Rozario and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) - [2017] AATA 2288

Rozario and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2017] AATA 2288 (22 November 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2017/0463
Re:Ashley Rozario
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

Date:22 November 2017
Place:Melbourne

The decision under review is affirmed.
........................................................................
Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
CITIZENSHIP – whether applicant is of good character at the time of decision – applicant unable to obtain overseas penal clearance – failure to report for mandatory national service – failure to obtain exit permit – applicant liable for prosecution in Singapore – verifiable information casting character doubts – decision affirmed
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
Irving v Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 663; (2009) 68 FCR 422; (2009) 139 ALR 84
Drake & Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Ethnic Affairs (No.2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304; (2011) 55 AAR 94; (2011) 121 ALD 372
Rajaratnasarma v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 406 (24 June 2014)
Secondary Materials
Citizenship Policy, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 1 June 2016
Enlistment Act 2001 (Republic of Singapore), (Chapter 93), version in force 1 June 2015
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
22 November 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION

On 4 August 2015 Mr Ashley Rozario applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.[1] His application was refused on 25 January 2017 by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, because the delegate found Mr Rozario did not satisfy the good character requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act).[2] Mr Rozario has applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision.[3]
[1] T-documents numbering 128 pages dated 28 February 2017, hereafter referred to as Exhibit R1, pp.88-112.
[2] Exhibit R1, pp.13-23.
[3] Exhibit R1, pp.4-12.
For the reasons that follow, the decision under review is affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Mr Rozario was born in Singapore on 23 February 1992.[4] He first arrived in Australia in December 1997 and has travelled between Singapore and Australia on subsequent occasions. On 28 February 2008, Mr Rozario was granted a permanent Skilled – Australian-Sponsored (Subclass 138) Visa.[5]
[4] Exhibit R1, p.108.
[5] Respondent’s Amended Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 12 September 2017.
In January 2011 Mr Rozario’s parents and younger sister migrated to Australia, while he remained in Singapore to complete his studies at the Polytechnic. During 2011-2012 Mr Rozario resided with his two brothers in the family home in Singapore. In November 2012 Mr Rozario joined his parents and sister in Australia and has not departed since. Although he is the holder of a Singaporean Passport, it expired on 2 October 2014 and has not been renewed.[6]
[6] Exhibit R1, p.89.
In response to the question on his citizenship application: ‘Are you aware of any proceedings pending against you overseas or in Australia for an offence, including proceedings by way of appeal or review,’ Mr Rozario ticked the ‘No’ box.[7] In accordance with Part F of his application, Mr Rozario was required to attach a penal clearance certificate from Singapore as evidence that he did not have any record of criminal convictions.[8] A penal clearance certificate is known in Singapore as a Certificate of Clearance (COC), and applications for a COC are managed centrally by the Singapore Police Force (SPF).[9]
[7] Exhibit R1, p.96.
[8] Exhibit R1, p.96, paragraph 34.
[9] The application portal is available online at: accessed on 18 October 2017.
In August and September 2015 Mr Rozario was reminded by officers of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department), that in order to complete his application, a COC from Singapore was required.[10] He was also informed that a statutory declaration from him was insufficient evidence regarding the absence of criminal convictions in Singapore.[11]
[10] Exhibit R1, p.19.
[11] Exhibit R1, p.113.
On 12 October 2015, Mr Rozario advised the Department that Singaporean authorities had refused his application for a COC because he did not have a valid Passport.[12] He said his passport renewal had previously been rejected on the grounds that he had not reported for mandatory National Service. Mr Rozario contended that, in these circumstances, there was ‘no possibility’ the Government of Singapore would issue a COC or renew his passport. He requested a waiver of the COC requirement, stating:
‘I am desperate to have my Australian citizenship as I’m committed to living in Australia as my whole family are here (both my parents are now Australian citizens). I do not possess any valid passport which means I am unable to travel anywhere abroad...’[13]
[12] Exhibit R1, p.114.
[13] Ibid.
On 22 October 2015 and 11 November 2015, Mr Rozario provided the Department with copies of communications he had received from Singaporean authorities.[14] The first was an email from Singapore’s Central Manpower Base (CMPB) to Mr Rozario some two years earlier (dated 18 October 2013), which states in part:
[14] Exhibit R1, p.115-118.
‘…
Under the Enlistment Act, all-male Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents are required to apply for an Exit Permit (EP) from the age of 13 years if they intend to remain outside Singapore for more than three months. They are liable for full-time National Service upon reaching the age of 16.5 years old. Under the Enlistment Act, all-male Singapore Citizens, like yourself, are required to serve full-time National Service (NS).
You have committed offences by failing to report for enlistment into full-time NS on 15 Feb 2013, as well as, remaining outside Singapore without a valid EP. Such offenders shall be liable, upon conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000, or to an imprisonment term not exceeding three years, or both.
Please be advised to return to Singapore to resolve your offences as soon as possible…’ [15]
The second was a letter from the SPF to Mr Rozario dated 30 October 2015, which states in part:
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF CLEARANCE (COC)
1. Please refer to your application for a COC dated 21 October 2015.
2. We regret to inform you that we are unable to issue you with the COC at the moment as you have outstanding matters with CMPB. [16]
...
[15] Exhibit R1, p.116.
[16] Exhibit R1, p.118.
On 29 April 2016 the Department received further correspondence from Mr Rozario, enclosing a Statutory Declaration addressing his failure to complete National Service in Singapore.[17] He stated that he had not fulfilled his National Service obligations because he wanted to continue his tertiary studies in Australia. He said that his parents and siblings were residing permanently in Australia and he ‘did not want to be left on [his] own in Singapore for another two years.’ Mr Rozario also added:
‘I would like to state that my failure to complete National service stems largely from my own beliefs against COMPULSORY military training.’ (emphasis in original)
[17] Exhibit R1, p.121.
At the hearing Mr Rozario agreed this was the first occasion in any of his correspondence with the Department that he had referred to conscientious objection as a reason for not complying with his National Service obligations. In his application to the Tribunal,[18] Mr Rozario made no reference to conscientious objection. He stated that his decision to depart Singapore ‘was a choice [he] made at the time,’ because he wanted to continue his studies in Australia, and to re-unite with his parents after spending two years separated from them.
[18] Exhibit R1, p.10.
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 satisfy each of the eight general eligibility requirements at section 21(2) of the Act. Relevantly for this matter, Section 21(2)(h) requires that the Minister is satisfied the person applying to become an Australian citizen ‘is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.’
Section 24(1A) of the Act provides that the Minister (or a person delegated by the Minister under section 53 of the Act), ‘…must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).’
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
It is agreed between the parties that Mr Rozario satisfies the other legislative requirements of section 21 and that the only issue in dispute relates to section 21(2)(h) of the Act. It follows that the issue for determination is whether I am satisfied at the time of this decision that Mr Rozario is of good character within the meaning of the Act.
CITIZENSHIP POLICY
Good character is not defined in the Act and consequently, the Citizenship Policy (the Policy)[19] has been promulgated by the Minister to guide the interpretation of and exercise of powers under the Act. Chapter 11 of the Policy provides guidance for decision-makers ‘on the administration of the ‘good character’ provisions under the Act and to define, for administrative purposes, the meaning of ‘good character.’[20] Although Ministerial policy is not binding on the Tribunal, as held in Drake,[21] decision-makers undertaking merits review should generally apply such policy unless it is unlawful or ‘there are cogent reasons to the contrary.’ I am satisfied there is no reason why the Policy should not be applied in this matter. In applying the provisions of the Act and the Policy, I am mindful of the need not to do so inflexibly, but to consider the exercise of delegated powers based on the specific circumstances and merits of Mr Rozario’s case.
[19] Citizenship Policy, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, dated 1 June 2016, available at: accessed on 30 September 2017.
[20] Policy, p.144
[21] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
In relation to what constitutes ‘good character,’ Chapter 11 of the Policy refers to:
‘…the enduring moral qualities of a person, and is an indication of whether an applicant is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia and the other commitments made through the pledge should they be approved for citizenship.
Chapter 11 explains that:
In this context, ‘moral’ does not have any religious connotations. The phrase ‘enduring moral qualities’ encompasses the following concepts:
·characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time
·distinguishing right from wrong
·behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
The good character requirement looks at the essence of the applicant. Their behaviour is a manifestation of their essential characteristics.[22]
[22] Policy, p.145.
Relevantly, the Policy refers to the demonstration of ‘good enduring / lasting moral qualities’ in the period before an application is made and ‘throughout the migration and citizenship processes.’ Deputy President Forgie’s reference to the Act’s Preamble in Zheng,[23] elaborates upon how decision makers might be assisted in identifying ‘what Australian society considers to be right and proper behaviour for the purpose of assessing good character’:[24]
‘It would seem, then, that the authorities are drawing attention to a person’s ability to know what society considers good, right and proper and to conduct him or herself in a manner that accords with society’s values…
In the context of the Act, loyalty to Australia, a belief in a democratic form of government, a respect for the rights and liberties of all Australians and obedience to and observance of the law are values that are regarded as significant. An assessment of a person’s character will need to have regard to them. They are not values that can be assessed in the abstract. Instead, they are measured in part by what a person says, in part by what a person does and in part by what a person is heard to say and seen to do…’
[23] Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304; (2011) 55 AAR 94; (2011) 121 ALD 372, at [119-120].
[24] Policy, p.146.
Chapter 11 of the Policy states that conferral applicants who have spent 12 months or more outside Australia, and more than 90 days in any one country since becoming a permanent resident, need to provide an overseas penal clearance certificate from each country.[25] This reflects the requirement at Part F of the Application for Citizenship. In Mr Rozario’s case he was born in Singapore, spent most of his life there, and resided in Singapore for almost two years since being granted a permanent Australian visa and turning 18.[26] The requirement for an overseas penal certificate from Singapore therefore applies to him. The Policy also makes provision for applicants who are unable to obtain police clearances, with ‘procedures for dealing with these cases set out in PAM3: Sch4/4001 Penal checking procedures.’ I have had regard to extracts of this policy, which were also made available to the Applicant and his legal representatives, but are subject to a Tribunal Direction relating to confidentiality under section 35(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
[25] Policy, p.151.
[26] Statutory Declaration from Mr Ashley Rozario dated 24 April 2017.
The Policy also provides a non-exhaustive list of characteristics which a person of good character would have. Relevantly for this matter, two of the ten requirements are the need to:
(a) ‘respect and abide by the law of Australia and other countries’; and
(b) ‘not be the subject of any verifiable information causing character doubts.’[27]
[27] Policy, p.147.
Under the heading of ‘Weighing up the character decision,’ the Policy states:
Essentially, the question for decision makers is whether any mitigating circumstances and/or explanation provided by the applicant outweigh the behaviour in question. The assessment about whether an applicant is of “good character” requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. Decision makers should place more weight on significant offences.
In weighing up the various factors, the decision maker must not apply their own personal standards, but must apply community standards. Having regard to the words of the Preamble, and the pledge to be made if citizenship is approved, decision makers are asking themselves:
·would a person of good character have behaved the way the applicant did
·what is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law
·has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia's community standards
·does the applicant share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties.[28]
[28] Policy, pp.149-150.
It is clear, from the Policy and the other authorities referred to, that respecting the law in Australia and other countries is a very important factor to consider when deciding if a person is of good character. Moreover, the existence of verifiable information causing character doubts would similarly weigh upon my consideration of Mr Rozario’s character.
WITNESS EVIDENCE
Evidence of Mr Rozario
I have had regard for Mr Rozario’s Statutory Declarations dated 14 April 2016,[29] 24 April 2017,[30] and 7 August 2017.[31] Mr Rozario contends that he has not committed any criminal offences in Singapore or Australia, but accepts that he is ‘liable for prosecution in Singapore for his failure to obtain an exit permit in November 2012 and his failure to report for national service on 15 February 2013.’[32]
[29] Exhibit R1, p.121.
[30] Exhibit A1.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 25 August 2017.
At the hearing, Mr Rozario stated he is currently undertaking post-graduate studies, which are due for completion in May 2020. Consistent with his correspondence to the Department and Tribunal, he expresses a desire to travel overseas, but is unable to ‘fulfil this aspiration’ because he no longer has a valid Singaporean passport.[33] He submits that Singaporean authorities will not renew his passport due to ‘outstanding issues,’ particularly his failure to report for and fulfil his mandatory National Service obligations.
[33] Exhibit R1, p.10.
Mr Rozario submits that his objection to military service became apparent at the age of 12 and he has ‘always been against violence.’ When asked why he had not referred to his conscientious objection in initial correspondence with the Department, Mr Rozario said he had not been asked about his personal views and felt the reasons he listed for leaving Singapore were ‘more practical.’
During cross-examination, Mr Rozario stated that he had applied for and received a deferral of his National Service obligations from Singaporean authorities while studying at the Polytechnic, but at the time of requesting that deferral had already decided not to comply with his National Service obligations. In response to questions about the inconsistency of his reasons for leaving Singapore, particularly the delayed reference to conscientious objection, Mr Rozario said he was ‘not used to having government officials take his views into consideration.’ When asked why he didn’t refer to conscientious objection in his application to the Tribunal, which post-dated his advice to the Department, Mr Rozario responded that he ‘wasn’t sure if conscientious objection was a valid reason’ and again stated he was ‘not used to expressing a personal belief to a government body.’
Mr Rozario submitted that notwithstanding his references to continuing study and family reunion as primary reasons for leaving Singapore, these were secondary to his conscientious objection. The Respondent put to Mr Rozario that his late-notice reliance on conscientious objection was intended to enhance his application, which Mr Rozario denied.
It was noted during the hearing that there may be exceptions, exemptions and alternative National Service options provided for in the relevant Singaporean legislation.[34] I gave counsel for the Applicant leave to provide any additional documents and written submissions relating to ‘non-violent’ National Service options, which were subsequently lodged with the Tribunal on 16 October 2017. These confirmed the availability of ‘non-military avenues for performance of National Service in Singapore,’[35] including with the Singapore Civil Defence Force in roles encompassing: Community Engagement Officer; Fire Fighter; Special Rescuer; or Public Transportation Security Officer. Counsel for the Applicant submitted, however, that while a ‘registrant may nominate a preference…the ultimate decision on placement is a matter for the Department.’[36] Moreover, it was submitted that it was first necessary to undergo basic training before proceeding to a ‘non-violent option,’ that the only exception to National Service appears to be on medical grounds, that there was no alternative pacifist-type service option in Singapore comparable to other countries, and that the Applicant’s conscientious objection was ‘not recognised in Singapore.’ In response to questions about whether he had made any enquiries while living in Singapore about alternative National Service options, Mr Rozario said he had not. He did not express an objection to such roles, but submitted that his lack of enquiry related to the ‘uncertainty about getting those positions,’ which he considered ‘was quite unlikely’ and that in any event, he ‘knew what the response would be.’ Mr Rozario made no submissions regarding the exercise of any appeal rights open to him following the rejection of his application for a COC.[37]
[34] The Statutes of the Republic of Singapore, Enlistment Act (Chapter 93), version in force from 1 June 2015, hereafter referred to as Exhibit T1, accessed on 4 October 2017, available at: Applicant’s Submissions dated 13 October 2017.
[36] Ibid, paragraph 6.
[37] accessed on 18 October 2017.

Evidence of Mr Rozario’s family members

Mr Rozario’s father, mother and sister are all Australian citizens and were called to give evidence at the hearing. Key aspects of the evidence from Mr Rozario’s family members follows:
(a)Mr Werner Gerard Rozario (Father of the Applicant): The Statutory Declaration of Mr Werner Rozario dated 28 June 2017 was taken into evidence.[38] He contends that his son had no ‘criminal convictions while residing in Singapore up to the time he left permanently for Australia in November 2012.’ Mr Werner Rozario said that he and his two other sons had completed their National Service in Singapore, but that ‘Ashley had an aversion’ and a ‘negative view’ towards military service since secondary school.
(b)Mrs Jacqueline Marie Rozario (Mother of the Applicant): The Statutory Declaration of Ms Jacqueline Rozario dated 8 June 2017 was taken into evidence.[39] She contended that her son had never had any ‘trouble with the authorities.’ She said that since his teens, ‘Ashley was never happy about the concept of compulsory military service.’
(c)Ms Jayne Marie Rozario (Sister of the Applicant): The Statutory Declaration of Ms Jayne Rozario dated 8 June 2017 was taken into evidence.[40] She contended that her brother exhibited ‘respect for the law and had previously had no trouble with the authorities.’
[38] Exhibit A2.
[39] Exhibit A3.
[40] Exhibit A4.
Referee Reports
In relation to references, the Policy states that:
‘Referee reports can shed light upon an applicant’s character and should acknowledge, where applicable, any offence or other incident and explain why the applicant is nonetheless considered to be of good character. Decision makers should give very little weight to references which do not acknowledge the offence or incident. However, decision makers should note the inherent bias in any reference which is submitted by an applicant in support of their citizenship application.
…’
I have noted the following references submitted in support of Mr Rozario:
(a)Character Reference from Dr Melanie Pritchard dated 18 April 2016.[42] Dr Pritchard did not give evidence at the hearing and was not cross-examined. She was the convenor of Mr Rozario’s Bachelor of Biotechnology Honours course in 2016 and at the time of writing her reference had known him for approximately a year. She refers to Mr Rozario as an ‘upstanding citizen of Monash University’ and believes that he is ‘of sound character.’ Dr Pritchard states that she is aware Mr Rozario ‘has not completed his mandatory military service in Singapore.’
(b)Character Reference from Mr David Seferth dated 22 April 2016.[43] Mr Seferth did not give evidence at the hearing and was not cross-examined. He is a retired police officer and states that he has known Mr Rozario for approximately five years. He refers to Mr Rozario as ‘honest, God-fearing, intelligent, extremely likeable, and highly respected,’ believing that he has a ‘great future in this country.’ Mr Seferth makes no mention of Mr Rozario’s outstanding legal issues in Singapore. Consistent with the Policy and without reflecting at all on Mr Seferth, I place little weight on his statement.
(c)Character Reference from Mr Michael Crump dated 27 April 2016.[44] Mr Crump did not give evidence at the hearing and was not cross-examined. He is a plasterer and states that he has known Mr Rozario for over five years. He refers to Mr Rozario as ‘well-mannered…respectful and caring,’ believing that his ‘talent, dedication and hard work ethic’ will make him an ‘asset to our country.’ Mr Crump states that he is aware Mr Rozario ‘has not completed the mandatory military service in Singapore.’
(d)Letter of Recommendation from Dr Kate Fox dated 25 January 2012. Dr Fox’s letter is over five years old and is addressed ‘To Whom it May Concern.’ It is essentially an employment reference following Mr Rozario’s internship at the Melbourne Materials Institute. Dr Fox makes no mention of Mr Rozario’s outstanding legal issues in Singapore. Consistent with the Policy and without reflecting at all on Dr Fox, I place little weight on her letter
(e)Letter of Recommendation from Mr William Cassidy dated 13 March 2015.[45] Mr Cassidy’s letter is over two years old, is addressed ‘To Whom it May Concern,’ and is an employment reference following Mr Rozario’s placement at the Australian Wax Co. Pty Ltd. Mr Cassidy makes no mention of Mr Rozario’s outstanding legal issues in Singapore. Consistent with the Policy and without reflecting at all on Mr Cassidy, I place little weight on his letter.
[42] Exhibit R1, p.28.
[43] Exhibit R1, p.29.
[44] Exhibit R1, p.30.
[45] Exhibit R1, pp.32-33.
In assessing the statements submitted in support of Mr Rozario’s citizenship application, I have also had regard to the Full Court of the Federal Court’s judgment in Irving[46] at [431-432], which held that:
‘…the words ‘good character’ should be taken to be used in the ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to 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, whilst the latter is a review of subjective public opinion.’
[46] Irving v Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 663; (1996) 68 FCR 422; (1996) 139 ALR 84
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The Minister contends that:[47]
(a)Mr Rozario has committed serious offences in Singapore and his avoidance of National Service arises more from a preference to complete post-graduate study and reunite with his family in Australia, rather than conscientious objection to National Service;
(b)The Tribunal should not waive the requirement for Mr Rozario to obtain a COC, because it is appropriate and reasonable for him to submit one, and, without which, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied he is of good character as required by section 21(2)(h) of the Act; and
(c)In the alternative, should the Tribunal determine it is appropriate to waive the requirement for Mr Rozario to obtain a COC, the Tribunal still cannot be satisfied he is of good character as required by section 21(2)(h) of the Act, due to verifiable information from Singaporean authorities casting character doubt.
[47] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 12 September 2017.
CONSIDERATION
Deputy President Constance’s decision in Rajaratnasarma v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[48] elaborates upon the requirement in section 21(2)(h) of the Act, that standing in the shoes of the decision maker, ‘…I must be positively satisfied’ that Mr Rozario is of good character at the present time, and if not so satisfied, I must affirm the decision under review.
[48] [2014] AATA 406 (24 June 2014), at [15].
Mr Rozario confirms he was made aware of pending legal matters in Singapore over four years ago, as evidenced by correspondence from the CMPB that he had ‘committed offences by failing to report for enlistment into full-time NS on 15 Feb 2013, as well as, remaining outside Singapore without a valid EP’.[49] Under Singaporean law, these offences are punishable upon conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, a fine, or both.[50] It follows that Mr Rozario’s response in his application for Australian citizenship, that he had no proceedings pending against him overseas for any offence, was not correct.[51]
[49] Exhibit R1, p.116.
[50] Exhibit T1, section 33, pp.26-27.
[51] Exhibit R1, p.96.
At the hearing, Mr Rozario contended that conscientious objection to National Service was the principal reason for his departure for Singapore. But his first reference to conscientious objection is a single sentence in a Statutory Declaration dated 14 April 2016, where he states that his failure to complete National Service results ‘largely’ from his ‘beliefs against COMPULSORY military training’ (emphasis in original). While that appears to constitute an objection to the compulsion aspect of National Service, Mr Rozario’s evidence during the hearing was that he had considered the prospect of undertaking National Service in ‘non-violent roles.’ He conceded, however, that he had made no enquiries in this regard, because he felt it was uncertain and ‘quite unlikely’ that he could secure such a position.
It is not for this Tribunal to determine whether Mr Rozario is a conscientious objector to Singapore’s National Service laws, or to reflect on the necessity or otherwise for those laws. What is clear from the evidence, however, is that Mr Rozario’s most prominently-stated reasons for departing Singapore in late 2012 were to undertake post-graduate study and re-join his family in Australia. In relation to why he is seeking Australian citizenship, Mr Rozario has consistently stated a reason is his desire to travel internationally, which has not been possible since his Singaporean passport expired in 2014. In this regard, the Policy states that ‘generally’ the need to travel ‘is not a relevant factor,’ and ‘it is the responsibility of the applicant to maintain the currency of travel documents issued by their country of citizenship, where possible.’ The reason Mr Rozario is unable to maintain the currency of his Singaporean travel documents is because of pending offences since 2013, for which Singaporean authorities have advised him to return ‘as soon as possible.’
Mr Rozario contends ‘he has tried every means available to him,’[52] but no submissions were made regarding whether he has availed himself of any appeal rights following the rejection of his COC application. His counsel also concedes that he does have the option, yet untested, of returning to Singapore to address the offences pending against him. In that sense, I find that Mr Rozario has not exhausted all reasonable steps open to him to secure a COC. The discretion to waive the COC requirement is therefore not appropriately exercised given the specific circumstances of his case.
[52] Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions dated 25 August 2017, paragraph 28.
Counsel for Mr Rozario contends that character needs to be assessed ‘from an Australian perspective’ and that ‘there is no law in Australia’ requiring a person to ‘obtain an exit permit or to undergo national service.’ Moreover, it is submitted that ‘Australia would not be prepared to extradite the Applicant because it does not recognise the alleged offences in Singapore as offences against Australian law.’ I further note counsel’s reference to offences in other countries that do not exist here, submitting that Australia should ‘apply a different standard for citizenship purposes.’ Examples offered include Ugandan laws to criminalise homosexuality and Thailand’s lese-majeste laws, which criminalise criticism of certain members of the Royal Family. With respect to those submissions, neither the Act nor Policy requires the existence of comparable laws in Australia to those that an applicant may have breached in their existing country of citizenship. The case before me also does not refer to any prospect of extradition. Additionally, while acknowledging different views within the Australian community about the merits or otherwise of laws relating to compulsory National Service, I consider the Australian people would reasonably expect that those applying for citizenship would respect laws of general application. As is outlined in the CMPB email to Mr Rozario in 2013 and in the written submissions of his counsel following the hearing, Singapore’s Enlistment Act is such a law. It applies to persons who are citizens or permanent residents of Singapore and between the ages of ‘16 years and six months and not more than 40 years of age.’[53] Subject to certain exceptions and exemptions, every person subject to the Enlistment Act and who is fit for National Service, is liable to render full-time service for a period not exceeding two years.[54] This legislation cannot be fairly compared to the examples offered in Uganda and elsewhere, which may apply in a discriminatory manner or have the effect of persecuting a particular societal group.
[53] Exhibit T1, section 2, p.4.
[54] Exhibit T1, section 12, p.8.
The Policy reflects the Australian community’s expectation that people applying to become Australian citizens will ‘respect and abide by the law of Australia and other countries.’ That expectation is reflected in the Pledge taken by new citizens, encompassing an undertaking to uphold and obey Australia’s laws. The existence of verifiable information that an applicant has not obeyed the laws of their existing country of citizenship, understandably raises character concerns.
I find there is verifiable information from Singaporean authorities, confirmed by Mr Rozario’s evidence, that he has committed offences under Singapore’s Enlistment Act. Moreover, Mr Rozario spent approximately two years in Singapore after turning 18, while his parents lived in Australia. I cannot be positively satisfied without a COC, therefore, that he has no convictions. That is not to infer that Mr Rozario has convictions or is not of good character. I have noted the many positive things said about him by his family and those who have submitted references on his behalf, who consider he is of good standing and repute for the period each has known him. It is to his credit that a number of people who have supervised his academic studies, or have hosted him during a work placement, or have a close association with the Rozario family, regard him in such a positive light. These factors weigh in favour of his character. But I must be positively satisfied he is of good character on the basis of objective evidence. Given the particular circumstances of his case, I consider that requires a penal clearance certificate from Singapore. For the reasons previously adduced, I consider that Mr Rozario has not exhausted all reasonable avenues open to him to obtain such confirmation.
Mr Rozario was given to leave following the hearing to provide copies of email correspondence with Singaporean authorities. He subsequently provided an email he had sent to CMPB on 17 October 2013 relating to the renewal of his Singaporean passport, which I have considered. In light of the numerous references to Singapore’s Enlistment Act during the hearing, it was taken into evidence as a Tribunal Exhibit. The parties were given leave to make any submissions relating to it, and on 16 October 2017, the Applicant lodged information relating to national service in Singapore and written submissions, which I have considered. This included a request that the Tribunal defer making a decision in this matter until a response had been received to email correspondence from the Respondent to Singaporean authorities seeking a COC on Mr Rozario’s behalf, or the reasons why a COC could not be provided. These emails have gone unanswered except for automated replies. It remains uncertain whether Singaporean authorities intend to respond at all, however the Tribunal briefly deferred making its decision upon the Applicant’s request in the event that a response was received in the weeks after the hearing. However, given the definitive advice to Mr Rozario from Singaporean authorities that he has committed offences, and the advice since then that his passport will not be renewed or a COC issued because of those pending offences, I consider that further enquires or delay are not warranted.
CONCLUSION
Mr Rozario’s response in his application for Australian citizenship that he was not aware of any pending proceedings overseas was not correct. He faces prosecution in Singapore for offences attracting up to three years imprisonment, a fine, or both.
Obedience to and observance of the law are values that are fundamental to the assessment of character. Mr Rozario does not dispute he has committed the offences referred to by Singaporean authorities, which have been pending since 2013. His evidence is that even when applying for deferral of his National Service obligations while studying at the Polytechnic, he had no intention of complying with those obligations. His decision to depart Singapore on these terms ‘was a choice [he] made at the time,’ and which results in the continuing unwillingness of Singaporean authorities to renew his passport or issue a COC.
After carefully weighing up all of the evidence and the applicable law, I find that it is not appropriate to waive the requirement for Mr Rozario to obtain a COC, given that he has not exhausted all reasonable options open to him to resolve his outstanding issues in Singapore. It may be open for him to appeal the decision of Singaporean authorities to reject his application for a COC, or to return to Singapore and address the pending offences.
In light of the verifiable information regarding pending offences against Mr Rozario in Singapore and the absence of a COC, I cannot be positively satisfied that he is of good character within the meaning of section 21(2)(h) of the Act.
DECISION
It therefore follows that the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 46 (forty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

[sgd]............................................................
Associate
Dated: 22 November 2017

Date of hearing: 2 October 2017

Date final submissions received: 16 October 2017

Counsel for the Applicant: Guy Gilbert

Solicitors for the Applicant: Clothier Anderson Immigration Lawyers

Advocate for the Respondent: Tal Aviram

Solicitors for the Respondent: Clayton Utz

[41] Policy, p.155.

Date of hearing:	2 October 2017
Date final submissions received:	16 October 2017
Counsel for the Applicant:	Guy Gilbert
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Clothier Anderson Immigration Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent:	Tal Aviram
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz