Rahimi and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) - [2025] ARTA 675

Rahimi and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 675 (27 May 2025)
Applicant:Abdul Sammi Rahimi
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2024/1078
Tribunal:General Member K. Thornton
Place:Melbourne
Date:27 May 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...............[SGD]......................
General Member K. Thornton
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – application for conferral of Australian citizenship – citizen of Afghanistan – whether the Tribunal is satisfied of the Applicant’s good character – Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – prior finding of guilt – family violence offending – Tribunal not satisfied Applicant is of good character at time of its decision – decision affirmed
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
Chiagozie v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 139
Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Prasad and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
WKBF v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 465
Secondary Materials
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, reissued 27 November 2020
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act, reissued 26 February 2021
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent refusing his application for Australian citizenship on the basis that the Applicant does not satisfy the good character requirement at s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
The Applicant is a 42-year-old citizen of Afghanistan. He first arrived in Australia on 2 August 2016 on a permanent In-country Special Humanitarian (subclass 201) visa.[1] He still holds that visa.[2]
[1] Exhibit R1, 22.
[2] Ibid.
On 7 February 2022, the Applicant was found guilty by the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court of Contravention of a Family Violence Interim Intervention Order.[3] His matter was adjourned, without conviction, for a period of twelve months (to 6 February 2023).[4]
[3] Ibid 84.
[4] Ibid.
On 26 September 2022, the Applicant was found guilty by the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court of Unlawful Assault and Contravention of a Family Violence Interim Intervention Order.[5] His matter was adjourned, without conviction, for a period of twelve months (to 25 September 2023).[6]
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
On 30 May 2023, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.[7]
[7] Ibid 27-65.
On 16 November 2023, a delegate of the Respondent wrote to the Applicant to invite him to comment on information contained in his National Criminal History Check Results report, namely the findings of guilt referred to above.[8]
[8] Ibid 77-9.
On 14 December 2023, the Applicant wrote to the Respondent and enclosed the following material:
(a)Statutory Declaration of the Applicant dated 12 December 2023;[9]
[9] Ibid 87-9.
(b)Character Reference from Mr Graham Hook, Department of Families, Fairness and Housing dated 27 November 2023;[10]
(c)Letter of support for the Applicant from the General Command of Police Special Units, Afghanistan, dated 19 October 2015;[11]
(d)Letter of recommendation for the Applicant from Maj. A. Williams, Australian Army, dated 8 April 2014;[12]
(e)Confirmation of employment from Ms Jacqueline Thompson, Manager, Monash Health dated 4 December 2023;[13]
(f)Academic Transcript from Federation University for a Bachelor of Community and Human Services issued on 30 June 2023;[14]
(g)Certificate of Completion from the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and related correspondence dated August 2008;[15]
(h)Certificate of Completion and Academic Transcript for Certificate II in Security Operations from Knights College issued on 27 November 2021;[16]
(i)Letter from Ms Hestelle Gerryts, psychotherapist, dated 20 September 2023;[17]
(j)Letter from Relationships Australia dated 29 July 2022 confirming the Applicant’s attendance at a Men’s Behaviour Change Group program;[18] and
(k)Certificate of Appreciation from the General Command of Police Special Units, undated.[19]
[10] Ibid 90.
[11] Ibid 91.
[12] Ibid 92.
[13] Ibid 93.
[14] Ibid 94-5.
[15] Ibid 96-100.
[16] Ibid 101-3.
[17] Ibid 104.
[18] Ibid 105.
[19] Ibid 106.
On 24 January 2024, a delegate of the Respondent refused the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship.[20]
[20] Ibid 108-9.
On 15 February 2024, the Applicant applied for review of that decision to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).[21]
[21] Ibid 1-11.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Any applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be applications for review to the Tribunal.[22]
[22] Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth).
The Tribunal conducted a hearing of the applicant on 30 April 2025 by video. The Applicant was self-represented. The Respondent was represented by Ms Mary Baras-Miller, lawyer, from the Australian Government Solicitor.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may apply to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. To be eligible, a person must meet each of the general eligibility criteria under s 21(2) of the Act.
Section 21(2)(h) of the Act requires the Minister to be satisfied that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person ‘is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.’
Section 24(1) of the Act provides that if a person makes an application under s 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Section 52(1)(b) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review decisions made under s 24 of the Act.
Citizenship Policy Statement and Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions
The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (‘the Policy’) (issued 27 November 2020) and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (‘CPIs’) (reissued 26 February 2021) guide decision makers exercising powers and discharging their functions under the Act. Although such policy is not binding on the Tribunal, decision makers undertaking merits review should generally apply such policy unless it is unlawful or ‘there are cogent reasons to the contrary.’[23] The Tribunal has not identified any reason why the Policy and CPIs should not be applied in this case and has therefore relied upon these documents in considering the matter before it.
[23] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645.
The relevant CPI in this case is CPI 15 which provides guidance in relation to assessing character under the Act.
Part 3.3 of CPI 15 states the following in relation to good character:[24]
[24] Exhibit R1, 161-2.
The term ‘good character’ is not defined in the Act. The Federal Court (FC) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) have used the ordinary meaning of the words, and made reference to dictionary definitions. Most cases have adopted the definition from the Full FC judgment in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs ((1996) 68 FCR 422; at 431-432):
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 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… 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.
The phrase ‘enduring moral qualities’ encompasses the following concepts:
·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.
Given the significance of the grant of Australian citizenship, the assessment of the applicant’s character is an important component in the Minister’s decision to approve or refuse the applicant’s citizenship application.
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.
For example, in Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, DP Breen discussed the role of the character requirement in a citizenship application (at [8]):
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. The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts. It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of State. The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few years’ time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.
Part 4 of CPI 15 provides guidance on the characteristics a person of good character would generally be expected to exhibit.[25] This Part provides that, as a general proposition, a person of good character would:
·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;
·be honest and financially responsible;
·not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example:
ointentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material during visa and citizenship applications;
oconcealing criminal convictions;
·not be violent, involved in illegal drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct.
[25] Ibid 163.
Part 12.1 of CPI 15 deal with offences disclosed as part of an applicant’s criminal record. The CPI invites decision-makers to consider whether the offence committed was a serious offence.[26] Crimes of violence (such as domestic violence, and others) are identified as an example of a serious offence. The CPI also includes examples of minor offences such as ‘offences that lead to a finding of guilt but no conviction or sentence.’[27]
[26] Ibid 170.
[27] Ibid 170.
Part 12.2 provides guidance on assessing the relative seriousness of the offence. Factors identified include:
·Any ongoing obligations such as a good behaviour bond;
·A consideration of the victims of the offence; and
·Whether there is a pattern of criminal behaviour.
Part 14 provides guidance in weighing information. It provides that that when assessing whether an applicant is of good character, decision-makers should, as a general proposition:
·Characterise the nature of any offence or behaviour;
·Consider whether the offence is serious or minor;
·Consider whether the offence harmed other people, and who were the victims;
·Whether there is a pattern of behaviour or was it a once off incident; and
·Whether there were any extenuating circumstances.
Decision-makers are also required to consider any mitigating circumstances, such as:
·Length of time since the offence was committed;
·Age at the time of the offence;
·Behaviour since completing prison sentence or obligations to the court;
·Remorse regarding their offending behaviour;
·Community support (such as referee reports etc); and
·Changes in the life of the applicant, such as treatment for addiction or mental illness.
Part 14 further states:
The decision-maker must weigh up all relevant factors to decide whether the applicant is of good character. The decision-maker must look holistically at applicant’s behaviour over time and reach a conclusion about the person’s enduring moral qualities.
The requirement for a holistic assessment of a person’s character has been previously considered by the Tribunal in Prasad and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs:[28]
‘…a decision about whether a person is of good character requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. It is true to say, however, that, despite the many good qualities possessed by a person, those qualities can be outweighed by a single adverse incident if it is if sufficient weight and seriousness.’
[28] [1994] AATA 326, [7]
ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED
The issue to be determined in this matter is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at the time of its decision.[29]
[29] Pursuant to s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
EVIDENCE
At the hearing of the application the Tribunal received into evidence the following material:
(a)Exhibit R1: Combined Hearing Book comprising 219 pages. This Hearing Book contained the following materials:
(i)Respondent’s T-documents;
(ii)Respondent’s Tender Bundle comprising material received by way of summons from Victoria Police;
(iii)Applicant’s documents comprising the Applicant’s Statutory Declaration (which was already tendered as part of the T-documents), plus two additional references in support from the Applicant’s neighbour dated 27 July 2024 and wife (undated).
(b)Exhibit R2: Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 24 September 2024;
(c)Exhibit R3: Audio-visual recording of the Applicant’s Record of Interview with Victoria Police conducted on 20 November 2021.
Applicant’s evidence
At the commencement of the Applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal advised the Applicant about his privilege against self-incrimination. The Applicant indicated that he understood this right.
During the Applicant’s evidence-in-chief, he adopted the contents of his Statutory Declaration dated 12 December 2023 and indicated it was true and correct. The contents of the Statutory Declaration are summarised as follows:[30]
[30] Ibid 87-9.
(a)He and his wife ‘regret that there was a reported incident designated as family violence’, and that this matter has now been ‘resolved’ and his wife and children are ‘living together happily’.
(b)He has been ‘happily married for twelve years’ and the argument in November 2021 was over the ‘screen time’ of their four children.
(c)His wife ‘was under a lot of stress’ and she ‘lost her temper’.
(d)The Applicant states ‘I tapped her on the cheek and told her to calm down but she rang the police and said that I had hit her.’
(e)After this incident, an intervention order was issued, which he complied with until one night in February 2022 when his son became very ill. The Applicant states that his wife rang him and begged him to come and help.
(f)He recalled the Magistrate had said ‘at the hearing about the intervention order’ that it could be broken in ‘an emergency situation.’ The Applicant stated he went to a pharmacy to collect medicine and was ‘simply dropping it off’ when the police came and arrested him.
(g)Following this, his wife applied to have the intervention order removed. The Applicant stated that they went to the Magistrates’ Court and his wife was told the order was changed ‘from a full order to a limited order’ which meant he could go home which, he states, is what his wife wanted.
(h)The second night the Applicant was home, the police came and arrested him again. The Applicant states he does not fully understand the issue but ‘it appears that the limited order had not yet been published’ so the police were not aware of the ‘change’ to the original intervention order.
(i)After that incident, the Applicant and his wife went to see the Magistrate and had the ‘limited order issue rectified’. He said he fulfilled all the obligations of the court including the Men’s Behaviour Change program ‘which (he) did not really need, but (he) still completed them as directed by the Magistrate…’
(j)He said that since September 2022, he has been living with his wife and children and there has been no issue.
(k)The Applicant states he believes that the incident that led to the family violence was wrong and it was ‘just one minor isolated incident.’
(l)He maintains he is of good character, currently studying at university. He has casual employment as a Reception and Security Guard with Monash Health.
(m)He states he is not a violent person and is well-liked by his classmates, workmates, friends, family and community.
(n)He concludes that ‘it was just a small wife and partner argument’ and the ‘matter has been resolved now.’
The Applicant told the Tribunal is an honest, kind, hard-working person who takes accountability of his actions. He said he is not a violent person, and that the incident was a heated argument. He has a steady work history and has also undertaken volunteer work assisting other migrants since he arrived in Australia.
He maintained his wife was tired and stressed and that he slapped her ‘jokingly’. The Applicant said it was a small matter, and that the police made it a big deal. He said it was ‘an exaggeration’.
The Applicant was questioned about the breaches of the family violence intervention orders during cross-examination. He said the first breach was an ‘absolute emergency’, and that his wife had begged him to come home and assist with their ill son. He maintained that the Magistrate told him the intervention order could be broken in an emergency.
In regard to the Unlawful Assault charge, he agreed he had argued with his wife over the children’s screen time. He said he ‘jokingly’ slapped his wife gently on the cheek. He maintained this position through his entire cross-examination. He said his wife got angry and called the police, and the police arrived.
It was then put to the Applicant that he punched his wife rather than slapped. He denied punching her and maintained it was a slap. He said the police made a big deal of it, and that he was scared and nervous when they arrived.
He denied telling police at the time that he punched his wife, but if he did say that it was a punch it was because he was very scared and nervous. The Respondent put to the Applicant that he told police, unprompted, that he punched her, and the Applicant said that because that is what happened. The Applicant again denied punching the victim, and maintained it was a slap.

At this point in the cross-examination, the Respondent asked the Tribunal to play the audio from the Applicant’s record of interview with police. In the record of interview, the Applicant told police he slapped and punched his wife.[31] The Applicant agreed that is what he said, but that is not what happened. The Respondent put to the Applicant that he was downplaying the incident, which he denied.
[31] Exhibit R3, 0.03:55.
In relation to the second breach of the intervention order, the Applicant said that it was a ‘miscommunication’, and that he thought the order was no longer in place. He said he didn’t deliberately breach the order because he thought there was no order. The Applicant said he doesn’t know why the second occasion was regarded as a breach.
The Respondent then questioned the Applicant about his citizenship application, where he declared ‘No’ to the answer ‘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)?’[32] The Applicant said he was never convicted. He told the Tribunal he didn’t plead guilty, and said ‘How can I be guilty for something I didn’t do deliberately?’
[32] Exhibit R1, 44.
Other evidence in support of the Applicant
The Applicant also called evidence from his wife, who also provided a letter of support.[33] She gave oral evidence consistent with the Applicant’s version, that is, the first time he breached the order it was because she called him to get medicine for their son. She said the second time she had applied to change the order to a ‘limited order’ and that she went to court to rectify this. She said her husband has not done anything wrong and he is not a bad man. She also gave evidence that she was slapped by her husband, and that she told police it was a slap.
[33] Ibid 219.
The Applicant’s neighbour also provided a letter of support, stating that he has known the Applicant for four years. The witness stated that the Applicant is a wonderful person, who is very helpful. The witness stated that the Applicant told him that he regrets the incident with his partner and is sorry for what happened.
Respondent’s contentions
The Respondent contends that the Tribunal should not be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act, and that the decision under review should be affirmed.[34] This is for the following reasons:
[34] Exhibit R2 [20], [31].
The Applicant’s conduct
The Respondent accepts that the Applicant did not receive convictions for either of his court appearances and acknowledges that therefore the Tribunal is precluded from having regard to the fact of his charge and court outcome that was imposed.[35]
[35] Ibid [21].
The Respondent submits however that the Tribunal, as a decision-maker exercising administrative powers under the Act, can have regard to the conduct underlying those charges, and can find, on the available evidence, that the conduct occurred despite the fact that no conviction was recorded.[36] The Respondent contends that the contemporaneous statements of the police officers who attended the incident and the Applicant’s admissions in his record of interview provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for the Tribunal to conclude that the Applicant engaged in family violence.[37] This should weigh heavily against a finding that the Applicant is of good character.[38]
[36] Ibid [22].
[37] Ibid [23].
[38] Ibid [24].
Citizenship application form
The Respondent notes that the Applicant answered ‘No’ to the 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)?’ At the time of this declaration, the Applicant had three findings of guilt recorded against him. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s answer constitutes the provision of false information to the Department which is inconsistent with a finding that that the Applicant is of good character.[39]
[39] Ibid [25].
Consideration of the Applicant’s mitigating circumstances
The Respondent has had regard to the Applicant’s contributions to the community in the form of work and study as noted by the materials relied upon by the Applicant.[40]
[40] Ibid [28].
The Respondent notes however that that Applicant has not appeared to have taken responsibility for his conduct and has downplayed the seriousness of it.[41] The Applicant maintained that he jokingly slapped his wife gently on the cheek, which is in stark contrast to the contemporaneous police statements and record of interview. The Respondent submits that this should weigh against a finding that the Applicant is of good character.[42]
[41] Ibid [27].
[42] Ibid [27.2].
Insufficient time has passed
Finally, the Respondent notes that the latest matter recorded on the Applicant’s criminal history states that the matter was adjourned to 25 September 2023. The Respondent contends that insufficient time has passed for the Applicant to prove that he is of good character without this supervision.[43]
[43] Ibid [30].
CONSIDERATION
The primary issue the Tribunal needs to determine is whether it can be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at the time of its decision. For the following reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at this time.
The Applicant appeared before the Dandenong Magistrates’ Court on two occasions in 2022. On each occasion the Applicant was sentenced to a non-conviction disposition. In accordance with the relevant authorities, the Tribunal has not taken into account the charges and the court outcome that was imposed in respect of those charges.[44]
[44] WKBFv Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 465 [10].
The Tribunal has however considered the conduct that the Applicant has engaged in based on the material before it. This is consistent with the authorities and in particular, the reasoning of her Honour Justice Collier in Chiagozie v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs.[45] In that case, the Court was considering whether in was open to the Tribunal to make a finding that an applicant had acted in a violent manner towards his former partner in circumstances where the applicant was not convicted of any offence:[46]
Plainly there was evidence before the Tribunal, set out at [215]-[232], which could support its findings concerning the claimed domestic violence on the part of the applicant towards his then partner. This included evidence of the applicant himself, evidence of the former partner, various summonsed material, a Department of Family and Community Services report, the existence at some point of an AVO against the applicant, and the applicant’s concession that he had engaged in family violence programs.
I am satisfied that the Tribunal’s findings concerning the applicant and claims of family violence perpetrated by him were open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it. This is notwithstanding the absence of a formal conviction of the applicant under the criminal law in respect of such claims. The authorities are clear that the Tribunal can make its own findings in respect of evidence before it concerning such matters, and not be reliant on a formal conviction.
[45] [2023] FCA 139 (‘Chiagozie’).
[46] Chiagozie [43]-[44].
In reaching its findings regarding the Applicant’s character in this case, the Tribunal has had regard to the following material which was obtained by the Respondent from Victoria Police under summons on 15 August 2024:[47]
[47] Exhibit R1, 195.
(a)Statement of alleged facts contained in the Victoria Police brief which stated that on the evening of 20 November 2021:[48]
[48] Ibid 203.
(i)The Applicant, victim and four young children were at home. The Applicant asked the victim to take away the children’s devices and get them ready for bed, but the victim was not listening.
(ii)The Applicant then slapped the victim with an open palm, connecting with her face.
(iii)The Applicant then punched the victim with a closed fist, connecting with her face.
(iv)The witness (being the couple’s child) called triple zero from the victim’s mobile phone.
(v)On police arrival, the victim showed police photos on her mobile phone of injuries sustained to her and the children that were caused by the Applicant. The injuries included bruising and whip marks.
(vi)The victim did not wish to provide a statement, nor a statement of no complaint. The victim just wanted to police to give the Applicant a warning for his behaviour towards her and the children.
(vii)The Applicant was conveyed to Dandenong Police Station and was interviewed.
(viii)The Applicant was served with a Family Violence Safety Notice with full conditions and was released pending summons.
(b)Record of interview conducted between the Applicant and Constable Rymer and First Constable Stanley of Victoria Police on 20 November 2021. The Tribunal has viewed this material in full. During the record of interview, the Applicant made the following admissions:[49]
[49] Exhibit R3.
(i)He had a migraine, and very bad sleep that night and that he had slapped his wife and punched her.[50]
[50] Ibid 0.03:55.
(ii)He slapped her one time in the face.[51]
[51] Ibid 0.04:04.
(iii)He punched her one time in the face.[52]
[52] Ibid 0.04:13.
(iv)He did because she didn’t listen and she shut him down.[53]
[53] Ibid 0.04:25.
(v)The children saw this incident happen.[54]
[54] Ibid 0.05:05.
(vi)He has hit his children before.[55] He gave an example of hitting his older son over his screen time, and his son wouldn’t give back the phone. This has happened more than one time. He slapped him and hit him with the charger.[56]
[55] Ibid 0.05:25.
[56] Ibid 0.06:56.
(c)Statement of Constable Ellen Rymer dated 8 December 2021[57] which stated:
[57] Exhibit R1, 208-10.
(i)She was performing divisional van duties with another police member on 20 November 2021, when they were alerted to an assault. While travelling to the address, the operator notified them that a child present at the address had made a call to triple zero.[58]
[58] Ibid 208 [2].
(ii)When they arrived at the address, she spoke with the victim. The victim told her that over the last 10 years the accused had been hitting and slapping her and the children. The victim told her that tonight the accused had slapped her face once and punched her face once. Constable Rymer stated that she could not see any visible injuries to the victim or the children.[59]
[59] Ibid 208-9 [4]-[5].
(iii)She explained to the victim that the Applicant would need to be taken back to the police station, but that the victim did not want that to happen. She just wanted police to give him a warning and tell him to ‘stop it’.[60]
[60] Ibid 209 [6].
(iv)The victim then showed Constable Rymer photos on her mobile phone depicting various injuries the victim said was caused by the Applicant. The victim stated that some of the photos were of the children but did not elaborate further.[61]
[61] Ibid 209 [7].
(v)The victim declined to make a written statement or to send the photos to police.[62]
(vi)Police conveyed the Applicant to the police station where he was interviewed in relation to the allegations and served with a Family Violence Safety Notice with full conditions.[63]
(d)Statement of First Constable Nicholas Stanley:[64]
(i)First Constable Stanley stated that he attended the premises with Constable Rymer on 20 November 2021.[65]
(ii)He spoke with the Applicant who told him he had an argument with his wife, that he had slapped her because he was upset and had a headache.[66]
(iii)The Applicant stated that he also punched his wife after he had slapped her, and that he had used his right hand to inflict both strikes, and that they connected with the victim’s face.[67]
(iv)The Applicant stated that this incident occurred in the kitchen area and that all the children were present or within proximity to the incident when it occurred.[68]
(v)The above admissions were recorded on First Constable’s Stanley body worn camera.[69]
[62] Ibid 209 [8].
[63] Ibid 210 [11].
[64] Ibid 211-2. This statement appears to be a three-page statement, but page three is not within the bundle of materials.
[65] Ibid 211 [2]-[4].
[66] Ibid 211 [5].
[67] Ibid 212 [6].
[68] Ibid 212 [7].
[69] Ibid 212 [6].
On the basis of the material referred to above, and in particular, the Applicant’s own admissions in his record of interview, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant engaged in an act of family violence on the evening of 20 November 2021. This weighs very heavily against a finding that the Applicant is of good character. The incident on 20 November involved the Applicant inflicting a punch and a slap which connected with his wife’s face. The incident was witnessed by the couple’s children resulting in the eldest child calling triple zero. Police deemed the incident serious enough for the Applicant to be transported that evening to the police station. The Applicant made full admissions to the offending and police served him with a Family Violence Safety Notice with full conditions.
The Tribunal has taken into account the Applicant’s wife’s letter of support and her oral evidence to the Tribunal. Her evidence is consistent with that of her husband. The Tribunal accepts that his wife still supports her husband. However, in relation to the events that unfolded on the evening of 20 November 2021, the Tribunal prefers the independent and corroborated evidence of the police officers who attended the scene and who interviewed the Applicant. The Applicant’s admissions to punching and slapping his wife were not only made during the police record of interview, but these admissions were also made in the presence of First Constable Stanley and captured on his body worn camera. Even if the Tribunal accepts that the Applicant was nervous, the Applicant made these admissions, without prompting, and provided a narrative of what occurred. Likewise, the Applicant’s wife version to police on the evening of 20 November was that she was slapped and punched by the Applicant.
The Tribunal has also taken into account the many letters in support of the Applicant. The Applicant’s neighbour described him as ‘helpful’ and ‘friendly’. He said the Applicant has discussed the incident with him and ‘he is so sorry and regretful for what happened.’[70] The two letters of support from his former and current employer do not refer at all to the incident. It is not clear to the Tribunal that they are aware of his offending conduct. The remaining letters of support pre-date the family violence incident and refer to his hard-working and reliable nature.[71] The letter from the Applicant’s psychotherapist dated 20 September 2023 stated that the Applicant has no signs of PTSD.[72] She stated the Applicant ‘has currently a healthy thought process and his experience growing up in a war situation with the subsequent devastation and financial hardship is something of the past and he is focussed on the present and the future with the best interest of his family.’[73]
[70] Ibid 218.
[71] Ibid 91, 92.
[72] Ibid 104.
[73] Ibid.
The Tribunal has had regard to the policy guidance in CPI 15 in particular paragraph 12.1 of that guidance and considers that the Applicant’s conduct can be appropriately regarded as a serious offence due to its violent nature.[74]
[74] Ibid 170.
The Tribunal has weighed the information available to it in the form of police statements and the Applicant’s record of interview and has considered whether there are any mitigating circumstances as outline in CPI 15 at paragraph 14. The Tribunal has considered, amongst other matters, the length of time since the offence was committed, behaviour since completing obligations to the court, remorse regarding the offending behaviour, and community support.
It is noted that the conduct occurred in November 2021. The Applicant has provided a Statutory Declaration dated 12 December 2023, in which he states ‘my wife and I regret that there was a reported incident designated as family violence and now this matter has been resolved and now my wife and my children are living together happily.’[75] He stated that he ‘tapped her on the cheek.’[76] He told the Tribunal that the first breach was an ‘emergency’ and the second breach was a ‘mistake’.
[75] Ibid 87.
[76] Ibid.
He stated that he completed the Men’s Behaviour Change program as directed by the Magistrate, though he did not really need the sessions.[77]
[77] Ibid 88.
The Tribunal does not consider that sufficient time has passed since the conduct occurred, nor that the Applicant is remorseful for his behaviour. The Tribunal has weighed up these factors and considers that the Applicant cannot be considered to be of good character at this time for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
The Tribunal has also considered the Applicant’s false declaration on his citizenship application form lodged on 30 May 2023. Under ‘Character declarations’ is the 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)?’ to which the Applicant answered No.[78] When submitting the form, the Applicant was asked to declare that ‘The information they have supplied in this form is complete, truthful and correct in every detail’.[79] The Applicant agreed with this declaration, despite the fact he had not declared his findings of guilt. The Tribunal has considered this matter carefully but has determined not to afford this false declaration any weight in its consideration of the Applicant’s character.
[78] Ibid 44.
[79] Ibid 52.
The Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant is presently of good character on the basis of his prior family violence conduct. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has not displayed appropriate insight or remorse regarding his offending. It is acknowledged that the Applicant completed a Men’s Behaviour Change program which is to his credit, but notes with concern his comments in his Statutory Declaration that he ‘did not really need them (the sessions)’ but still completed it as directed by the Magistrate.[80]
[80] Ibid 216.
CONCLUSION
Paragraph 3.3 of CPI 15 provides that the good character requirements necessitates a consideration of an applicant viewed in a holistic way.[81] The words ‘good character’ are to be given their ordinary meaning, namely the enduring moral qualities of a person.[82] CPI 15 provides guidance on the phrase ‘enduring moral qualities’ which is said to encompass concepts such as characteristics which have endured over a long period of time and conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.[83]
[81] Ibid 162.
[82] Ibid 162 citing Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422, 431-2.
[83] Ibid 162.
In the Applicant’s case, the Tribunal does not consider the Applicant has demonstrated these characteristics by reason of his family violence conduct and his attitude towards it. In the Tribunal’s view, insufficient time has passed since the conduct for the Applicant to demonstrate he is of good character at this time.
The Tribunal has considered and given appropriate weight to the matters in the Applicant’s favour. The Tribunal acknowledges the Applicant’s consistent work history, letters of support and contribution to the community through this employment and volunteer work.
Weighing against this however is the serious nature of the Applicant’s conduct. The nature of the conduct, being family violence, is a serious matter.

The Tribunal does not consider that sufficient time has lapsed for the Applicant to have demonstrated he is presently of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of Act.
For the above reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant is of good character at the time of its decision.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Date of hearing: 30 April 2025

Applicant: In person

Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Mary Baras-Miller

Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

Date of hearing:	30 April 2025
Applicant:	In person
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Mary Baras-Miller
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor