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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by the Applicant, who sought to challenge the Minister's refusal of his application. The central dispute revolved around whether the Applicant was of good character, as required by section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act*. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was the decision-maker under review.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's character was compromised by three specific matters: his entry into Australia using a passport with a substituted photograph; a lack of candour and delay in clarifying his identity during his subsequent protection visa application; and his association with individuals convicted of identity theft. The Applicant acknowledged using a substituted passport but asserted it was for good reason, denied any lack of candour or undue delay in clarifying his identity, and disputed any relevant association with those convicted of identity theft.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's evidence, including statutory declarations and oral testimony, regarding his background in Albania, including injuries sustained in munitions explosions and subsequent threats. The Tribunal found that the Applicant knowingly obtained and used a photo-substituted passport to enter Australia, acknowledging this was illegal. While the Applicant claimed difficulty in entering Australia on an Albanian passport, the Tribunal found this explanation insufficient to justify his actions. The Tribunal also found that while the Applicant could have disclosed his true identity earlier, there was no unnecessary delay after he obtained his identity documents from Albania, and this delay did not benefit him. Regarding associations, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant's attendance at his wedding by individuals convicted of identity theft, which involved the use of his parents' identities, was sufficient to raise relevant concerns about his good character. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's use of the photo-substituted passport was the most significant concern regarding his good character.

The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant was of good character for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act*. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the refusal of the citizenship application was upheld.