PXLY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)
[2024] AATA 81
•23 January 2024
PXLY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2024] AATA 81 (23 January 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2021/0255
Re:PXLY
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President
Date:23 January 2024
Place:Hobart
The decision under review dated 3 December 2020, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration with the direction that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of subsection 25(2)(b)(iii) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).
........[sgn]................................................................
A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – eligibility – refusal of citizenship by conferral – reporting obligations – personal circumstances – whether Applicant was aware of Court hearings – whether Tribunal considers Applicant was of good character – Citizenship Policy – decision under review set aside and remitted
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
The Indian Penal Code 1860 (India)
Punjab Travel Professionals Regulation Act 2014 (India)
Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) (India)Cases
Bashi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 453
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634
Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931
Haidari and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 513
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 139 ALR 84
Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326Secondary Materials
Australian Citizenship Policy Statement
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 1 and 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act
DFAT Country Information Report India
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, India: First Information Reports
The Refugee Review Tribunal document ‘Country Advice India’
The UK Home Office ‘Country Policy and Information Note India: Actors of protection’
REASONS FOR DECISION
A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President
23 January 2024
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent to refuse to approve the Applicant becoming an Australian citizen by conferral pursuant to s 25 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’) on the basis that the delegate was satisfied the Applicant is not of good character.
A substantive hearing in this matter was held on 29 March 2022 by a differently constituted Tribunal. Following that hearing, the Tribunal granted the parties leave to make further submissions. A final hearing was held by Microsoft Teams on 16 October 2023 by the Tribunal as presently constituted.
The Tribunal has before it the transcript of the hearing held on 29 March 2022. Neither party objected to the Tribunal taking into consideration the transcript of those proceedings when making a final decision in this matter.
The Applicant was represented by Mr Suraj Handa of Handa Immigration Specialists Pty Ltd and the Respondent by Ms Hannah Anderson of Clayton Utz.
BACKGROUND
Much of the relevant background as set out below has been taken from the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions which was lodged with the Tribunal on 12 November 2021 and was, apart from the matters mentioned at [22- 23] agreed upon by the parties as being an accurate summary. I have also incorporated evidence filed by both parties.
The Applicant was born in New Delhi, India and holds Indian citizenship. She arrived in Australia on 20 December 2014 on a temporary Visitor Visa (visa class FA subclass 600).[1]
[1] Ex R1, T21, 351; Tender Bundle, 436.
On 18 July 2017, the Applicant was granted a permanent Spouse Visa (visa class BC subclass 100).[2]
[2] Ex R1, T20, 349; Tender Bundle, 434.
On 11 March 2018, the Applicant had a child who is now 5 years old and who is an Australian citizen.
On 27 June 2019, the Applicant lodged an online application for conferral of Australian citizenship (General Eligibility 1300t).[3] As a part of the online application for conferral of Australian Citizenship, the Applicant was asked:[4]
(a)‘Has the applicant been convicted of, or found guilty of, any offences overseas or in Australia...’ and
(b)‘Is the applicant aware of any proceedings pending against them overseas or in Australia for an offence, including by way of appeal or review?’
[3] Ex R1, T2, 17. T4, 102.
[4] Ex R1, T4, 120; Tender Bundle 205.
The Applicant answered no to both (a) and (b) above.[5]
[5] Ibid.
On 19 January 2020, the Applicant emailed the Australian Federal Police (‘AFP’) to raise a complaint about her ex-husband ‘PD’ and those who the Applicant identified as her husband’s accomplices.[6] The Applicant wrote:
I hearby writing you to about compliant against my ex-husband … and his accomplice[s] manipulative and criminal activities in Australia and especially in India to harass, threatening and pressurizing me and my family at the time of ‘family violence intervention order’
[6] Ex R1, T6,154; Tender Bundle 239.
The email of 19 January 2020 sent to the AFP contained three attachments:
(a)‘Federal Police Complaint’
(b)‘Our appeal in Indian Court’ dated 19 November 2019
(c)‘Victoria Police Response’
In her email to the AFP on 19 January, the Applicant described attachment (b) as “Copy of appeal submitted by us in India to human right commission against his false allegations through some unknown person” (the Complaint). The Complaint before the Human Rights Commission contained the following:
…To issue directions to respondent no.1 to enquire into false complaint filed by respondent no.5 and also to enquire into the illegal harassment to the complainants and their family members, in the interest of justice…. (R1, T6, 159)
…..
That the complaint contained totally false and fabricated allegations, as the complainant no.1 has never worked as taxi driver….. He has never worked as taxi driver. As far as complainant no.2 is concerned she was in Australia and came back to India in Oct.2019 and residing with complainant no.3 at Phagwara. As far as other sister of complainant namely [‘PXLY’] is concerned she is residing in Australia with her husband named [‘PD’] since year 2016. None of the complainants or the family members residing abroad have ever heard of this respondent no.5, what to talk of knowing him and meeting him and promising him to send him abroad. (R1, T6, 160)
…..
That the complaint which has been filed by respondent no.5 is purely a fabricated and false case filed against complainants, which seems to be handiwork of some person who wants to falsely implicate the complainants. (R1, T6, 161)
The Applicant sent a further email to the AFP on 22 January 2020:
I would like to bring to your urgent attention that my husband and his accomplices are planning and plotting to harm me and my family members with using his criminal activities through hiring, bribing criminal people in India.
The Applicant attended a citizenship interview on 23 January 2020. When asked by the interviewee, the Applicant affirmed the answers she provided in her application for citizenship by conferral, mainly that she had never been to court and did not have any court cases pending overseas or in Australia.
After the Applicant attended the citizenship test interview, the Applicant’s application for conferral of Australian citizenship was granted on 7 February 2020.[7]
[7] Ex R1, T2, 17.
On 13 February 2020, a First Information Report (FIR) was raised against the Applicant.[8] As it relates to the FIR, the Tribunal accepts that the emails sent to the AFP on 19 and 22 January 2020, may have suggested that the Applicant was aware of the existence of the unwarranted allegations before attending her citizenship test interview on 23 January 2020. The FIR recommended a case should be registered under sections 406, 420, and 120-B of The Indian Penal Code 1860 (India) (IPC) and s 13 of the Punjab Travel Professionals Regulation Act 2014 (India).
[8] Tender Bundle, 458.
On 21 October 2020, the Applicant’s lawyer responded to a request for further information made by the Department. Attached was a statutory declaration made by the Applicant dated 21 October 2020.[9] The Applicant describes her emails to the AFP:
I considered it my moral and legal duty to inform the Federal Police of Australia about the ongoing investigation in the false & fictitious case with Indian Police.
[9] Tender Bundle, 299-305.
On 1 January 2021 the Applicant filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Chandigarh to have the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.
The Applicant also filed a certified translation of a police investigation report relating to the four offences alleged against her. The report records that a closure report should be filed in relation to the alleged offences, the report was signed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District A.A.S Nagar and Senior Superintendent of Police (Command Centre).
The Respondent questioned the authenticity of this report but the only evidence provided was of the New Delhi Post (of the Australian High Commission) (‘Post'), having completed its verification of the Police Information Report and being informed that ‘the case’ against the Applicant was still open until the FIR cancellation is accepted by the Court. No further evidence was provided to the Tribunal in relation to the alleged concerns of the New Delhi Post.
It is not surprising that Post was informed that the case was still open until the cancellation of the FIR, bearing in mind that the Applicant has unsuccessfully attempted on several occasions to have the proceedings she commenced to set aside the FIR dealt with by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Such proceedings, although listed on several occasions, had not been dealt with and the FIR has not been cancelled despite the recommendations of two senior police officers.
However, there was no evidence from either Post or the Respondent challenging the authenticity of the Investigation Report and I consider the Respondent’s allegation to have been inappropriately made. I will deal with this matter further below but note that I accept the report as being genuine and that I also accept the findings made therein to the effect that the allegations made against the Applicant were unfounded and malicious.
EVIDENCE
Oral Evidence
During the hearing held on 29 March 2022, the Applicant gave oral evidence which consisted of the following:
(a)No proceedings were pending against her when she lodged her application for Citizenship by conferral on 27 June 2019.[10]
[10] Transcript, p 25.
(b)The Applicant was invited to attend a citizenship interview by the Respondent conducted on 23 January 2020.[11]
[11] Ibid.
(c)That the FIR was lodged on 13 February 2020.[12]
[12] Ibid.
(d)When asked whether the Applicant notified any department or State or Federal police when she became aware of the FIR the Applicant stated:[13]
[13] Ibid, 26.
(i)That between October and November 2019 she contacted Victoria Police who instructed her to contact the AFP.
(ii)On 19 January 2020 she emailed the AFP:
‘Actually, Federal Police I contacted because I know husband went to India in October and that time only my brother was called by police and he was harassed and they threatening. So I was – because (indistinct) husband (indistinct), he was always attacking me , like ‘I will cancel you PR and citizenship if you say any word against me’. So I was sure, like, he will do something.
(e)The Applicant gave evidence that at the time she emailed the AFP on 19 and 22 January (detailed in paragraphs [11]-[13]), she was not aware that ‘VV’ had made a complaint against her. The Applicant stated that she was not aware of a complaint made against her until 13 February 2020.[14]
[14] Ibid, 32.
(f)The Applicant believed that at the time she emailed the AFP, she was of the belief that no complaint related to her, only her family in India.
(g)When the Applicant wrote to the AFP the Applicant stated her frame of mind was that she was:[15]
Under the impression, like, definitely he is involving me as well, so then I wrote this email, “He is doing something behind our back and involving me and all the family members”
(h)During cross examination, the Applicant confirmed that she attended a citizenship interview on 23 January 2020.[16] When the Applicant was asked whether she recalled being asked about ever being in trouble with the police overseas at that interview, the Applicant stated that she did:[17]
They ask me, like, is there anything that is pending here in India or Australia. So I said, yes, in Family Court it’s going on. So they said, no, no, we are not talking about family. So I said there is nothing at that time, yes.
(i)When asked what her response was when asked by the interviewee whether or not any court cases were pending, the Applicant further stated:[18]
I said no, there is not any court case pending in India or Australia, except Family Court
(j)The Applicant confirmed that she is seeking the subsequent proceedings arising from the FIR to be quashed.[19]
(k)It was put to the Applicant that she had given evidence that she first became aware of the FIR in February 2020.[20] When asked if she believed her email to the Department was made[21] as soon as it came to her notice the Applicant stated:[22]
Yes. Like, I came to know end of Feb. But because all other litigation are also going on, and somehow when I get time, I just inform the department. Because too many litigations are going on at that time. It was so new to me because suddenly all the responsibility comes on my shoulders and I even don’t know, like, how to do these other things. So, yes, one month delay was there because of this reason.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid, 40.
[17] Ibid, 41.
[18] Ibid, 43.
[19] Ibid, 53.
[20] Ex R1, T18, 218.
[21] Ibid, T7, 175.
[22] Transcript, p 56.
I note that the Applicant appears to have misunderstood the question at (d) above because the FIR did not come into existence until 20 February 2020. Therefore, I understand that her answers relate to when she became aware that some allegations were being made in India.
PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
(a)During her examination in chief, when asked what study she has done the Applicant confirmed:[23]
I have done diploma in nursing, Enrolled Nurse level 2, and certificate III in Aged Care.
(b)The Applicant stated she had worked in aged care and wishes to work in nursing or aged care in the future.[24]
[23] Ibid, 37.
[24] Ibid.
In the hearing held on 16 October the Applicant was briefly cross examined with relevant evidence as follows:
The Applicant was asked why she did not mention the criminal case pending against her in India when interviewed for her citizenship application, she responded that there was no case pending against her in India.
She said that the FIR was raised after a complaint by an unknown person without the police first checking with her. She was not approached by any police in India prior to December 2022 and when asked if she considered whether she was under investigation she said that the Police raised the report but did not ask her anything until December 2022.
THE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
The issue for determination in this matter is whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is not of good character for the purposes of subsection 25(2)(b)(iii) of the Act.
Whether at the time of attending her citizenship interview on 23 January 2020 the Applicant provided false and misleading particulars to the Department.
CONTENTIONS
Applicant’s contentions
In written submissions dated 31 March 2021, the Applicant contended that she did not mention any criminal cases in India during her Australian citizenship interview for the following reasons:[25]
[25] Tender Bundle, p 3.
The FIR was lodged against the applicant and her family and her family members on 13 February 2020, in her absence, when the interview for Australian Citizenship Test was held on 23 January 2020
The applicant has only received oral information from her family about the false case and she has not received any official information and therefore did not declare it
The applicant is never served with a notice of the case by the law courts of India
The applicant is not required by the police or court as the matter is still under investigation by the police
There is every likelihood of cancellation of the case against the applicant
The applicant got unofficial information about this false case from her family members only
The family members of applicant lodged a complaint to challenge this case before the Human Rights Commission in Chandigarh
An application for reinvestigation of the false case has been made to SSP Office Mohali, Punjab in India and there is really a good chance of its cancellation
The case is still under investigation by the police and has not gone to court in India as such no final decision has been made
Once police collects entire evidence in this case then consider it for either dropping these proceedings or charge the applicant with relevant charge sheet and only then she will be officially notified or summoned to face the charges
The applicant will certainly disclose to department of immigration, if she is notified or summoned in the court
The applicant called Department to inform that her ex-husband is undertaking activities in India to harass herself and her family. [PD] is trying to cancel your permanent residency and citizenship
The applicant has herself notified local and federal police in Australia about this false case in India and Your ex-husband
The applicant spent 39 years in India without a single complaint lodged against her name
Respondent
In the Respondent’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (RSFIC) dated 12 November 2021[26] the Respondent contends that in circumstances where:
a)there remains outstanding proceedings against the Applicant in India; and
b)the information the Applicant has provided suggests she has provided inconsistent and misleading particulars to the Department;
the Applicant's conduct is not outweighed by the mitigating factors and the Tribunal should be satisfied that she is not of good character at this time for the purpose of section 25(2)(b)(iii).
[26] Tender Bundle, p 516-523.
In the RSFIC, the Respondent contends that:
it is implausible that the Applicant was not aware of the proceedings against her in India at the time she attended her citizenship test interview on 23 January 2020 and responded ‘no’ when asked if she had ever been in trouble with the police overseas, been to court or had any court cases pending. (Tender bundle, 517)
Further, the Respondent also contends that, in circumstances where the Applicant was informed in the letter that the Department sent to her on 27 June 2019 that she 'must tell [the Department] about any changes to [her] circumstances' and has declared that she understood it to be 'moral and legal duty to inform the Federal Police of Australia about the ongoing investigation in the false & fictitious case with Indian Police'; it is implausible that the Applicant did not understand that she was required to disclose the proceedings against her in India to the Department. The Respondent contends that it is more likely that the Applicant was deliberately attempting to conceal information adverse to the assessment of her character in order to not jeopardise her application for Australian citizenship. Therefore, the Respondent contends that the Tribunal can be satisfied that the Applicant has sought to mislead or deceive the Department and that the Applicant is not of good character for the purposes of section 25(2)(b)(iii) of the Act.
in circumstances where the Petition that the Applicant has given to the Tribunal is not dispositive of the issues before the Tribunal, because it does not state when the Applicant first became aware of the information set out in Petition, and the Annexures to the Petition (which would be expected to corroborate the claims made in the Petition) have not been produced, the Petition ought to be given limited weight.
Additionally, in circumstances where the Applicant has herself given evidence that a 'false' or 'fake' case may be commenced in Indian Courts and has expressly disavowed the reliability of unfinalised proceedings before Indian Courts, the Respondent contends that the Tribunal should give limited weight to the Petition because (in circumstances where the application it commenced is unfinalised) it cannot now be relied upon as good evidence of the Applicant's character.
Finally, the Respondent refers to False or Misleading statements and contends that:
On the available evidence, the Respondent contends that the Tribunal should be satisfied that the Applicant was aware of the proceedings against her in India at the time she informed the delegate at her citizenship test interview that she had never been to court or did not have any court cases pending. The Respondent contends that the evidence indicates that the Applicant has attempted to mislead or conceal information from the Department in relation to the proceedings against her in India and that the Applicant's conduct demonstrates an unwillingness or inability to 'distinguish right from wrong'
The Respondent contends that attempting to mislead the Department is objectively serious conduct and would have a significant bearing on the Applicant's character; there is "no excuse for misleading the Australian Government or its agencies": Nguyen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 1082 at [72].
The seriousness of such conduct is underpinned by the existence of section 234 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which creates an indictable offence for making or causing to be made, false or misleading statements or delivering or causing to be delivered, a document containing a false or misleading statement or information. The penalty is imprisonment of 10 years or 1,000 penalty units, or both. The penalty underscores the significance of the conduct. There are similar provisions in the Act for false or misleading statements or representations made for a purpose of or in relation to the Act (see, for example, section 50).
In summary, in all the circumstances outlined above, the Respondent contends that it is entirely implausible that the Applicant was not aware that the statements she provided on 23 January 2020 to the Department in support of her application for citizenship by conferral were misleading and deceptive and that she was required to bring information of this nature to the attention of the Department. The Respondent contends that, on the available information, the Tribunal should be satisfied that the Applicant knowingly and wilfully provided misleading and deceptive statements to the Department on 23 January 2020 in relation to criminal investigations against her in India, sought to conceal information adverse to the assessment of her application between at least 'the last week of February 2020 and 5 April 2020 and has sought over a significant period of time to minimise the seriousness of her conduct in dealing with the Department,. This conduct should have a significant negative bearing on the assessment of her character.
APPLICABLE LEGISLATION AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The parties were in agreement as to the relevant law applicable in this case, much of it having been set out by the Respondent in their various submissions.
Subsection 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. The Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen in accordance with subsection 24(1) of the Act.
Subsection 25 of the Act provides that the Minister may, by writing, cancel an approval given to a person under section 24. The section reads:
25 Minister may cancel approval
(1) The Minister may, by writing, cancel an approval given to a person under section 24 if:
(a) the person has not become an Australian citizen under section 28; and
(b) either of the following 2 situations apply.
Eligibility criteria not met
(2) The first situation applies if:
(a) the person is covered by subsection 21(2), (3) or (4); and
(b) the Minister is satisfied that, at the time the Minister proposes to cancel the approval, the person is:
(i) not a permanent resident; or
(ii) not likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia; or
(iii) not of good character.
Failure to make pledge of commitment
(3) The second situation applies if:
(a) the person has failed to make a pledge of commitment within 12 months after the day on which the person received notice of the approval; and
(b) the person’s reason for the failure is not one that is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
The Tribunal has recognised the distinction between s 25(2)(b)(iii) which requires satisfaction that a person "is not of good character" and s 21(2)(h) which requires satisfaction that a person "is of good character" (see Bashi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 453 at [6]; Haidari and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 513 at [39]) where Senior Member Dunne described the requisite level of satisfaction the Tribunal should reach:
In the case of s 25 of the Act, although paragraph 25(2)(b)(iii) it [sic] does not require that the Tribunal form an adverse view of the applicant’s character, in my view the Tribunal must be positively persuaded that the applicant is not of good character.
The term "good character" is not defined in the Act. In Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 139 ALR 84 (‘Irving’), Lee J noted at [94] that (citations omitted):
… 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 while the latter is a review of subjective public opinion.
In Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, the Tribunal stated at [8] that:
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.[27]
[27] RSFIC, Tender Bundle p 516-523.
Applicable policy
The Department issued the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement on 27 November 2020 and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) which contains relevant guidance at CPI 1 and CPI 15 in relation to general eligibility for citizenship by conferral and assessing good character under the Act. The Tribunal will ordinarily consider and apply lawful Government policy unless there is a cogent reason not to: Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634.
CPI 15 provides that:[28]
The Department issued the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement on 27 November 2020 and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) which contains relevant guidance at CPI 1 and CPI 15 in relation to general eligibility for citizenship by conferral and assessing good character under the Act. The Tribunal will ordinarily consider and apply lawful Government policy unless there is a cogent reason not to: Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634.
[28] R1, T3, 81.
CPI 15 provides that:[29]
Good character refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person. A person who is of good character is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia and the other commitments made when making the Pledge of commitment should they be approved to become an Australian citizen.
The expression 'enduring moral qualities' encompasses the following concepts (T3, 82):
characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;
distinguishing right from wrong; and
behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
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.
[29] Ibid, 81-82.
CPI 15 provides that an Applicant of good character would, among other things:[30]
respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;
be honest and financially responsible
not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example: material deception during visa and citizenship applications
concealing criminal convictions;
not be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant;
[30] Ibid, 83.
Decision makers assessing whether an applicant is of good character should as a general proposition incorporate the following steps when preparing a decision on good character:[31]
[31] Ibid, 95.
(a) characterise the nature of any offence or behaviour;
(b) is the offence serious or minor?
(c) did the offence harm other people?
(d) who were victims?
(e) is there a pattern of behaviour?
(f) was it a one off incident?
(g) were there extenuating circumstances?
(h) consider any mitigating circumstances;
(i) length of time since the offence was committed
(j) age at time of offence
(k) behaviour since completing prison sentence or obligations to court
(l) remorse regarding their offending behaviour
(m) community support (referee reports etc)
(n) changes in the life of the applicant. For example, relocation away from people who had a negative influence,
(o) marriage or de facto relationship, children, treatment for addiction or mental illness.
(p) weigh up all relevant factors to decide whether the applicant is of good character
In relation to "weighing up the evidence", CPI 15 (T3, 97) states that decision-makers should consider the following matters:
Would a person of good character behave the way the Applicant did?
What evidence is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law?
Has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia's community standards, such as obeying the law?
Does the Applicant share Australia's democratic beliefs and respects the rights and liberties of its people?
Has the Applicant taken steps to rehabilitate or change their lifestyle and become a person of good character?
Are there any other factors that are relevant to an assessment of the Applicant's character?
In making a decision, an assessment of whether an Applicant is of 'good character' requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities, Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs[32] at [7] sets out the following:
A decision maker needs to look holistically at an applicant’s behaviour over a lasting or enduring period of time. The amount of time depends on the merits of each case, but in most cases will go back prior to any visa application if the person is applying for citizenship by conferral.
[32] [1994] AATA 326.
CPI 15 also provides guidance to decision-makers on factors relevant to assessing good character:[33]
How has the applicant behaved in their interactions with government officials?
The Australian community expects that persons in Australia will abide by Australian laws. This includes providing correct information when seeking a government benefit or service.
It is relevant to consider whether the Applicant has been honest in dealings with the Department. Decision-makers should consider all of the Applicant's interactions with the Department, including visa and citizenship applications.
If the Applicant has knowingly presented incorrect information or a bogus document, this may reflect on the person's character. If the applicant presents the incorrect information or bogus document unknowingly, there would be no ground for character concern.
[33] R1, T3, 89.
Paragraph 4.12 of CPI 15 lists a number of mitigating factors that decision makers should consider in assessing whether an applicant may be of good character notwithstanding their offences or conduct. Relevantly, those mitigating factors include:[34]
(a)Is there any other evidence that the person is of good character?
(b)Is there evidence of length of employment, stable family life and/or community involvement? These may be indicators of good character.
(i)Applicants may wish to provide references from independent people, like employers, attesting to the applicant’s character.
(ii)It is open to decision-makers to contact individuals who have provided a referee report for the applicant.
[34] Ibid, 96.
Decision-makers should not attribute less weight to a character reference merely because the text does not contain an explicit statement of support for the applicant acquiring Australian citizenship, unless the text sets out that it is clearly written for another unrelated purpose. The expression 'enduring moral qualities' encompasses the following concepts :[35]
characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;
distinguishing right from wrong; and
behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
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.
[35] Ibid, 82.
CP1 15[36] provides that an applicant of good character would, among other things:
respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;
be honest and financially responsible
not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example:
material deception during visa and citizenship applications
concealing criminal convictions;
not be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant;
[36] Ibid, 83.
Decision makers assessing whether an applicant is of good character should as a general proposition incorporate the following steps when preparing a decision on good character:[37]
[37] Ibid, 95.
characterise the nature of any offence or behaviour;
is the offence serious or minor?
did the offence harm other people?
who were victims?
is there a pattern of behaviour?
was it a one off incident?
were there extenuating circumstances?
consider any mitigating circumstances;
length of time since the offence was committed
age at time of offence
behaviour since completing prison sentence or obligations to court
remorse regarding their offending behaviour
community support (referee reports etc)
changes in the life of the applicant. For example, relocation away from people who had a negative influence,
marriage or de facto relationship, children, treatment for addiction or mental illness.
weigh up all relevant factors to decide whether the applicant is of good character
In relation to "weighing up the evidence", CPI 15 [38] states that decision-makers should consider the following matters:
Would a person of good character behave the way the applicant did?
What evidence is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law?
Has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia's community standards, such as obeying the law?
Does the applicant share Australia's democratic beliefs and respects the rights and liberties of its people?
Has the applicant taken steps to rehabilitate or change their lifestyle and become a person of good character?
Are there any other factors that are relevant to an assessment of the applicant's character?
[38] Ibid, 97.
In making a decision, an assessment of whether an Applicant is of 'good character' requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities (citing Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326 at [7]):[39]
[39] Ibid.
CPI 15 furthers that:
A decision maker needs to look holistically at an applicants behaviour over a lasting or enduring period of time. The amount of time depends on the merits of each case, but in most cases will go back prior to any visa application if the person is applying for citizenship by conferral.
CPI 15 also provides guidance to decision-makers on factors relevant to assessing good character, under the heading ‘How has the applicant behaved in their interactions with government officials?’ the CPI reads:[40]
The Australian community expects that persons in Australia will abide by Australian laws. This includes providing correct information when seeking a government benefit or service.
It is relevant to consider whether the applicant has been honest in dealings with the Department. Decision-makers should consider all of the applicant's interactions with the Department, including visa and citizenship applications.
If the applicant has knowingly presented incorrect information or a bogus document, this may reflect on the person's character. If the applicant presents the incorrect information or bogus document unknowingly, there would be no ground for character concern. (emphasis in source)
[40] Ibid, 89.
Paragraph 4.12 of CPI 15 lists a number of mitigating factors that decision makers should consider in assessing whether an Applicant may be of good character notwithstanding their offences or conduct. Relevantly, those mitigating factors are listed as:[41]
Is there any other evidence that the person is of good character?
Is there evidence of length of employment, stable family life and/or community involvement? These may be indicators of good character.
Applicants may wish to provide references from independent people, like employers, attesting to the applicant¡¦s character.
It is open to decision-makers to contact individuals who have provided a referee report for the applicant.
Decision-makers should not attribute less weight to a character reference merely because the text does not contain an explicit statement of support for the applicant acquiring Australian citizenship, unless the text sets out that it is clearly written for another unrelated purpose.
[41] Ibid, 96.
WHAT IS A FIRST INFORMATION REPORT?
The Respondent provided the following information regarding FIR’s:
The Refugee Review Tribunal document ‘Country Advice India’ published on 21 February 2011[42] provides the following information about FIR’s in India:
[42] Refugee Review Tribunal, ‘Country Advice India’, 21 February 2011: available at:
The initial reporting of an offence, or lodgement of a complaint, to police in India results in the preparation of a First Information Report (FIR). The FIR is a document written by a police officer “at the dictation of the informer”, who is generally the victim, someone acting on their behalf, or a witness. The informer can provide the information to police orally (in person or via telephone) or in writing, and is entitled to a copy of the FIR. No documents are required in order to lodge a FIR. Once a FIR is registered, the police can begin to investigate the case.
The FIR should include the informer’s name and address, the details of the incident being reported such as date, time and location, the true facts of the incident, the names of persons involved, and the names of any witnesses.[43]
[43] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, India: First Information Reports (FIRs), including procedures and time frames followed by police to inform complainants that an investigation will not be conducted, available at: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada states in the research report ‘India: First Information Reports (FIRs), including procedures and time frames followed by police to inform complainants that an investigation will not be conducted’ that:
“According to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), an "independent, non-partisan, international non-governmental organization, mandated to ensure the practical realisation of human rights in the countries of the Commonwealth" (CHRI 30 Dec. 2016, 2, italics in original), a First Information Report (FIR) is a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the alleged commission of a cognizable offence. It is a report of the information that first reaches the police about the occurrence of a crime or crimes, and this is why it is called the First Information Report. (CHRI 23 Oct. 2015, italics in original).
According to the CHRI, cognizable offences "are serious crimes for which the police have the authority to arrest without a warrant, and start an investigation without the permission of a judicial [m]agistrate" (CHRI 23 Oct. 2015). The same source further notes in an information booklet that "[e]xamples of a 'cognisable' crime include murder, rape, rioting, and dacoity," and "[e]xamples of a 'non cognisable' crime include cheating, fraud, forgery, bigamy, and creating a public nuisance" (CHRI 30 Dec. 2016, 22). A column in The Hindu, an English daily newspaper, originally published in October 2013 and updated in June 2016, similarly reports that "[e]xamples of cognizable offences include murder, rape, theft, attack, etc.," while examples of "non-cognizable offences include bigamy and defamation" (The Hindu 22 Oct. 2013). Sources further note that for non-cognizable offences, complaints should be sent to the judicial magistrate (CHRI 30 Dec. 2016, 22; The Hindu 22 Oct. 2013).
The CHRI further reports that "as per procedural law, it is only after the FIR is registered in the police station that the police can start the investigation of the case" (CHRI 23 Oct. 2015). Amnesty International India similarly reports that the FIR "is the first document that needs to be prepared by the police to initiate investigations" (Amnesty International India n.d.). Vageshwari Deswal, an assistant professor (Sr. Scale) at the University of Delhi, writes in a paper in the academic Journal of the Indian Law Institute that the FIR "sets the criminal justice machinery in motion. It is mandatory for the police to first register a case before they start investigation in any case. The FIR forms the very basis of the case" (Deswal 2013, 362).
The website of the Uttarakhand Police notes that "[a]ny person can file an F.I.R. He need not be the aggrieved person. It may be merely hear[say] and need not be by the person who has had first[hand] knowledge of the facts" (India n.d.a). The CHRI similarly indicates that, "anyone who knows about the commission of a cognizable offence can go to the police station to file an FIR," including victims, witnesses, and police officers (CHRI 23 Oct. 2015).”
The UK Home Office states in the ‘Country Policy and Information Note India: Actors of protection’ issued in January 2019[44] that:
[44] UK Home Office, Origin Information Report - India, 28 April 2006, available at: [accessed 6 April 2022].
“4.2.1 … a First Information Report (FIR) is ‘a written document prepared by the police when they receive information about the alleged commission of a cognizable offence. It is a report of the information that first reaches the police about the occurrence of a crime or crimes, and this is why it is called the First Information Report.’”
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) reported in its country report dated 10 December 2020 that:
“5.10 In India, for the police to investigate a case and commence the criminal justice process, they must prepare a First Information Report (FIR). According to 2018 NCRB data, where and how a person reports a complaint can influence their access to justice: 99 per cent of complaints routed through a court were registered as FIRs; 72 per cent of written complaints to the officer-in-charge of the police station were converted into FIRs; 53 per cent of written complaints were converted into FIRs; and only 5 per cent of oral complaints (where the duty officer takes down the details) were converted into FIRs. Only 3 per cent of complaints filed online (a new initiative in some states including Delhi and Uttar Pradesh) and 1 per cent of complaints taken by Emergency Telephone lines were converted to FIRs in the same period.”
Although the UK Home Office stated in its ‘Country of Origin Information Report – India’ published on 28 April 2006[45] that:
[45] UK Home Office, Country Background Note - India, January 2019, available at: [accessed 6 April 2022].
6.280 ….. throughout India it was very easy to obtain false documents. This applied to passports, birth certificates, certificates regarding education and career, marriage certificates and ID cards, arrest orders and so-called FIRs (First Information Reports)….
First Information Reports are not named in the UK Home Office ‘Country Background Note India’6, the DFAT India country report dated 17 October 2018 that it relied upon or the most recently published DFAT India country report dated as being documents vulnerable to fraud (albeit DFAT has reported that ‘all documents are vulnerable to fraud’7 and that ‘[d]ocument fraud is a common criminal activity’[46]
I agree with the following contentions set out in the Respondent’s Supplementary Submissions dated 13 April 2022:
The First Information Report relevant to this matter is that it is a document that records that a complaint has been made against the Applicant for the commission of four offences under the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the Punjab Travel Professionals (Regulation Act) 2014.
…
That, on a proper construction of the term ‘proceedings’ as it appears in the character declaration, ‘proceedings’ is used in its ordinary sense which, consistently with the above definitions, simply means a formal legal action.
…
That the 'proceeding' referred to in the character declaration is not restricted to criminal proceedings, however the declaration that is made concerns proceedings pending against a person 'for an offence'. Accordingly, it is only formal legal actions that concern an offence which must be disclosed.
…
the scope of the definition of ‘proceedings’ for the purpose of the character declaration ‘Is the applicant aware of any proceedings pending against them overseas or in Australia for an offence, including proceedings by way of appeal or review?’ in the character declaration is that the term ‘proceedings’ is used in its ordinary sense to mean a formal legal action, and is not confined to criminal proceedings, although the question asked in the declaration is whether the person has pending proceedings in relation to an offence.
[46] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report India, 10 December 2020, available at: [accessed 6 April 2022], p 70.
Furthermore, an examination of the relevant Indian legislation regulations discloses the following:
(a)A FIR is not defined in the IPC, Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) (India) (CrPC) or in any other law other than in the CrPC at section 154.
(b)Section 154 of the CrPC states:
Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf
I understand this provision as explaining that a FIR is information that has been gathered by a police officer provided by either the aggrieved person or others associated with the alleged offending. Once the FIR is complete, the police may commence an investigation.
I note that the provision in section 154 (see above) requiring an oral statement to be reduced to writing and signed is for the purpose of discouraging false statements about criminal offences by fixing the informant with the responsibility for the statements being adduced.
For a FIR to be made in accordance with section 154, two conditions must be fulfilled:
(a)Information must be conveyed; and
(b)The information should relate to a cognizable offence.
A FIR can be filed by any person, they are not confined to a victim, an injured party or eye witnesses. This means FIR’s may be hearsay and do not need to be given by the person who has firsthand knowledge of the facts and particulars.
Taking all of the above into account, I find that a FIR can be filed by anybody including people not even witness to alleged events and that the mere filing of a FIR does not constitute a person being ‘in trouble with the police’. Furthermore, a FIR does not mean that an arrest warrant has been issued or is even likely to be issued. I further find that once a FIR is issued the police are obliged to investigate it in order to ascertain, inter alia, whether the report is malicious or factually correct in which case the police will take no further action.
The Respondent provided the following submissions as to why there were proceedings against the Applicant:
The term ‘proceedings’ in not defined in the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Citizenship Act).
The term ‘proceedings’ is defined as follows in:
(a) the Oxford Dictionary:
c. Law. A legal action or process; any act done by authority of a court of law; a step taken by either party in a legal case.
and
(b) the Macquarie Dictionary:
5. Law a. the instituting or carrying on of an action at law. b. a legal step or measure: to institute proceedings against a person.
The Respondent contends that, on a proper construction of the term ‘proceedings’ as it appears in the character declaration, ‘proceedings’ is used in its ordinary sense which, consistently with the above definitions, simply means a formal legal action.
This Respondent contends that this construction is consistent with the text of the character declaration when given its ordinary meaning and the context and purpose of the statutory framework underlying it (particularly, the subsections of the Citizenship Act that deals with offences and proceedings10 and the sections of the Citizenship Act that deal with a person being approved to become an Australian citizen by conferral).
On that basis, the 'proceeding' referred to in the character declaration is not restricted to criminal proceedings, however the declaration that is made concerns proceedings pending against a person 'for an offence'. Accordingly, it is only formal legal actions that concern an offence which must be disclosed.[47]
[47] Para [3] – [3.5] Respondents supplementary Submissions dated 13 April 2022.
Prior to the filing of the FIR, there was no evidence of any formal or written action being taken against the Applicant and I find that mere oral allegations do not amount to a legal action or process.
The Respondent submitted that ‘proceedings’ simply means a formal legal action but I do not consider oral allegations that have not been reduced to writing to amount to a formal legal action or process.
Unfortunately, it appears that once a FIR is lodged it needs to be dismissed by a court despite a police investigation finding that it is malicious and not substantiated. However, I find that the mere fact that a FIR has not been dismissed by a court does not mean that proceedings are in progress against any person.
I find that the only proceeding ever involving the Applicant in Indian Courts is an application by her to set aside a FIR that has now been declared by at least two senior police officers to be malicious. I do not consider the filing of a FIR as constituting a proceeding against a person in any court.
In any event the FIR was not filed until 13 February 2020 which was after both her online application and follow-up interview.
Accordingly, I find that there were no proceedings against the Applicant when she made her online application on 27 June 2019 and when she was interviewed on 23 January 2020.
WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS NOT OF GOOD CHARACTER
I understand that the two main contentions now advanced by the Respondent are that the Applicant was untruthful when providing answers in her initial application for citizenship and her interview of 23 January 2020.
Although initially submitting that the Applicant had provided false information in the form of an alleged false police report, I understand that the Respondent resiled from that position under questioning from the Tribunal during the hearing. In any event, as noted at (paragraph 23), I have found the report to be genuine and hence even if not abandoned the Respondent could not succeed upon this basis.
As noted above, the good character requirement necessitates consideration of an Applicant viewed in a wholistic way and a decision maker can be satisfied that an Applicant is of good character if the Applicant has demonstrated enduring, appropriate behaviour throughout the time a visa is held.
Did the Applicant provide false or misleading information?
The Respondent submits that when the Applicant lodged an online application for conferral of Australian citizenship on 27 June 2019 she failed to declare that there were ongoing court proceedings against her in India and that this failure was compounded by declaring the answers in that application to be true and correct when providing answers in her online application and the subsequent interview.
As noted above (paragraphs 43 to 56) there is an exhaustive list of matters that could be considered when determining whether or not an Applicant is of good character. These include:
·Would a person of good character behave in the way the Applicant did?
·How has the Applicant behaved in her interactions with government officials?
·Whether any wrongdoing was serious or minor
·Whether there are any mitigating circumstances
As I have already found at (67-69) above, there were no ongoing court proceedings against the Applicant when she made her online application and the subsequent interview. I do not accept the Respondent’s contentions that the Applicant failed to declare the ongoing court proceedings at those relevant dates because there were no such proceedings at that stage.
In the decision from which the Applicant seeks a review, the delegate stated:
I have considered the statements that an application for reinvestigation of your case has been lodged and it is likely it will be cancelled, and that the case is fake and will be revoked. However, you have provided no evidence to demonstrate that the case against you has been cancelled, or that there are not charges currently pending on arrest warrant issued against you, and I give these statements no weight in my assessment of whether you are of good character.[48]
[48] Ex R1, T2, 28.
The Respondent adopted a similar position but I do not accept those submissions because there was no evidence to suggest that there were ever charges pending against the Applicant or that an arrest warrant had ever been issued against her. In fact, it is obvious that at no stage was the Applicant ever charged or that an arrest warrant was ever issued.
The delegate also seems to have assumed that the Applicant was “in trouble with the police” which is also not correct bearing in mind that there has been no suggestion that the Indian police had ever determined any merit in the allegations contained in the FIR.
The delegate also stated:
I have considered the statements that you considered it to be your moral and legal duty to inform the Australian Federal Police about the ongoing case with the Indian police, however it is unclear why you did not also feel that you had a moral duty to notify the Department at this time. I have considered the statements that you did not notify the Department during your test appointment as you had not received official notification of the case against you in India, however, I’ve also considered that you were aware that an investigation was ongoing against you in India and that you chose not to disclose this information to the Department.[49]
[49] Ibid, 29.
Once again, a similar position was adopted by the Respondent. An examination of relevant documentation[50] dated 19 January 2020 and an annexure thereto[51] appears to demonstrate the high point of the Respondent’s case where the Applicant states:
On … [‘PD’] visited Punjab, India and took the help of [‘PK’] and her husband [‘SS’] his accomplice and his current employee or alleged girlfriend as she belongs to ….. and bribe Punjab police officer and an unknown person to us [‘VW’] r/o Bahadurgah, Haryana, India” by provide him my and my entire family’s identity proof’s and bribed him to put a false complaint against me and my family back in India to (Senior Superintendent of Police office Senior Superintendent of Police office ….. for some financial fraud. Which we took into our immediate consideration and after several meeting with police officer there in SSP office we came to conclusion that this is a fraudulent case and criminal conspiracy against me and my family pressurized me to take back intervention order and came to settlement on his terms which I denied in every respect. So we took that case and raised our complaint and also requested for the inquiry from the higher Police authority to investigate the whole matter and entire fraudulent conspiracy against us and provided the finding to the ‘’ The Court of Human Right Commission, Punjab”. The Respondent seems to suggest that even if there were no proceedings on foot against the Applicant, she believed that there were, and hence she provided false answers at her interview. We also request for a comprehensive judicial inquiry against the Involvement of [PD], [PK] and [SS] in this whole conspiracy.
[50] Ex R1, T6, 154.
[51] Ibid 167-8.
However, as I have already determined above at (paragraphs 69 to 71) the oral allegations of the type referred to above do not amount or constitute proceedings for the purposes of the Act.
Accordingly, I find that at the time of attending her citizenship interview on 23 January 2020, the Applicant did not provide false or misleading particulars to the Department.
Therefore I find that it is inappropriate to suggest that a person of good character would not behave in the way the Applicant did and that the Applicant has behaved inappropriately in her interactions with government officials.
There being no wrongdoing on the Applicant’s part, it is not necessary to consider the other matters set out above but I note that even if I am held to be incorrect about the status of the allegations against the Applicant as at 23 January 2020, I would exercise my discretion pursuant to the matters set out at paragraph 4.12 of CPI 15 because:
(a)There is other evidence that the Applicant was of good character in that the Applicant appears to have lived a blameless and productive life since coming to Australia. She has obtained a nursing diploma and a certificate in aged care. She has worked in aged care and wishes to continue to do such work, or nursing.
(b)She also provided references as to her character, as noted by the delegate:
You have provided seven character references from persons including a counsellor; a case manager, friends and community establishments. The references collectively state that you are polite, compassionate, honest, gentle, dedicated and that you undertake volunteer services for the local community. Your referees acknowledge that they are aware of the proceedings against you in India and indicate that they support your application for Australian citizenship. This weights in favour of you being of good character. I give this factor some weight in my assessment whether you are of good character.[52]
(c)Furthermore, the Applicant appears to have not attempted to conceal what was occurring in India from Australian authorities, having made a report to both the Australian Federal Police and the Victorian Court system.
(d)If, contrary to my findings above, the Applicant was involved in proceedings in India at the relevant time, a failure to appreciate that mere oral allegations made against her in India could constitute proceedings and therefore require an affirmative answer at the time of her online application and/or interview would be understandable especially bearing in mind that I have determined that they do not constitute proceedings within the meaning of the term as used in the Act.
[52] Ex R1, T2, 30.
DECISION
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Applicant is not of good character for the purposes of subsection 25(2)(b)(iii) of the Act. Subsequently, I remit the decision back to the Respondent for the decision to be re-made with my finding that the Applicant is of good character.
I certify that the preceding 87 (eighty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President
...[sgn].....................................................................
Associate
Dated: 23 January 2024
Date(s) of hearing: 29 March 2022 and 16 October 2023 Counsel for the Applicant Suraj Handa Representatives for the Applicant: Handa Immigration Specialists
Counsel for the Respondent Hannah Anderson Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton UTZ Annexure to Reasons for Decision
Schedule of Exhibits
T-Documents, lodged 22 February 2021 Exhibit R1 Supplementary T-Documents, lodged 26 March 2021 (Unredacted) Exhibit R2 Supplementary T-Documents, lodged 26 March 2021 (Redacted) Exhibit R3 Further Supplementary T-documents, lodged 12 November 2021 Exhibit R4 High Court of Punjab and Haryana Listings (TB, PG 667.1) Exhibit R5 Screenshots of Correspondence between Home Affairs Attaining Integrity Check (TB, 660-667) Exhibit R6 Interim Order/Adjournment-Dated 16 May 2023 (TB, 656) Exhibit R7 Screenshot of Case listings (653 of TB) Exhibit R8 Screenshot of High Court of Punjab and Haryana-Case details (TB, 652) Exhibit R9 88. Applicant Submission, lodged 31 March 2021
Attachment A to Submission - Child, Birth Certificate
Attachment B to Submission - Child, Passport
Exhibit A1 89. Applicant Submissions lodged 29 October 2021
Attachment A to Submission - Applicant Passport
Exhibit A2 Petition (first page) dated 11 January 2021, Interim Order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (HCPHG) dated 27 April 2021 and 05 April 2021 Exhibit A3 HCPHG Petition dated 11 January 2021 Exhibit A4 HCPHG Case Listing dated 22 September 2021 Exhibit A5 HCPHG Notice of Adjournment dated 22 June 2021 Exhibit A6 HCPHG Order dated 10 November 2021 Exhibit A7 HCPHG Order dated 30 January 2022 Exhibit A8 Lawyer's letter relating to HCPHG proceedings dated 23 February 2022 Exhibit A9 Lawyer's letter relating to HCPHG proceedings dated 31 January 2022 Exhibit A10 True copy of police Investigation report (Cancellation of F.I.R) dated 5 January 2023
English (TB, 631)
Punjab (TB, 622)
Exhibit A10(b) Notice of Adjournment dated 9.10.2022 (TB, 616) Exhibit A11 Correspondence between the Applicant and the Department dated 17 March 2020 (TB, 614) Exhibit A12
0
5
0