RAHMAT and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship)

[2025] ARTA 2223

RAHMAT and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 2223 (24 October 2025)

Applicant/s:  Sayed RAHMAT

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number:                2024/10967

Tribunal:General Member A. Maryniak KC

Place:Melbourne

Date:24 October 2025

Decision:  The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.....................[SGD]......................

General Member A. Maryniak KC

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – whether the Applicant is of good character pursuant to section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – Tribunal not satisfied in its evaluative judgement that the Applicant is of good character pursuant to section 21(2)(h) – reviewable decision affirmed.

Legislation

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Cases

BOY19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCA 574

Dawlatshahi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 2437

Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 231 FCR 128

Secondary Materials

Citizenship Policy Instruction 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15)

Statement of Reasons

1. The Applicant seeks review of a decision of 5 December 2024 pursuant to section 24(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’) refusing his application for citizenship by conferral. The sole issue before the Tribunal is whether, pursuant to section 21(2)(h) of the Act, the Applicant is of good character.

   BACKGROUND

2. The Applicant is a citizen of Afghanistan aged 43, currently living in Victoria, having first arrived in Australia in January 2001, aged 19. The Applicant spent six months in an immigration detention centre and following his release was granted a Temporary Protection Visa (‘TPV’) for three years before being granted a permanent residence visa in February 2005.[1]

   [1] Respondent’s T-documents lodged on 23 January 2025 pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (‘T-docs’) at T10, p 174.

3. On 15 December 2022, the Applicant sought Australian citizenship by conferral pursuant to the general eligibility provisions of the Act.[2]

   [2] Ibid at T7, pp 132-152.

4. On 5 December 2024, the delegate refused the Applicant’s citizenship application on the basis that he did not satisfy the good character requirement of section 21(2)(h) of the Act.[3]

   [3] Ibid at T2, pp 11-12.

5. On 22 December 2024, the Applicant sought review of his refusal decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal.[4]

   [4] Ibid at T1, pp 1-10.

   CONSIDERATION

6. At issue is whether the Applicant is of ‘good character’ pursuant to section 21(2)(h) of the Act.

7. The Tribunal has considered the documentary material lodged by the parties, the testimony of the Applicant, who was cross-examined and questioned by the Tribunal and the submissions of the parties. During the Applicant’s testimony, assisted by a Dari interpreter, the Applicant essentially accepted the history of his prior offending, which commenced in May 2005, just over four years after he arrived in Australia. In respect of some details which he could not recall precisely, due to the fact that he was drunk (or high) at the time of offending, he nonetheless accepted that the offending, in particular the domestic violence against his wife (who he is now separated from), did occur.

8. In light of such testimony, it is convenient to adopt and set out below the Respondent’s table outlining the history of offending, which on the evidence before the Tribunal is established:[5]

   [5] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (‘RSFIC’), pp 1-2 at para [2].

Date	Event	Reference
22 May 2005	The Applicant received numerous fines for various traffic offences in the Burwood Local Court, including: Fail to display “L” on car as required, for which the Applicant received a fine of $100; Learner not accompanied by driver/police officer/tester, for which the Applicant received a fine of $100; and Disobey no right turn sign-motor vehicle, for which the Applicant received a fine of $200.	T10, page 183
31 October 2014	The Applicant is convicted in the Shepparton Magistrate’s Court of the following offences: Unlawful assault (2 counts); Contra-fam violence intervention order – int harm/fear; Contravene family violence order. The Applicant was sentenced to a Community Correction Order for 12 months and ordered to perform 75 hours of unpaid community work. The Applicant also appeared before the Court for possess cannabis however without conviction and adjourned to 30 October 2015.	T10, page 183
10 April 2018	The Applicant is convicted in the Shepparton Magistrates Court of wilfully damage property – contra-fam violence intervention order – int. harm/fear. The Applicant is sentenced to a Community Correction Order for 12 months.	T10, page 183
14 July 2020	The Applicant is convicted of the following offences in the Shepparton Magistrates Court: Contra-fam violence intervention order int harm/fear; Contra-fam violence final intervention order; Unlawful assault; and Fail to answer bail (2 charges). The Applicant was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for 18 months and ordered to undertake 100 hours of community work. The Applicant was also convicted of wilfully damage property contra-fam violence intervention order int harm/fear (breach re 10 April 2018) and was sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for 12 months. The offence of contravene community correction order was proven.	T10, page 183
28 January 2022	The Applicant is convicted in the Bendigo Magistrates Court of the following offences: Breach re 14/07/2020 contra-fam violence intervention order – int harm/fear; Contra-fam violence final intervention order; Unlawful assault; and Fail to answer bail (2 charges).	T10, page 183

1. The applicable legal principles were considered by the predecessor to this Tribunal, as presently constituted, in Dawlatshahi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 2437 at [4] to [13]. Such analysis is relevant to this application for review and for convenience it is set out below:

   4. Pursuant to s. 24(1A) of the Act, the Minister (and hence now the Tribunal) must not approve an application for Australian citizenship unless the Applicant satisfies the relevant eligibility requirement under s. 21 of the Act; apropos this review, s. 21(2)(h). The Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applicant is of ‘good character’ at the time of this decision by forming an “opinion requiring an evaluative judgement” and by reaching “an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character” BOY19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCA 574 at [54]-[55].

   5. In determining ‘good character’ the Tribunal is to look holistically at an applicant’s behaviour over time to be satisfied of ‘enduring moral qualities’ within the prospective Australian citizen. Such phrase, as guided by the Citizenship Policy Instruction 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI), encompasses the following:

   (a) Characteristics which have been demonstrated over a long period of time;

   (b) Distinguishing right from wrong; and

   (c) Behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.

   6. CPI 15 further sets out examples of characteristics of a person of good character and they do not include those who practice deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government or other organisations. For example, intentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents); or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications.

   7. Section 50 of the Act provides that it is an offence to deliberately make, or cause to make, a false or misleading statement, or conceal circumstances in relation to an application for Australian citizenship.

   8. The Tribunal is to consider a range of events and conduct connected with the Applicant: Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 231 FCR 128 at [60].

   9. Justice O’Bryan in BOY19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCA 574, engaged in a substantial analysis of the meaning of ‘good character’ in this context. Since not defined, the Parliament intended the term to be used in a broad way:

   (a) One looks to the enduring moral qualities of a person and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community, although the latter may provide evidence of the former;

   (b) It does not have a fixed and precise content;

   (c) It imports a discretionary value judgement to be made by reference to undefined factual matters confined only by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statutory provisions; and

   (d) It requires judgement as to whether any proven deficiencies in the moral qualities of a person are sufficient to deny the person citizenship.

   10. Justice O’Bryan accepted that “[t]he subject matter, scope and purpose of the Act is informed by its Preamble which states:

   The Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.

   The Parliament recognises that persons conferred Australian citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations:

   (a) By pledging loyalty to Australia and its people;

   (b) By sharing their democratic beliefs;

   (c) By respecting their rights and liberties; and

   (d) By upholding and obeying the laws of Australia.

   These ideals of diversity, democracy and liberty are to be assessed “by moral qualities that are regarded as a necessary concomitant of Australian citizenship”.

   11. As to the ‘satisfied’ requirement in s. 21(2)(h) of the Act, the word:

   “is not amenable to the application of an evidentiary burden of proof, such as the balance of probabilities... the decision is an administrative decision to which the rules of evidence are inapplicable, and the evidentiary burden of proof inapposite... the applicant’s good character, is not a fact to be proved but an opinion requiring an evaluative judgement. A standard of proof, such as balance of probabilities, is incapable of application to such an opinion”.

   “The absence of an evidentiary burden of proof does not mean there is an absence of a legal standard of satisfaction. In the context... satisfaction requires that the decision-maker reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character. It is not sufficient for the decision-maker to believe that there is a chance that the applicant is a person of good character; equally, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to have a high degree of confidence that the applicant is a person of good character”.

   12. The decision making power is therefore to be exercised reasonably.

   13. Part of the task is to assess the relative weight to be given to conduct that reflects positively or negatively on the Applicant’s character.

2. Section 52(1)(b) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review decisions made under section 24 of the Act.

3. The Citizenship Procedural Instruction No.15 (‘CPI 15’) contains relevant guidance in respect of making decisions as to good character.

4. As set out in Part 3.3 of CPI 15, Australia adopts a zero-tolerance policy with respect to domestic violence, specifying that:

   “domestic violence...in any form is not acceptable in the Australian community. Behaviour that impinges on the safety of, or creates fear in the community, is not acceptable. Persons taking part in, or condoning, such activities do not respect the rights and liberties of others in the community.”

5. Moreover, Part 4 of CPI 15 sets out the characteristics that are generally expected of a person considered to be of good character, providing that:

   As a general proposition, a person who is of good character would:

   ·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;

   ...

   ·not be violent, involved in illegal drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example multiple and/or repeated instances of recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without a licence).

6. Finally, Part 12 of CPI 15 provides that violent crimes, including domestic violence offences, are classified as serious offences.

7. The Applicant submits he has been in Australia since 2001 and is “in need of citizenship” and maintains that his offending is in the past and mostly a consequence of him being drunk.  He says he stopped drinking alcohol a couple of years ago, and his intention is to abstain from it, but “as to what happens tomorrow, I don’t know”. The Tribunal acknowledges that his last offending, involving inter alia, serious domestic violence and breaching an existing family violence order, occurred just over 5 years ago. However, this is in the context of numerous prior episodes of domestic violence offending, often with his children present, in January 2019, 2018, and 2014. This offending was serious and involved violence against his wife including choking her, punching her and dragging her by the hair.[6]

   [6] Ibid, p. 8 at para [21(b), (e)].

8. By his testimony, it is clear that the Applicant has some remorse for his offending behaviour. However, this is limited by his misconceived view that what had occurred between him and his wife was more a private matter, that alcohol was a major reason for his offending and a subtle thread in his testimony that lay some of the blame for his offending with the victim.

9. The Tribunal also notes the various contraventions the Applicant made to the various Community Corrections Orders which have been imposed on him over the years.[7] Whilst the Applicant has engaged in some rehabilitation efforts,[8] it is clear from his testimony that his insight into his offending still needs further development, particularly where such domestic violence offending is viewed so seriously in Australia.

   [7] Respondent’s Supplementary Bundle of Selected Summons Material (‘SB1’) pp 5-8.

   [8] n 5 (‘RSFIC’), pp 12-15 at paras [42] to [49].

10. The Tribunal accepts the character references given on behalf of the Applicant which do suggest that he has turned a corner and is now developing qualities which may well be the basis for a finding in the future as to his good character.[9]

    [9] n 1 (‘T-docs), pp 187-190.

11. However, in light of the Applicant’s history and frequency of domestic violence offending and the limitations in his insight and rehabilitation, the Tribunal is not satisfied in its evaluative judgement that the Applicant is of good character pursuant to section 21(2)(h) of the Act.  On the evidence, both holistically and objectively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant at present has the requisite enduring moral qualities for good character.

12. This decision should not deter the Applicant from continuing his efforts to live a better life and continue to make positive contributions to the Australian community as it is open to him to make a further application for Australian citizenship in the future, should he choose to do so.

    DECISION

13. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

    ....................[SGD]......................

    General Member A. Maryniak KC

    24 October 2025

Date of hearing:	9 and 10 October 2025
Applicant:	Mr Sayed Rahmat
Respondent:	Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Respondent’s solicitor:	Emma Letcher-Boldt of Clayton Utz