is aware) her husband had spoken to him.

14. She also knew of Mrs X and said that she had seen Mrs X in the same way as she had seen Mr X- at Albanian community functions but not closely enough to have a conversation.

15. She agreed that she knew that there was an issue with the couple and that it had prevented her husband’s parents from coming to Australia for her wedding.

16. She said that as far as she was concerned the relationship between herself and her husband and Mr and Mrs X is not a relationship that she would describe as an “association”.

17. She said that she did not want to invite Mr and Mrs X to her wedding but that because of the small size of the Albanian community she thought it would be inconsistent with the family nature of the wedding to exclude them. 

18. She said that they were not specifically invited but it appears that she was aware that the general invitation to her sister in law’s family would include Mr and Mrs X.

19. The Tribunal generally found Mrs K’s evidence to be truthful.

    CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS

20. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant obtained a photo substituted passport in Italy.

21. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant knew it was illegal to obtain and use such a document.

22. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant used the photo substituted passport to travel from Italy to Australia.

23. The Tribunal’s attention was directed to a statutory declaration prepared by Jane McGrath, a lawyer and migration agent, who says that it is “very difficult for an Albanian passport holder to gain entry to Australia.” [10]

    [10] Exhibit R1, page 84.

24. There is no suggestion that Ms McGrath had advised the Applicant of that at the time he obtained the photo substituted passport. This statement does not help the Tribunal to understand why the Applicant obtained and used a photo substituted passport to come to Australia.

25. The Applicant does not deny that he came to Australia using a photo substituted passport and acknowledges that at the time he knew that it was illegal.

26. The Applicant asks the Tribunal to find that his actions in obtaining and using a photo substituted passport were justifiable and should not cause the Tribunal any concern as to the issue of the Applicant’s character.

27. The Applicant denies that there was unnecessary delay in advising immigration authorities about his true identity.

28. The Tribunal finds that although the Applicant could have advised the department of his true identity earlier than he did, there is no suggestion that he delayed unnecessarily after he obtained his identity documents from Albania.

29. In considering the matter of delay the Tribunal is informed to some extent by the fact that there is no suggestion that the delay benefited the Applicant in any way.

30. The Tribunal finds it is surprising that the Applicant invited Mr and Mrs Xto his wedding. His evidence is that he believed them to have used his parents’ identity to come to Australia, a fact which had caused his parents significant difficulty and prevented them from coming to Australia themselves.

31. The Applicant gave evidence that because of this history he felt an antipathy towards Mr and Mrs X. Despite this, he did not feel that he could exclude them from his wedding because they are related to his brother-in-law.

32. There is no suggestion of any ongoing association between the Applicant and Mr and Mrs X.

33. The only evidence of actual association between the Applicant and Mr and Mrs X is that they were at his wedding although they have been present at functions that the Applicant and his wife have attended.

34. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr and Mrs X were convicted of identity fraud in Albania and that those convictions related to the couple’s use of the Applicant’s parents’ identities.

35. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence about the Applicant’s association with Mr and Mrs Xis sufficient to give rise to relevant concerns about the Applicant’s good character.

36. Of the three matters raised by the Respondent in relation to the Applicant’s good character, it is the Applicant’s use of a photo substituted passport that is of the greatest concern to the Tribunal.

    GOOD CHARACTER

37. The Applicant submits in his Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions[11] that the Tribunal should have regard to a document that appears at page 55 of Exhibit R1.  That document is entitled “Citizenship – Character Summary” and it was sent to the Applicant by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection under cover of a letter of 14 June 2017.

    [11] Exhibit A1.

38. That document is described as a summary of the key elements of Chapter 11 of the Australian Citizenship Policy.

39. The Tribunal notes that since this matter was heard, the Citizenship Policy was replaced by the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (“the Policy Statement”).  The introduction of the Policy Statement does not appear to affect the relevant considerations, which are generally set out in Citizenship Procedural Instruction (“CPI”) 15, “Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act”[12].

    [12] Annexed to Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions 19 March 2020.

40. The Applicant refers the Tribunal to the description of “good character” that appears at the beginning of that document:

    “good character: covers the “enduring moral qualities of a person” at the time of decision, and is an indication of whether an Applicant is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia, and the other commitments made through the Pledge, should they be approved for citizenship.”

41. The Applicant’s submissions point to the absence of any evidence of criminal behaviour or other misconduct in the period of about 10 years that he has been living in Australia.

42. The Applicant contends that this is sufficient to demonstrate good character.

43. The Applicant does not seek to explain or excuse his use of a photo substituted passport to gain entry to Australia but describes it as “a one-off event” and points out that it occurred over 9 years ago.

44. The Respondent submits that the term “good character” is not defined in the Act but is dealt with in the relevant Citizenship Policy which is supplemented by the CPIs.

45. The Respondent cites the familiar authority Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2)[13] for the proposition that the Tribunal will generally apply departmental policy in its decision-making unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.

    [13] (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 640.

46. The Respondent further submits that the circumstances in which the Applicant obtained and used the photo substituted passport demonstrate a planned effort to circumvent Australian migration laws. The Respondent points out that obtaining the document required some organisation and expenditure of her relatively substantial amount of money.

47. The Respondent further observes that the Applicant knew that obtaining and using the photo substituted passport was illegal.

48. The Tribunal finds that this is supported by the fact that the Applicant went to the trouble of divesting himself of his Albanian identity documents.

49. The Respondent observes that CPI 15, which at paragraph 4.4 set out some broad general principles regarding good character, effectively says that a person of good character would not intentionally provide false personal information.

50. The Tribunal observes that it also provides that such a person would “respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries”.

51. The Applicant does not dispute that he did not abide by the law in Australia or in Italy in obtaining and using the photo substituted passport.

52. Even if the Applicant was in danger in Albania as he suggests (although there is no corroborative evidence of this and the Tribunal is not satisfied that it is the case), there is no support for the Applicant’s evidence that he was in any danger in Italy or that he needed to leave that country.

53. Although the Applicant’s evidence was that he felt compelled to leave Italy because the Albanian community was large and he could not avoid it, his first action on arriving in Australia was to seek out the Albanian community here.

54. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant was in such danger while he was in Italy that it was necessary or appropriate for him to break the law in order to travel to Australia.

55. The Tribunal further notes that the Applicant was not granted a protection visa which may not support his suggestion that he had to come to Australia to avoid danger.

56. Although the Tribunal accepts that significant time has passed since the Applicant relied on the photo substituted passport, the Applicant continues to maintain that his unlawful act was an appropriate and necessary step.

57. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant’s actions in obtaining and using a photo substituted passport to travel to Australia are consistent with him being of “good character” as contemplated by CPI 15.

58. The Applicant continues to assert that his illegal conduct was justified, and the Tribunal is not satisfied that there has been a relevant change in his character since he came to Australia on a fake passport.

59. The Respondent directs the Tribunal to the remark by Deputy President Breen in Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[14] :

    “the grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is   given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who      are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call          home. “

    [14] [2000] AATA 931 at [8].

60. The Tribunal has regard to the various references provided by the Applicant but notes that those references that refer to the Applicant’s use of a false identity to enter Australia generally state that the referee has been told that the Applicant came as a refugee or under urgent circumstances. 

61. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is a good character for the purposes of s 21 (2)(h) of the Act.

    Decision

62. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 163 (one hundred and sixty three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member O’Loughlin.

.........................[Sgnd].....................................

Administrative Assistant Legal

Dated: 1 June 2021

Date of hearing:	28 May 2020
Representative for the Applicant:	Ms M Le, MARION LE CONSULTANCY
Representative for the Respondent:	Mr A Chan, SPARKE HELMORE LAWYERS