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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by the Applicant, RBRF, which was refused by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The refusal was based on the Delegate's finding that the Applicant was not of "good character" as required by paragraph 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). This conclusion was reached because the Delegate found the Applicant had provided false and misleading information in his application for a Protection visa and an earlier provisional Partner visa. Specifically, the Applicant had claimed his mother was deceased when she was alive and living in Australia, and that he had no siblings when he had a sister living in Turkey.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant satisfied the "good character" requirement for citizenship by conferral. This involved determining whether the provision of false and misleading information in previous visa applications, particularly concerning his family status, rendered him a person not of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on his citizenship application. The Tribunal was required to consider the legislative framework of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth), which outlines the eligibility criteria for citizenship by conferral, including the mandatory requirement to be of good character.

The Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision, finding that the Applicant had indeed provided false and misleading information in his visa applications. The Tribunal reasoned that the deliberate misrepresentation of significant personal details, such as the status of his mother and the existence of a sibling, demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity. This conduct was considered to be inconsistent with the character attributes expected of an Australian citizen, thereby failing to meet the "good character" requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant had not established that he was a person of good character at the time of the Minister's decision.