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

Pillai and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 346 (8 March 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2021/1919
Re:Vineshwa Nadan Pillai
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

Decision
Tribunal:Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
Date:8 March 2023
Place:Sydney

The reviewable decision is affirmed.
.
...............................[sgd]........................................
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – citizenship application refused – whether the applicant is of good character – domestic violence protection order – history of traffic offences – whether sufficient time had passed since his last offence – whether the applicant misled the department by providing false information – reviewable decision affirmed
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld)
Cases
Boy19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1966) 68 FCR 422
Secondary Materials
Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (reissued 27 November 2020)
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
8 March 2023
Introduction

The Applicant, Mr Pillai, is a 53-year-old citizen of Fiji. He first arrived in Australia in May 1989. From 2000, he lived in Hong Kong for about 13 and a half years. He applied for Australian citizenship by conferral on 30 November 2017. The application was refused on 2 March 2021 because the decision maker was not satisfied that he was a person of good character as required by section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act). He has asked the Tribunal to review that decision.
The issue
I have to decide whether I am satisfied that the Applicant is a person of good character at the time of my decision pursuant to section 21(2)(h) of the Act.
The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (the Policy) and the Revised Citizenship Instruction, and in particular chapter 15, (CPI 15) provide guidance about making that assessment.
In summary, by the end of the hearing and after receiving an up-to-date National Police Certificate, the Respondent contended that the Applicant is not of good character because:
·he is subject to a five-year domestic violence order up to and including 26 June 2024;
·his offending conduct is serious;
·insufficient time has passed since his last offending; and
·he has misled the Minister’s department (the Department) about his prior offending.
The offending relied on by the Respondent
The Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, relied on the following individual offences that were serious:
·17 June 1990 - unlawful assault on a female thereby did her bodily harm - 12 months probation (Brisbane Magistrates Court)
·14 March 2018 - driving etc. while relevant drug is present in blood or saliva (methylamphetamine) – convicted and disqualified (Rockhampton Magistrates Court)
·26 June 2018 - unlawful possession of restricted drugs – charged and cautioned and later served with a Notice to Appear before the Gladstone Magistrates Court
·22 August 2019 drive motor vehicle -- whilst over the middle alcohol limit but not over the high alcohol limit – charged (Brisbane Magistrates Court)
The National Police History Check Report generated by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission on 23 November 2020 lists only the 1990 conviction.
After the hearing, the Applicant provided a National Police Certificate (the NPC) dated 28 October 2022 which stated that he ‘is NOT recorded by the Australian police jurisdictions with any disclosable court outcomes’. The Explanatory Notes state that legislation in various states and territories and the Commonwealth of Australia, restricts the information that can be disclosed about a person’s court outcomes unless specific exemptions apply. The Applicant had the opportunity to put on a supplementary statement of facts, issues and contentions but confirmed that he did not wish to do so.
The Respondent provided a written submission after receiving the NPC.
In addition to the traffic offences that went to court listed above, the Respondent relied on the Applicant’s traffic offences, cumulatively. Between 1998 and 2019, the Applicant committed a number of traffic offences that resulted in fines and/or periods of disqualification. In the years 1998-1999, the Applicant committed five exceed speed limit offences. In the same period, he committed three offences relating to alcohol on the same day. He was disqualified from driving for 6 months and 12 months in relation to two of those offences. Those matters were heard in Proserpine Magistrate’s Court.
From 2011 to 2019 he committed 11 exceed speed limit offences, one fail to stop at a red light and one fail to keep left of centre of road. In March 2018, he committed the offence of driving while relevant drug is present which resulted in conviction, disqualification and a fine (listed at [5]). On the same day, he exceeded the speed limit by more than 30 kms/h and failed to keep left of centre of road.
The citizenship application form
In his 2017 application, the Applicant answered ‘No’ to the following question:
Has the applicant been convicted of, or found guilty of, any offences, overseas or in Australia (include all traffic offences which went to court, including offences declared in your permanent residence application, and any ‘spent’ convictions)?
Form 80
In November 2020, the Applicant provided to the Department a Form 80 – Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment (Form 80). In Part K – Character, he answered ‘No’ to all the questions except to the question about past convictions ‘in any country (including any conviction which is now removed from official records)?’ to which he answered ‘Yes’. The question requested ‘ALL relevant details’. He answered:
·1990 – CHARGED WITH ASSAULT – 12 MONTH PROBATION (NO CONVICTION RECORDED)
·A FEW DRIVING OFFENCES – DISQUALIFICATION OF LICENSE (1999, 2018, 2019)
Invitation to comment on adverse information
On 19 January 2021, the Department invited the applicant to comment on adverse information, including that a domestic violence protection order (DVO) had been issued against him, that he had provided false information to the Department, and had a lengthy traffic history record.
He responded in a letter dated 28 January 2021 with accompanying documents. He included copies of the following:
·an offer of employment from CatholicCare Social Services Hunter-Manning dated 24 November 2020 and the position description,
·a payslip from Catholic Care Social Services for the period ‘04/01/21 – 17/01/21’; and
·a waiver from Queensland Corrective Services dated 17 April 2020, in respect of the criminal history identified, allowing him to enter a corrective services facility.
The Applicant put the following argument.
He had lived in Australia for 19 years since 1989 and did not think that his driving record would deem him a danger to anyone. He had addressed behaviours such as liquor consumption and has been sober thanks to the program of Alcoholics Anonymous since his last disqualification. He has worked and paid taxes, bought and sold real estate. His best achievement has been his work as a community services worker in the field of addiction treatment. It has been rewarding, and he excels in that work.
In respect of not being honest about disclosing information, he said he was not deliberately dishonest. It was simply a case of not having access to all the information that the Department had access to. He did not realise that driving offences were deemed criminal offences but has included them recently when filling out an immigration card. One of the reasons for his understanding was from pre-employment screens. Traffic offences had never been an issue gaining employment.
The Applicant stated that the DVO was a civil order, had not been breached, and he was no longer in a relationship with the woman. It was not a criminal matter. There was no request to disclose civil matters.
He questioned how he could be compared to people whose citizenship had been revoked, such as terrorists, members of outlaw motorcycle gangs and serial criminal offenders who had served long custodial sentences.
The Applicant pointed out that he had two degrees from reputable Australian universities and had held many positions in government and non-government organisations, and paid tax on properties he had bought and sold.
Letter dated 26 March 2022
In a letter to the Tribunal dated 26 March 2022, the Applicant provided the following response to the allegation that he did not honestly disclose his criminal convictions in his citizenship application form.
He did not disclose the 1990 assault conviction to which he pleaded guilty, because the magistrate ‘clearly stated “No conviction recorded”’. He was under the impression that he did not have to disclose that on any official forms and should have elaborated on the form that he was convicted of the offence but no conviction was recorded.
The Applicant did not disclose his ‘driving under the influence’ offences because he believed that they were traffic related offences and not deemed to be criminal convictions. It was his error, and he should have disclosed them as a criminal conviction. However, he did disclose having ‘some traffic offences’ which he believed would include those convictions.
He provided a copy of section 51 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) (DFVP Act). It provides for DVOs to be made if the parties consent, where the court is satisfied that a relevant relationship exists between the aggrieved and the respondent, without being satisfied as to any matter mentioned, relevantly in section 37(1) (b) or (c), whether or not the respondent admits to any or all of the particulars of the application.
The matters in section 37(1)(b) and (c) of the DFVP Act are that the respondent has committed domestic violence against the aggrieved, and the protection order is necessary or desirable to protect the aggrieved from domestic violence.
The Applicant’s evidence at the hearing
The Applicant told the Tribunal that the DVO resulted from an incident when the aggrieved asked him to leave her home and called the police. He left her home. The first police officers interviewed him at his motel. He had gone to the house trying to collect some of his possessions. The relationship broke down after about four or five years. It resulted in him using drugs. He got legal advice about the DVO, and consented without admissions, rather than spending $10,000 to oppose it.
The Applicant accepted that he should have disclosed his traffic offences and should have printed out his traffic record. He did not realise the seriousness of traffic offences. It was because of his experience with police clearances for employment. He said that it would be a good idea if the form requested a complete copy of the traffic record.
The magistrate said that no conviction was recorded in 1990. He complied with the probation order.
He took responsibility for the 14 March 2018 drug in system offence. The drug was methylamphetamine. He said that it metabolises over a period of time. He thought it would have been cleared from his system. It was a bad time in his life. He has not used alcohol or any other substances since then. He is in recovery in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). He has been in AA since he was living in Hong Kong. He was sober when he returned to Australia in 2013 until 2017. He did not drink early in the relationship. He resumed attending AA meetings when he returned from a trip to Hong Kong in 2019. His ex-partner was a drinker. In future he will mitigate the risk.
In relation to the possession of restricted drugs on 26 June 2018, the Applicant said that they belonged to a friend who was staying in his house. The charge was dismissed. He was not guilty, so it is not on his criminal record. I do not consider this charge further because there is no evidence to the contrary and I did not understand the Respondent to press this charge.
The Applicant said that he was found guilty of the drive under the influence offence committed in August 2019 and was disqualified for three months.
He has been completely abstinent since then. His drug use was only social as opposed to dependency and he has been abstinent. He has addictive disease and the solution is abstinence. Situations, such as his relationship, aggravate that. He will address distressing situations in a healthier way in the future. He briefly saw a counsellor in about 2018.
He told the Tribunal that his last speeding offence was in 2022 in New South Wales. He was doing ‘90 something in an 80 zone’. The zone had just changed from 100. He was in a new city and was unfamiliar with the roads. He will drive more carefully.
The Applicant elaborated on the financial difficulty of paying for his post-graduate qualification study, which would take three years. If he gets Commonwealth fee support, he can complete the qualification in a year or 18 months. He has had to turn down university offers because of his financial situation. He provided a copy of an offer of a place in a Graduate Diploma of Psychology from Charles Sturt University dated 14 May 2020 which he did not accept, for that reason. If he becomes a psychologist, he can give back to the community/country. If he is not granted citizenship, his study will be delayed.
The Applicant’s work history
The Applicant has worked in the Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) field as a support worker/counsellor since about 2013. At the time of the hearing, he was working as a counsellor for a men’s behaviour change services, including in relation to domestic violence. He talked about the similar issues affecting people with drug and alcohol issues and those involved in domestic violence, and the support needed.
In addition to his Bachelor of Arts (Psychology and Addiction Studies) degree conferred on 4 April 2019, he has a Certificate IV Alcohol and Other Drugs, a Diploma in Community Services – Alcohol & Other Drugs, and a Diploma in Community Services Alcohol, Other Drugs and Mental Health. He has completed other relevant courses, and holds first aid certificates, including for suicide prevention.
He intends becoming a qualified psychologist, as summarised above.
The Applicant’s first qualification was a Bachelor of Business Computing which was conferred in 1994. He worked in that field for the Australian and Queensland government until 2000. While in Hong Kong, he worked in the technology recruitment sector.
He said that there was a high-level check required for Queensland Corrective Services and he was cleared. He provided written documentation to that effect.
The Applicant provided two written references dated 15 March 2022. They appear to have been work references. Both referees gave oral evidence.
One of the Applicant’s referees had known the Applicant since December 2020 when he was hired as an alcohol and other drug clinician and project manager for Catholic Care Social Services Hunter Manning in New South Wales. When the referee wrote the reference, the Applicant was the Senior Early Intervention Mental Health Clinician for Headspace in Taree. The referee had not seen the working with children or police check for the Applicant but said that any relevant criminal history was flagged. She was not otherwise aware of any relevant incidents.
The other referee knew the Applicant from his role in an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Therapeutic Community Alcohol and other Drug residential treatment service in Rockhampton, from 2018 or 2019. The referee was a Health Services Consultant to senior management at the facility. He attended the facility every second week for two or three days working with a team to implement a program and weekly on-line meetings. He developed a relationship with the Applicant over five or six months and has remained in contact ever since. He was not aware of the Applicant being caught driving with drugs in his system but said that a range of drugs get picked up on drug testing and people make mistakes. It was out of character for the Applicant.
When asked whether someone working in the AOD field should not have been using alcohol or drugs, the referee repeated that people make mistakes and use substances in response to life experiences. If his driving offences had come to light, he would have had some discussion with the Applicant to find out if something was going on and whether he needed support.
In addition to material previously referred to, the Applicant provided copies of his working with children check and NDIS Worker Check clearance.
The law
The Act does not define ‘good character’. In Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1966) 68 FCR 422, at [431-432], Lee J said:
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 to 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 whilst 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.
In Boy19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574, O’Bryan J wrote at [55]:
… In the context of s 21(2)(h) of the Act, satisfaction requires that the decision-maker reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character. It is not sufficient for the decision-maker to believe that there is a chance that the applicant is a person of good character; equally it is not necessary for the decision-maker to have a high degree of confidence that the applicant is a person of good character. Further, where a power is conferred by statute, Parliament is taken to intend that that power will be exercised reasonably …
And at [88]:
… respect for the Australian Government and the laws of Australia, and respect for the institutions of government including governmental departments, is consistent with being of good character in the statutory sense. Such respect can be characterised as a moral quality that is relevant to citizenship. Conversely, disrespect for the Australian Government, the laws of Australia and governmental departments reflects adversely on a person’s character in the statutory sense.
CPI 15 states that the phrase 'enduring moral qualities' encompasses:
·characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time;
·distinguishing right from wrong; and
·behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
CPI 15 states that an applicant of good character would not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, and lists examples. Relevantly:
·intentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications;
·concealing criminal convictions;
·giving false names and/or addresses to police;…
CPI 15 also provides the following guidance for decision makers:
The good character requirement necessitates consideration of an applicant viewed in a holistic way; that is, all aspects of his/her life may be relevant to consideration of character. A decision-maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout the time the applicant held a visa, and during the time their citizenship application was lodged and processed.
Consideration
The 1990 offence

The documentary evidence about the 1990 assault offence does not state whether the Applicant was found guilty only, or also convicted. I accept that the Applicant genuinely believed that he was not convicted. That may be so. Neither party referred to the relevant Queensland legislation about the recording of findings in relation to criminal offending or the legislation about spent convictions/offences. I infer from comparing the two NPCs that the 1990 offence is now relevantly spent. The offence occurred more than 30 years ago. It was the only such offence. I do not consider that the 2019 DVO is of a similar character. I give the 1990 offence no weight.
The DVO
There was no question in relation to his application for citizenship that required the Applicant to disclose the DVO. It is in force until 26 June 2024. He denies committing any act of domestic violence and says that it was made by consent, without admissions, because of the cost of fighting it, and the relationship having ended.
A copy of the DVO was provided on the day of the hearing. It was ordered by consent without admissions.
There has been no breach. At the time of hearing, more than three years had elapsed since the DVO was issued.
A DVO under the DFVP Act continues in force for five years unless the court states the date (section 97(1) of DFVP Act). As the delegate observed, the Australian Government and the Australian community have a strong stance against domestic violence and violence against women.
The Applicant contended that there is no real likelihood of domestic violence occurring. I infer that is because the relationship has ended. However, that does not overcome a concern about how he would behave in a future relationship.
The Respondent contended that the Applicant has shown a lack of insight into the seriousness of a DVO. I do not accept that because I cannot be certain what the circumstances were, but they resulted in it being issued and in force until June 2024. Those facts cannot be ignored.
The Applicant’s traffic offending
The events of 2018 to 2019 are consistent with the Applicant’s evidence that it was a difficult time in his then relationship. He was drinking and to some extent, using other drugs. He has not been convicted of a traffic or other criminal offence since then. Those events and his personal circumstances during that period need to be considered together with the other evidence.
He began attending AA sometime while he was in Hong Kong from 2000 to 2013 and was sober when he returned to Australia in 2013. By 2017, he was drinking again because of the deterioration in his relationship. That his partner drank alcohol was a contributing factor. He attended counselling briefly in 2018.
His evidence about the 2018 relevant drug in his blood/saliva offence was concerning. He said that he only used drugs socially and had misjudged how long it would take to be metabolised. The other offences that occurred at the same time – speeding and failing to stay on the correct side of the road - indicate that he was a danger to others on the road.
The August 2019 offence involved crashing and overturning his car and damaging property, which he said was an old fence. He initially reported he had found the car and driver after the event, but later admitted that he was the driver. Again, he was a danger to others on the road.
The drink driving offences in 1999, before he went to Hong Kong, reflect his long-term problem with alcohol. He committed his second drink driving offence in 2019.
As of the date of hearing, the Applicant had not recorded a drink driving offence since August 2019, about three years before. He says he has abstained from alcohol and drug-taking with the assistance of AA.
The Applicant’s history of speeding offences continued up to 2022. His evidence was that he did not think traffic offences were serious. He will drive more carefully.
His driving history shows an entry on 8 March 2016, of ‘Good Driving behaviour option until 07/03/2017’. Before that appeared on his record, the Applicant had lost 15 points from 7 October 2013. He reoffended on 31 May 2017 when he lost three points for speeding. He lost four points for speeding on 5 August 2017 and then he committed the offences on 14 March 2018 which resulted in disqualification. I infer that the ‘Good Driving behaviour option’ resulted in the Applicant driving more carefully for over a year.
In assessing the seriousness of the Applicant’s traffic offending, it is relevant to consider the questions asked in the citizenship application form and the Form 80. At highest, the Applicant was asked to disclose traffic offences that went to court. That would include the three 1999 offences, the 2018 relevant drug offence, and the 2019 drink driving offence. Four of those offences resulted in disqualification. That is, four offences in respect of three incidents in the 20 years he has lived in Australia. On the other hand, two of those occurred within the four and a half years before the hearing and after he had applied for citizenship.
The Applicant has a history of speeding offences. His speeding escalated in seriousness when combined with drugs in 2018, putting other road users and the Australian community at a real risk of injury. Driving while under the influence of alcohol in 2019 also posed a danger to other road-users.
The questions in the citizenship application form going to character, are directed to behaviour that is criminal, poses a risk to national security, or results in deportation.
The questions in the Form 80 going to character are similarly directed, but also include questions going to mental fitness, overstaying a visa, and debts owed to the Australian government or any public authority in Australia.
Traffic offences for which points are lost and/or fines are imposed, are of a different character to the serious offences and serious conduct the subject of those inquiries. CPI 15 at 12.1 lists examples of serious offences and then lists minor offences, which include:
...some traffic offences that have been included in a criminal record. An ‘on the spot’ fine would usually have little weight in a character assessment, unless the applicant has a history of such fines. This disregard for the law may be relevant to the assessment of character.
The Applicant does have a lengthy history of fines for speeding. Together with the 2018 and 2019 offences, the Applicant has demonstrated a repeated disregard of Australian laws. He sought to downplay the seriousness of his offending. For example, the police record of the 2019 accident was more serious than the Applicant’s version of that event. According to the police, he reported that he had found the accident and the driver but later acknowledged that he was the driver.
I accept the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant lacks insight into the seriousness of traffic offences, including speeding. That is reflected in the fact that he was apparently able to drive without incurring a fine while the Good Driving behaviour option was in force but resumed speeding within months of its expiry on 07/03/2017 and then committed the 2018 and 2019 offences.
Has insufficient time passed since his last offending?
The Respondent tended, mistakenly, to conflate the issuing of the DVO with criminal offending. At the time of the hearing, three years had elapsed since the Applicant’s last serious traffic offence which went to court. The 1990 conviction was spent. His last speeding offence was in 2022. The DVO continues in force.
In summary, the Applicant’s case was that the 2018 and 2019 traffic offences and the DVO were out of character for the Applicant and occurred because of the toxic relationship which ended in 2019. During the last three years he has overcome those issues, abstaining from drugs and alcohol with the assistance of AA. He has ongoing employment and prospects of a new career as a psychologist.
His legal representative argued that the Applicant has the qualifications, skills, knowledge, and experience, from which he can benefit. That squarely raises the concern that if he was unable to apply or benefit from that while in a ‘toxic’ relationship in 2018/2019, will he be able to in a future relationship or if he faces other difficult circumstances? This also bears on the existing DVO. While it may have been made by consent and without admissions, it was made. The police did not decide it was unwarranted. The Applicant mentioned that he had thought about trying to get it lifted but had not done anything. The DVO is an ongoing obligation, as mentioned in 12.2 of CPI 15. The Applicant’s counterargument is that it can be ignored because the relationship has ended and it will not be breached.
The Applicant has a lengthy history of drinking alcohol and associated problems, at least from 1999. He joined AA while living in Hong Kong. I am not satisfied that sufficient time has passed since the offending in 2018 and 2019 to be satisfied that he will be able to abstain from drugs and alcohol if he experiences difficulties in his life in future and not reoffend. In addition, the DVO was issued in 2019 and remains in force. I do not ignore it but give it little weight.
Misleading the Department
In November 2017 when the Applicant completed his citizenship application, he failed to disclose the 1990 offence of assault occasioning bodily harm and his three convictions in Proserpine Magistrates Court for traffic offences committed on 18 March 1999.
I did not understand the Applicant to contend that he had not been found guilty of the 1990 offence. The question required him to provide that information, even if no conviction had been entered. However, the question was on page 18 of a 24 page document, the offence had been committed 27 years before, and he understood that no conviction had been entered and therefore he did not think he needed to disclose it. The failure was inadvertent. He did disclose it in the Form 80, which is inconsistent with deliberately not disclosing it in the application form. I also note that the question in the Form 80 referred to ‘any conviction which is now removed from official records’. Those words may have jogged his memory.
That he provided information about his driving offences in the Form 80 also demonstrates that he had not deliberately, not disclosed them in his application. Unlike the application form, the Form 80 did not specifically refer to such offences. It is likely that his 2018 and 2019 offences were fresh in his mind in November 2020 when he filled out the Form 80.
The Respondent contended that the Applicant’s response in the Form 80 were inadequate because they did not comply with the request for ‘ALL relevant details’. I am satisfied that he provided sufficient information.
Conclusion
The Applicant’s work history is commendable. He is well regarded by colleagues. His referees were unaware of his offending history. He has numerous qualifications and is working towards becoming a psychologist. Those matters are relevant to the assessment I have to make. The fact that becoming a citizen will make it easier financially for him to undertake his studies is not relevant to deciding whether he is a person of good character.
The Applicant claims that he ‘gives back to the community’. That may be so in relation to his employment in the AOD field, but outside that, it is not apparent.
I am not satisfied that the Applicant is a person of good character because of his lengthy and continuing history of speeding offences, his lack of insight into the seriousness of that history, together with the 2018 and 2019 serious traffic offences which were related to drugs, including alcohol, which has been a long-term issue for the Applicant. His most serious traffic offending has occurred since he applied for citizenship. Insufficient time has elapsed for me to be satisfied that he will not reoffend. I give little weight to the DVO.
This is my finding at the time of decision, based on the evidence before me. The Applicant can reapply for citizenship.
Decision
The reviewable decision is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 84 (eighty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

.................................[sgd].......................................
Associate
Dated: 8 March 2023

Date of hearing: 5 October 2022

Date final submissions received: 21 February 2023

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms R Ramos, Ramos & Co Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms K Pieri, Minter Ellison

[2023] AATA 346

8 March 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Date of hearing:	5 October 2022
Date final submissions received:	21 February 2023
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms R Ramos, Ramos & Co Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms K Pieri, Minter Ellison