Ramazani and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for citizenship by conferral by Mr Ramazani, who sought review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse his application. The refusal was based on the delegate's dissatisfaction that Mr Ramazani was of good character, as required by section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), due to the provision of incorrect and misleading information in his applications for a protection visa and for Australian citizenship. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was tasked with reviewing this decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it was satisfied that Mr Ramazani was of good character at the time of his citizenship application. This question arose from inconsistencies in the information Mr Ramazani had provided regarding his brother. Specifically, in his protection visa application and subsequent citizenship application, Mr Ramazani stated his brother had been killed by the Taliban in 2005, a fact used to support his protection claims. However, on an Incoming Passenger Card upon his return to Australia in 2013, he listed this same brother as an emergency contact, and departmental records indicated they resided at the same address and shared contact details.

The Tribunal considered submissions that Mr Ramazani had no reason to provide incorrect information and that any discrepancies arose from his ignorance, simplicity, and the manner in which his interviews and forms were conducted, including the "copying over" of information without verification and inaccurate translations. It was argued that Mr Ramazani had since upheld Australian law and values, was a law-abiding resident, and was well-respected in his community. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's legal representative conceded there were discrepancies regarding his brother and his date of birth, and that the explanation that information was copied over was an assumption. The Tribunal ultimately found that Mr Ramazani had provided false and misleading statements regarding his brother, demonstrating a propensity to deceive when advantageous, and therefore was not satisfied he was of good character.