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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by Mr Rahman, who was seeking to satisfy the good character requirement under paragraph 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The decision maker had refused the application, and the applicant sought review of that decision. The Deputy President of the Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was a person of good character.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the "good character" requirement for citizenship. This involved considering the applicant's background, including a criminal conviction and sentence from approximately ten years prior, alongside his subsequent conduct and positive life circumstances. The Tribunal was guided by case law, particularly *Boy19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2019] FCA 574, which established that "good character" refers to enduring moral qualities rather than community standing, and requires a discretionary value judgment based on all relevant factual matters. The Tribunal also considered its own policy, which directs consideration of family life, stable home environment, responsible employment, tax compliance, and community work, as part of an overall assessment that includes offending behaviour but also positive aspects of a person's life.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had a serious conviction for an offence committed some ten years prior, for which he served a prison sentence, there was no evidence of further offending since his release. The Tribunal noted that all other evidence pointed towards the applicant being a hard-working and law-abiding member of the community. He had consistently supported his family in Bangladesh, visited them when possible, maintained stable employment since 2015, and purchased a home with plans to reunite his family in Australia. The Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's psychological treatment for anxiety stemming from his separation from his family. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that it could form an affirmative belief that the applicant was a person of good character, despite the past offending, by weighing all the positive aspects of his life against the single, albeit serious, past offence.

The Tribunal set aside the original decision and remitted the matter to the department for reconsideration of the citizenship application.