Peter and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, brought by an applicant who is a citizen of South Sudan. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs refused the application, and the applicant sought review of that decision before the Tribunal. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant was a person of good character, as required by section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The applicant's criminal history included offences such as possessing a prohibited weapon, driving under the influence of alcohol, and driving without a licence, as well as providing false and misleading information on official documents.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had demonstrated he was a person of good character at the time of the Minister's decision. This involved assessing the applicant's past conduct, his attitude towards his offending behaviour, and whether any rehabilitation efforts were sufficient to satisfy the good character requirement. The Tribunal also considered the weight to be given to various pieces of evidence, including the applicant's oral testimony, written submissions, and documents produced by the respondent, such as court records and departmental records concerning driving licence conditions.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's engagement in a drug and alcohol program and volunteer work teaching road safety. However, it found that the applicant did not demonstrate meaningful remorse for his repeated decisions to drive without a licence and under the influence, which posed risks to others. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the applicant's changed attitude stemmed from a genuine understanding of the seriousness of his offences, but rather from a desire to improve his employment prospects. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's volunteer work, while potentially rehabilitative in the long term, was not presently sufficient to outweigh the risks he had previously posed to road users, particularly given his lack of full acceptance of responsibility for his past actions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that it could not be satisfied that the applicant was a person of good character. The Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision, meaning the refusal of citizenship stood.