Ruffin and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) - [2021] AATA 3145

Ruffin and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 3145 (2 September 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2020/4814
Re:Arturo Ruffin
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member R Maguire
Date:2 September 2021
Place:Brisbane

The reviewable decision is affirmed.
..................................[SGD]......................................
Member R Maguire
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – citizenship by conferral – character test – whether Applicant is of good character – prior traffic offences – Applicant not of good character – decision affirmed
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act1995 (Qld)
Cases
Apire and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 193
Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1561
Berryman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 421
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
Gage and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 326
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Mayes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 32
Mendoza and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 686
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 73 FCR 187
Oliveira Abitante and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 68
SLNY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 344
Secondary Materials
Australian Citizenship Instructions
Australian Citizenship Policy
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member R Maguire
2 September 2021
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant seeks the review of a decision[1] by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Department or the Respondent) made on 22 July 2020. This decision refused the Applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral under section 24(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act) on the ground that the Applicant did not meet section 21(2)(h) of the Act which requires the Minister to be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at the “time of the Minister’s decision on the application”.
[1] Exhibit T1, T Documents 15, pages 107 to 118.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
The issue for determination in this application, is whether the Applicant is a person of good character for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the Act at the time of this decision.
THE LAW
Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
Section 24(1) of the Act requires that if a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister (or a person delegated by the Minister) must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Section 21(2) sets out the general eligibility criteria for an Applicant who is 18 years or older, and a permanent resident. Section 21(2)(h) provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the Applicant ‘is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision’.
Good Character
The term ‘good character’ is not defined by the Act, however, guidance for decision-makers exists in the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement[2] and the Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs) in particular CPI 15 which together, for present purposes represent government policy (the policy).
[2] Exhibit R1, Respondent's Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC), Annexure A.
CPI 15 states the following at paragraph 4.1:
Good character refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person. A person who is of good character is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia and the other commitments made when making the Pledge of commitment should they be approved to become an Australian citizen.
CPI 15 provides at paragraph 4.4, that as a general proposition, a person of good character would:
·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;
·be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay tax, not be in dishonest receipt of public funds (sic) pay debts to the Commonwealth);
·not practice deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example
o   intentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications;
o   evading immigration control at the border or living unlawfully in the community after their visa ceased, or assisting others to do so, or involvement in people smuggling or trafficking;
o   knowingly entering into a bogus marriage or pretending to be a de facto partner of another person;
o   concealing criminal conviction;
o   fraud against the Commonwealth such as tax fraud or Centrelink fraud;
o   giving false names and/or addresses to the police;
·not be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant;
·not be violent, involved in illegal drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through the conduct (for example multiple and/or repeated instances of recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without a licence);
·not associate with persons who are involved in antisocial or criminal behaviour, or who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia, such as organisations involved in war crimes, criminal gangs, OMCGs or youth gangs;
·not have committed, or been involved in, or associated with war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide;
·not be involved in terrorist organisations or acts of terrorism overseas in Australia.
The principles set out above are to be considered in the light of the facts of the particular case, and should not be applied rigidly or inflexibly. It is also necessary to consider information provided by the Applicant regarding his or her family life, for example, raising children, being in a stable home environment, being responsibly employed, paying taxes, any community work undertaken, and any other matter that is relevant to an assessment of character in the circumstances of a particular case. This would include expressions of genuine remorse for past wrongdoing and the time that has elapsed since the wrongdoing. Some factors may support an adverse finding, while others may support a positive finding about a person’s character.
Factors to be taken into account under paragraph 4.7 of CPI 15 include instances where an Applicant has a criminal record including the commission of a “serious” offence, examples of which are offered:
·crimes of violence (such as murder, manslaughter, assault, sexual assault, domestic violence, armed robbery, negligent or reckless driving occasioning injury or death);
·war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide;
·crimes against children;
·drug trafficking (including importation and supply);
·people smuggling;
·fraud (including identity fraud);
·harassment or stalking;
·terrorist activity;
·extortion;
·illegal pornography, including child pornography;
·breaches of immigration law, including those that resulted in removal or deportation from Australia or another country;
·offences incurring prison sentences of 12 months or more.
In the Full Federal Court case of Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422; at 431 – 432 Lee J stated in his separate reasons:
Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning be applied, 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 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 while the latter is a review of subjective opinion... A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character... Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.
In that case, the Court was constituted by Davies, Lee, and RD Nicholson JJ. Each of the judges gave separate reasons, concurring in the result. Nicholson J expressly concurred with the reasons of Davies J, and neither Davies J, nor Nicholson J expressed concurrence with the judgement of Lee J.
The question of whether a person is or is not ‘of good character’ is primarily an issue of fact.[3] Davies J remarked (at 427 – 428):
The drawing of a conclusion by a decision maker as to whether he or she is satisfied that an applicant for a visa is of “good character” requires the exercise of a value judgement. There are no precise parameters which distinguish “good character” from “bad character”. Although in general, “good character” can be readily recognised, in a particular case views may differ. It is for the administrative decision maker, in whom Parliament has reposed the function of making that assessment, to arrive at a decision…
[3] Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 at 424 per Davies J (with whom RD Nicholson J concurred).
In deciding that fact, the Tribunal ‘was entitled to be guided by any general relevant government policy which was not inconsistent with the provisions or the objects of the [relevant] act’.[4]
[4] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409 at 420 per Bowen CJ and Deane J.
In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 73 FCR 187 the Full Federal Court[5] said; at 197:
The words “good character” in this section should, as Lee J pointed out in Irving, (at 431 – 432), be understood as “a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person”. Conduct may make those qualities visible, but it should never be confused with them. In each case having had regard to the conduct, the Minister or other decision maker must still come to a further conclusion, whether or not to be satisfied that the person is not of good character.
[5] Per Burchett, Branson, and Tamberlin JJ.
The decision of Brennan J in Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 makes clear that in considering the application of policy, the Tribunal must not lose sight of its duty. Brennan J said at 642:
The Tribunal’s duty is to make the correct or preferable decision in each case on the material before it, and the Tribunal is at liberty to adopt whatever policy it chooses, or no policy at all, in fulfilling its statutory function.
Neither party has submitted that there are cogent reasons so as to warrant a departure from the Policy in this review. Nevertheless, the Tribunal bears in mind that the Policy is not a binding checklist, and that decision-makers need to look at the merits of the case.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a 33 year old male citizen of the United States of America, Spain, and Venezuala[6] who first arrived in Australia on 11 February 2011 as the holder of a Higher Education Sector (Subclass 573) visa.
[6] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T4 at page 39.
On 25 May 2016, the Applicant was granted a Skilled - Independent (subclass 189) visa and became a permanent resident.
On 10 February 2019 the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship,[7] and in doing so, in the course of Character declarations, declared that he had been found guilty of offences overseas or in Australia, and provided the following information:
TrafficBNE07/09/15 Drive ETC-MV-OverMidButNotOverHighA/Limit: 2std drinks w food hrs prior felt below Traffic16/10/15 Disqualified Driving: Hadnt received order; didn’t know disqual in effect Traffic29/05/2016 Disqualified Driving: Helped park car 2007USA: MinorMisdemeanorAssaultCharge.Details in PRapp.
[7] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T4 at page 31.
Also in the course of Character declarations, the Applicant was asked, and responded as follows:
Has the Applicant been confined in a prison or in a psychiatric institution by order of a court made in connection with criminal proceedings overseas or in Australia?
No
The Applicant also provided further information regarding his overseas offending in the form of a report from the US Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation which disclosed no periods of imprisonment.[8] However, the Applicant also produced a letter dated 8 May 2015 from Robert Hugh Tyler who stated that he was the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Charles City County, Virginia, United States of America. This letter disclosed among other things that the Applicant had been sentenced to 12 months in jail with 10 months suspended. It proceeded “that is to say that the court ordered him to serve 2 months in jail and held the remaining 10 months over his head to insure (sic) that he complied with the terms of his probation and was of good behaviour”. It also proceeded “I see from the orders that he had some problem on probation, which prompted the Court to order him to serve another month in jail”. The Tribunal regards this letter as credible as it is supported by other evidence discussed in the next paragraph.
[8] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T5 pages 51 – 56.
On 16 October 2019, the Department wrote to the Applicant inviting comment on adverse information regarding overseas offences as follows:[9]
[9] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T8 pages 67 – 69.
·information that the Department has received from the United States authorities confirming there are criminal charges against Arturo Del Valle RUFFIN as follows:
·Offences dated 18 January 2007
oCharged FELONY ASSAULT & BATTERY – Charles City Circuit Court (23 January 2009; GUILTY: MISDEMEANOUR ASSAULT & BATTERY: 12 MOS Imposed/10 MOS Suspended jail.
oCharged: FELONY WEARING MASK IN PUBLIC PLACE – Charles City Circuit Court (23 January 2009); DISMISSED.
·Offence dated 23 January 2009
oFELONY CRIM HISTORY: FALSE STATEMENT ON CONSENT -Henrico Circuit Court (17/03/2010) GUILTY: MISDEMEANOUR FALSELY SUMMONS/REPORT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT: 12 MOS Imposed/12 MOS Suspended Jail.
·Offence dated 9 June 2009
oCharged: MISDEAMOUR CONTEMPT OF COURT
Amongst other things, the letter invited the Applicant to advise if he had made any attempts to inform the Department of the offences listed on his United States criminal history report.
The Applicant responded in a letter erroneously dated 10 December 2014[10] in which he blamed his conduct on his youth (he was 18 years old at the time, and still at high school) and the fact that his girlfriend had received unwanted physical harassment and sexual advances, and that he and his brother had “confronted” the person responsible who “had some bruises after the incident, no malicious findings”. The Applicant said that he made a “stupid decision” and contended that this conduct did not reflect his character at the present. He blamed his false report to police on the fact that he was “ignorant of the full restrictions and conditions of my probation. I did not intentionally misrepresent myself on the form”. He stated that this last offence resulted in one month being added onto his prison sentence, bringing the total to 3 months. The Applicant did not respond to the enquiry as to whether he had made any attempts to inform the Department of the offences listed.
[10] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T9 pages 75 – 76.
Following a letter of invitation from the Department, the Applicant provided a copy of his Queensland Traffic History.[11] The Applicant was then invited to comment on some 15 offences recorded in his Queensland Traffic History as having occurred between 31 July 2011 and 30 November 2019. This letter[12] contained a heading “Australian offences”, and beneath it the first dot point was “the offences listed in your Queensland Traffic Record report (attached)”. This was followed by a heading “Invitation to respond”, which was proceeded by a sentence “You are invited to respond in writing to the information detailed above”. In addition, he was specifically invited to comment on his drink driving offence of 7 September 2015, and his two subsequent disqualified driving offences of
[11] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T11 pages 82 – 84.
[12] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T12 pages 86 – 87.
[13] Ibid page 88.
16 October 2015 and 29 May 2016. He was also invited to provide character references, and specifically informed “Referees should acknowledge your criminal history or any other issue listed above and explain why you should now be considered to be of good character”.[13]
The specific offences listed were:
(a)On 31 July 2011: “fail to stop at yellow traf light when driver could have stop safely”, for which he was demerited 3 points and fined $300 by the Brisbane Magistrates Court;
(b)On 16 November 2011: “exceed speed limit in speed zone by less than 13 km/h”, for which he was demerited 1 point and fined $133 by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry;
(c)On 9 April 2012: “drive m/v with pass/ger in/on part veh not designed for passengers/gds”, for which he was demerited 3 points, fined $186 and had his license suspended by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry;
(d)On 28 March 2013: “driver use hand held mobile phone”, for which he was demerited 3 points and fined $330 by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry;
(e)On 15 June 2013: “exceed speed limit in speed zone by at least 13 km not more than 20 km/h”, for which he was demerited 3 points and fined $220 by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry;
(f)On 17 September 2013, by reason of his accumulation of demerit points, the Applicant was placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond;
(g)On 24 November 2013:
(i)“exceed speed limit in speed zone by less than 13 km/h”, for which he was demerited 1 point and fined $146 by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry; and,
(ii)“driver holds driver lic but not authorised to drive class of vehicle”, for which he was fined $366 by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry;
(h)On 7 September 2015: “drive etc-m/v-over mid but not over high a/limit and motor bike quad utility offroad veh rider fail to wear helmet”, for which he was demerited 3 points, his license was suspended and he was fined $600 by the Brisbane Magistrates Court;
(i)On 16 October 2015: “disqualified driving”, for which he was fined $750 by the Brisbane Magistrates Court;
(j)On 29 May 2016: “disqualified driving”, for which he was fined $1,000 by the Brisbane Magistrates Court;
(k)On 29 July 2018: “exceed speed limit in speed zone by less than 13 km/h”, for which he was demerited 1 point and fined $174 by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry;
(l)On 4 May 2019: “exceed speed limit in speed zone by less than 13 km/h”, for which he was demerited 1 point and fined $174 by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry; and,
(m)On 30 November 2019:
(i)“ride re m/bike with passenger when not hold P/P1/P2/O typre re>1 yr or r”, for which he was fined $88 by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry;
(ii)“learner fail to display legible L plate at rear of m/bike”, for which he was demerited 2 points and fined $213 by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry; and,
(iii)“drive/park/or permit person to drive/park a defective light vehicle”, for which he was demerited 1 point and fined $133 by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry.

In response, the Applicant provided a statutory declaration and eight character references.[14]
[14] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T14 pages 96 – 106.
The first reference[15] was in the form of an undated letter addressed “to whom it may concern” and signed by Juan Herrers. The reference was written in support of the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship, described him as “an excellent teacher” and “a very engaging person”. The letter did not acknowledge the Applicant’s criminal history or demonstrate any awareness of any adverse information regarding the Applicant, and the Tribunal therefore gives it little weight.
[15] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T14 at page 99.
The second reference[16] was from Hidekazu Kunieda, and was also undated. It referred to having met the Applicant and his wife while studying in Australia, but provided no dates of the period of association. The reference described the Applicant as a “very nice and good person” and a “kind teacher” but did not acknowledge the Applicant’s criminal history or demonstrate any awareness of any adverse information regarding the Applicant, and the Tribunal therefore gives it little weight.
[16] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T14 at page 100.
The third reference[17] was by Mr Raymond Williams, and dated 19 April 2015, and appeared to have been written as a reference for the Applicant to obtain permanent residency. Fairly obviously, being written some months before the Applicant’s drink driving offence it made no mention of it, or the subsequent offences. Neither did the reference disclose any awareness of the Applicant’s prior criminal offending in the United States of America or his traffic history in Australia. The Tribunal therefore gives this reference little weight.
[17] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T14 at page 101.
The fourth reference was from Mr Emil Andersson, and was addressed “To whom it may concern” and undated. The author said that he lived in Sweden, and became friends with the Applicant while he was in Australia on a working holiday, the dates of which were not stated. Mr Andersson stated that the Applicant “told me of all the past mistakes he had made” but did not detail what those mistakes were, and made no reference to his criminal offending in the United States of America or his traffic history in Australia. He further stated that the Applicant drove him many times and was always safe and followed Australian law. In view of the vagueness and uncertainty of the evidence as to the disclosures made by the Applicant to Mr Andersson, the Tribunal gives this statement little weight.
The fifth reference was dated 7 July 2020 from Mr David Mojza who gave an address in Germany. The reference stated that the Applicant had driven the author responsibly and lawfully on many occasions but displayed no awareness of the Applicant’s criminal offending in the United States of America or his traffic history in Australia. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives it little weight.
The sixth reference[18] was from Tiffany Hausler of Buderim in Queensland, and dated

20 June 2020, and was written in support of the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship. She stated she had known the Applicant since 2015, and described him as a “lovely person, honest and trustworthy”. She said that the Applicant had driven her and her husband and the infant child once in Spain, and on two occasions in Australia and she considered he always followed the local road rules. Once again, this reference did not disclose any knowledge of the Applicant’s criminal offending in the United States of America or his traffic history in Australia, and the Tribunal therefore gives it little weight.
[18] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T14 at page 104.
The seventh reference[19] was a further one from Mr Raymond Williams of Enoggera in Queensland. Mr Williams stated that the Applicant had driven for him in the course of his business, and had always driven in a safe and responsible manner respecting Australian law. He described the Applicant as a “model citizen” but disclosed no knowledge of the Applicant’s criminal offending in the United States of America or his traffic history in Australia, and the Tribunal therefore gives this reference little weight.
[19] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T14 at page 104.
The eighth reference[20] was a statutory declaration dated 13 July 2020 by Miriam Ruth Rose Meyer-Plath, the spouse of the Applicant. Ms Meyer-Plath referred specifically to the Applicant’s disqualified driving charge of 29 May 2016.
[20] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T14 pages 105 – 106.
Ms Meyer-Plath described her husband as “an outstanding member of the community with the greatest passion for bringing people together and making everyone happy and comfortable that I have ever seen in a person”. She spoke fondly of his very helpful nature, and how he helped her to learn to drive. She said that the episode of 29 May 2016 was an example of such a day. She said that at the time she held a learner’s licence, and was driving with an unnamed supervisor who alighted the vehicle before she had parked it. She said she made several failed attempts to park the car, became distressed, then hysterical, and begged the Applicant to park the vehicle for her, even though she knew full well that at the time he was disqualified from driving. She said he would have been in control of the vehicle not longer than 30 seconds, and in parking the vehicle was removing it from the possibility of being a hazard to other traffic. She said the Applicant initially repeatedly refused her request, and explained[21] why he was refusing, “reminding me he was disqualified and explaining why he could not and should not, but I insisted”. She stated that in the end he acquiesced, and at the moment he started reversing the car the same police officer who had previous previously charged him with disqualified driving on 16 October 2015 pulled over and gave him the infringement in question.
[21] Ibid at paragraph 6.
In his statutory declaration,[22] the Applicant described the circumstances of his drink driving offence (which he said occurred on Monday 7 September 2015),[23] where he was recorded as having a .131 BAC.[24]
[22] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T14 pages 96-98 at 96.
[23] Ibid, at paragraph 3.
[24] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T11 at page 83.
He began by saying that on that afternoon, he had accepted an invitation to a Korean barbecue from friends, and as drinking alcohol with dinner was part of Korean culture, he had consulted the RACQ’s advice to motorists, which he set out at paragraph 4 of his statutory declaration.
The Applicant then went on to declare:[25]
I drank only 2 standard drinks in the form of 2 shots of soju…. I deliberately and conscientiously kept to 2 drinks. I did this to be safe myself and for everyone else driving on, cycling on, walking on, crossing, or in any other manner using the roads.… At the end of the meal[26] I felt completely and totally sober… A Korean student asked me for a lift to his house… I mistakenly thought that in Australia, or at least in Queensland, only the driver had to wear a helmet.… It is purely because the Korean student was not wearing a helmet, a passenger on my motorbike that I was pulled over by the police. The officer said my driving was fine, but while he had me there he would do a routine test for my BAC. To everyone’s surprise but especially mine, it came up at 0.131%.… Since that day… I have also since sat down and read the Australian Road rules several times in an effort to learn them all and abide by them.… I am incredibly remorseful for driving with a BAC above the legal limit, even if it was unintentional.[27]
[25] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T14 at page 96, [5].
[26] Ibid at paragraph 6.
[27] Ibid at paragraph 7, page 97.
Extracts of the Queensland Police Service Court brief[28] include the following:
On Sunday, September 6^th 2015 approximately 01:43hrs Police were conducting mobile patrols of George Street Brisbane City.…
Police attention was drawn to this vehicle because the pillion passenger was not wearing a Crash Helmet. Police have immediately intercepted this vehicle.
The male rider of the motorbike removed his helmet at which time the Police observed that the defendant had slightly bloodshot eyes & that he smelt of liquor. The defendant submitted to a Random Breath Test that indicated a positive result. The male rider of the vehicle the defendant in this matter then produced an American Driver’s licence…
The defendant further stated during questioning that he had been drinking Sangria at a friend’s house in Paddington and had consumed an unknown quantity of Sangria over a period of 3 hours.
The defendant further stated that he was riding from his friend’s address in Paddington back to his Hostel in Brisbane via the CBD when he was intercepted. He also stated that he knew his passenger was required to wear a helmet, but wasn’t as it had been stolen previously.
The defendant was subsequently conveyed to Brisbane Breath Analysis Section (BAS) where upon requirement made and direction given the defendant supplied a specimen of breath for analysis on an approved breath analysis instrument operated by an authorised officer. At the conclusion of that analysis a certificate was issued indicating the defendant had a breath alcohol concentration of 0.131 g of alcohol in 210 L of breath. The defendant was handed a copy of that certificate.
The defendant offered no emergent reason or excuse for riding whilst in excess of the legal limit. The defendant stated his reason for riding was he was travelling from a friend’s home in Paddington to his Hostel.
The defendant was subsequently issued with a Notice to Appear at the Brisbane Magistrates Court and a Notice of Suspension or Disqualification. The defendant stated he understood the contents of both notices.
[28] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB2 at page 46.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant claimed to have had two drinks over dinner since the “early afternoon” and that the Breath Analysis Certificate[29] issued following an analysis which occurred at 02:49 hrs on 6 September 2015 showed a Blood Alcohol Concentration of 0.131. The Applicant told Police he was drinking Sangria rather than Soju, but denied that this amounted to a lie. He regularly complained that police had inquired into matters which he contended were none of their business.
[29] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB1 at page 7.
The Tribunal notes the conflicts and inconsistencies between what the Applicant has told the Tribunal and that which was recorded by Police. The Tribunal also notes that his claimed alcohol consumption could not possible have returned a reading of 0.131.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s oral and written evidence before the Tribunal as to his claimed knowledge of the requirement for a motorcycle passenger to wear a helmet in Queensland, and his claimed alcohol consumption are not true, and that he has knowingly given false evidence before this Tribunal. The Tribunal finds this is not something that a person of good character would do.
The Applicant also referred to his subsequent charge of disqualified driving which occurred on 16 October 2015 which he said arose from a further misunderstanding of Australian law. The Applicant expressed remorse for driving on a disqualified licence, and said he did it unintentionally, and was fully responsible for not having familiarised himself with Australian law.[30] The Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s claimed misunderstanding of Australian law, firstly because it would have been necessary for him to demonstrate an understanding of Queensland road rules in order to secure a licence which he appears to have done on 15 March 2011,[31] and secondly that it is highly improbable that the consequences of his drink driving disqualification were not explained to him either by the police or the court, or indeed both. In any event, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the onus was on the Applicant to ensure that his conduct was at all times lawful.
[30] Ibid at paragraph 9.
[31] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB3 at page 60.
The Applicant also referred to a further disqualification from driving which arose on 29 May 2016 when his now wife was having difficulty parking a car, and at her behest he parked the vehicle and was intercepted by the same police officer who had previously intercepted him. The Applicant stated that any mistakes he had made in Australia had not been made “out of malice, spite, or any ill will towards any Australian citizen”. In addition, he undertook to behave in accordance with Australia’s community standards, and to uphold and obey the law.
The Applicant provided a lengthy rambling statement[32] which detailed his life story, struggles with dyslexia, schooling, and the break up of his family, but did not offer any reason for his failure to disclose in his application the full extent of his offending or imprisonment in the United States of America.
[32] Exhibit A1, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
He recorded his arrival in Australia in 2011, and his positive contribution at the University of Queensland as the Student Union International Officer, and as an English as a Second Language teacher. He spoke of his love for “Australian democratic values, society, culture and norms”. He spoke of his desire to contribute to Australian society as a citizen, and hold possible future roles in the Army reserve, law enforcement, as a law student and a possible political career. He expressed the hope to be a “better cat dad” and parent.
The Applicant referred to the decision under review, and the finding of a positive change in his life since his offending in the United States of America, and referred to the theft of his motorcycle where he had allowed the police to do their job rather than take the law into his own hands. He accused the Minister and the Minister’s legal representative of downplaying the circumstantial evidence underpinning his convictions.[33]
[33] Exhibit A1, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, at page 7.
He offered to surrender his driving license, as driving had been his downfall, and also to surrender his other citizenships. He blamed his dyslexia for his failure to canvass the totality of his traffic record.
The Applicant also made submissions which appeared under the heading:
Mistakes Within the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions – Dishonest and/or Misleading.
I will start by highlighting that the Respondent has made some seriously flawed statements in their brief. (If the shoe were on the other foot, by the Respondent’s interpretation of my answers to officials, this could have been taken as them being deliberately misleading and dishonest.) I can only hope that these were simple mistakes, and not a premeditated and deliberate attempt to smear my name to AAT and further reduce my chances of obtaining Australian citizenship considering I seem to be able to make this process difficult enough on my own and require no help in that matter.
He later claimed that the Respondent had “dishonestly” stated that he had been invited to comment on the totality of his driving record, and asserted that he was “only invited to comment/explain the highlighted matters on my driving record”.
The Tribunal rejects this characterisation of the department’s letter, and it rejects that he was only invited to comment in the manner he claimed. Whilst the letter did specifically list his drink driving and disqualified driving offences, it did so in the context of offences disclosed by the Applicant.
The letter referred to Australian offences, being the offences “listed in your Queensland Traffic Record report (attached)”.[34] The letter went on to suggest that the Applicant consider making a statutory declaration listing matters which included:
·What were the circumstances that led to the listed offences?
·Did you make any attempts to inform the Department of the listed offences?
·Do you wish to provide any other relevant information?
[34] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T12 at page 86.
The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant’s claimed dyslexia contributed to his misinterpretation of the Department’s letter. Neither does it accept that his dyslexia contributed to any of his offending in the United States of America or in Australia. In any event, being aware of his dyslexia, the Applicant should have taken steps to ensure that he properly understood the letter, and responded accordingly.
The Applicant was invited to comment on a report from the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigations[35] which, whilst disclosing some offending, did “not preclude further criminal history at the State or local level”.[36] This report listed charges which included:
(i)Wearing a mask in a public place;[37]
(ii)Assault & Battery; [38]
(iii)False statement on consent;[39]
(iv)Contempt of court.[40]
[35] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T5 pages 51 – 56.
[36] Exhibit T1, T Documents at page 51.
[37] Exhibit T1, T Documents at page 54.
[38] Exhibit T1, T Documents at page 54.
[39] Exhibit T1, T Documents at page 55.
[40] Exhibit T1, T Documents at page 56.
A report on a page which appears to have had the letterhead redacted purports to be by the Commonwealth Attorney for Charles City County Virginia United States of America, Robert Hugh Tyler dated 8 May 2015.[41] It recorded that Mr Tyler was “a distant cousin” of the Applicant. It also recorded that the Applicant had been convicted of a misdemeanour assault in 2009, and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with 10 months suspended. The letter also recorded “he had some problem on probation, which prompted the court to order him to serve another month in jail”. The letter also noted that the court ordered supervision lasted for five years from the date of sentence which was 13 February 2009. This means that the Applicant’s court ordered supervision in the state of Virginia would have continued until 12 February 2014, by which time he had been living in Australia for three years. The Applicant attached a statement[42] in which he asserted “Successful termination notice June 14, 2010… I passed with flying colours!” However, the Tribunal gives no weight to this assertion as it is not supported by an authoritative statement from the Commonwealth Attorney for Charles City County Virginia. The Tribunal notes that in correspondence dated 10 December 2014 addressed to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection[43] the Applicant made what, considering the whole of the evidence in this case is the familiar assertion that he was “ignorant of the full restrictions and conditions” of his probation and that he “did not intentionally misrepresent myself” on the form.
[41] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T5 at page 57.
[42] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T5 pages 58 – 59.
[43] Exhibit T1, T Documents, T9 at page 75.
The Applicant sought to explain his offending in the United States of America by reference to his youth, and allowing his emotions to overrule his common sense. He provided no explanation of his failure to disclose his terms of imprisonment in his initial application.
Following his arrival in Australia, and presumably after demonstrating via the customary tests to the Department of Transport and Main Roads of the Queensland Government that he had the requisite understanding of the Queensland Road rules, the Applicant appears to have gained a Queensland drivers licence on 15 March 2011. This license was due to expire on 14 March 2016.[44] From that time on, he should have stayed abreast of Queensland driving rules, and adhered to them, as a person of good character would have.
[44] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB3 at page 60.
The Applicant’s Traffic Record of infringements commenced about 4 months after he secured a Queensland drivers licence. He twice had the benefit of a 12 month Good Driving Behaviour Period. His licence has been suspended or disqualified on multiple occasions, and he was under disqualification as at the date of the hearing.

At the time he was intercepted on 7 September 2015, the Applicant’s drivers licence was immediately suspended by operation of section 79B of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld). The Applicant was fined $600 and disqualified from driving for a period of 5 months in consequence of riding a motorcycle with a pillion passenger who was not wearing a Crash Helmet. He was also disqualified from driving for a period of 2 years and fined $750 in consequence of his blood alcohol concentration of .131. The Applicant was later fined $1000 for Disqualified Driving on 29 May 2016, and he received a further disqualification from driving of 2 years. The Applicant subsequently obtained a learners’ license, but he clearly hadn’t learned, as he was fined $213 on 30 November 2019 for failure to display a L Plate on the motorcycle he was riding. At the same time he was fined $133 for driving a vehicle with a defective light.
In what the Tribunal regards as an extremely serious speeding offence committed on

12 June 2020, the Applicant was fined $1245 for exceeding the speed limit by more than 40 km/h, at which time he suffered a loss of 8 demerit points.[45] The Applicant was allowed to enter a further Good Driving Behaviour period for a period of 12 months on 18 August 2020 and consequence of an excess of demerit points, and

2 days later on 20 August 2020 his licence was suspended for 6 months for driving at high speed.[46]
[45] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB3 at page 61.
[46] Ibid.
Unless the Tribunal has miscalculated, the Applicant appears to have incurred fines and penalties in excess of $6000 in relation to his traffic history.
The Applicant has stated that he was “100 percent guilty of and responsible for [his] driving record”, and described it as “long and damning”,[47] a description with which this Tribunal concurs. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant said “It is true that the action (sic) of mine to lose my licence last year (2020) was totally careless on my behalf, as I should have been paying attention to the speed limit, even if it was dark and late and no one else was on the road” [Tribunal’s Emphasis]. It is clear that even when the Applicant owns up to his offending, he seeks to minimise it.
[47] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB1 at page 7.
EVIDENCE AT HEARING
The hearing of this application took place on 19 May 2021 via video conference. The Applicant represented himself, and the Respondent was represented by Ms Cody Allen of Sparke Helmore. The Tribunal also heard evidence from Ms Miriam Meyer-Plath, the wife of the Applicant, and Mr Ali Kiaea.
At the opening of his cross examination by Ms Allen, the following exchange occurred:[48]
[48] Transcript, pages 5 to page 6.
Thank you. Mr Ruffin, do you agree that a person of good character would respect and abide by the laws of Australia?
Yes, ma’am.
Would you agree that a person of good character would be honest and not practice deception in their dealings with the Australian government or government officials?
Yes, ma’am.
Do you agree that a person of good character would not put the lives of others at risk?
Yes, ma’am.
Do you agree that it is the responsibility of every road user to familiarise themselves with traffic laws and to abide by them?
Yes, ma’am.
Do you agree that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it?
Yes, ma’am.
Do you agree that the potential ramifications of driving under the influence of alcohol are very serious?
Absolutely, ma’am. I strongly agree.
You agree that domestic violence is not limited to physical violence but can also include emotional, psychological and verbal abuse?
Yes, ma’am.
Thank you. You’ve had a recent disqualification of your license, that’s correct?
Yes, ma’am.
Yes. Aside from that, do you accept that the traffic record contained in the tender bundle is an accurate summary of your driving offense in Australia? No, ma’am.
You don’t?
No, ma’am.
What is incorrect about that summary?
I believe the summary is dated and is not a complete summary of my traffic - I believe I have references in some of my reference letters and I have made reference in that 15 page document that there is another disqualified license charge on my record that you may not be aware of that I have brought to the attention because the record is dated. But I believe with that addition it is a complete record.
Yes. So the disqualification recently - aside from that, it is an accurate record, you would agree?
Yes, ma’am.
Yes, okay. Thank you. You would accept wouldn’t you that it is quite a length[y] traffic history?
No, ma’am.
No? But you accept that it spans some 10 years or 11 years with your most recent – 10 years sorry with your most recent - - - ?
I agree with you, ma’am. I have been driving in Australia for 10 years and I do have a record length of 10 years.
Later in his evidence, the Applicant initially accepted a suggestion by Ms Allen that he had driven with a blood alcohol concentration almost three times the legal limit. He then sought to “clarify” this answer, and stated:[49]
I’d like to clarify my last issue – my last answer. I guess I’m just nervous and I’m just having to think it through and I just want to make sure I don’t (indistinct) and this is no offence to you Ms Cody Allen but I understand your position is to discredit and make me look as bad as possible. I’d like to reiterate my answer to that last question. No I do not accept my breath alcohol limit was three times the limit. I do understand that there is a record with these machines being used over a quality (sic) of time that they can become inconsistent. I do understand also that there’s other factors that can go into breathalysing machines that have consistently given false errors such as gum, breath wash and things of this nature. I didn’t go back to the court house or the watch house afterwards to take a blood alcohol sample because of my compliance with law enforcement officers. I simply accepted my responsibility. I did not question it. I did not seek further testing of my blood alcohol level so I would accept that the breathalyser came back and said that that was it and that I agreed with authorities and went along with the process because I believe in conforming to the standard laws of the country that I’m in but I do not agree that that is a statement of fact that my blood alcohol content was three times the legal limit and that if I had gone and got my blood drawn it may have very well been less if I had decided to fight this in court.
[49] Transcript, page 6, line 44 to page 7, line 6.
Later in his evidence, the Applicant sought to explain the fact that he had ridden a motorcycle with a pillion passenger who was not wearing a helmet at the time of his drink driving offence, and that it was the absence of his passenger’s helmet that led to his interception by police. That evening he had been drinking a Korean distilled alcoholic beverage called Soju. He denied that this was a high alcohol drink, and said that it was served in a glass which is a little bigger than a shot glass.
In her evidence, Ms Meyer-Plath at times declined to comment on some questions put to her. She sought to justify lying to police because “it’s none of their business”.[50] She also claimed to have been bullied and threatened by police, whom she said were “actually acting illegally”.[51]
[50] Transcript, page 20, line 37-38.
[51] Transcript, page 20, lines 42-45.
When asked how she would categorise the Applicant’s traffic offences she stated:[52]
I would count them as not major. Most of them are minor, some are intermediate. One of them was incredibly foolish … it was stupid …Had it been in daylight and in a different circumstance, especially if there were people, it could have been very ugly.
[52] Transcript, page 21 lines 35-45.
She claimed police had been “unduly harsh” on her husband, and had acted “totally out of line”, and contended “that’s not what I pay police to do”.[53]
[53] Transcript, page 22, lines 2-7.
In her written and oral evidence, Ms Meyer-Plath sought to share blame for, and to justify and minimise the Applicant’s offending. Her evidence shows that the Applicant was fully cognisant of the illegality of his conduct at the time he drove whilst disqualified at her claimed behest. It also shows that she was prepared to encourage him to act in a way which she knew amounted to the commission of an offence.
Whilst the Tribunal accepts this witness’s evidence that the Applicant’s conduct has been “incredibly foolish”, “stupid” and “could have been very ugly”, it otherwise totally rejects her evidence as not being that of a credible witness, because she has lied to police in order to protect the Applicant, and has claimed to have pressured him to commit an illegal act driving whilst disqualified from doing so - at a time when they both well knew that he was prohibited by law from doing so.
Mr Ali Kiaei gave evidence under affirmation. Whilst he claimed that he drafted the declaration himself, he acknowledged having checked with the Applicant prior to doing so.
His statement reflected what he was told by the Applicant and his wife as he had not been present. His evidence regarding blood alcohol was based on what they had told him. It was not his opinion that breathalysers were inaccurate.
The Tribunal rejects this witness’s evidence, as it is heavily coloured by what he has been told by others, and he has substantially parroted the evidence of the Applicant.
CONSIDERATION
In Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[54] Senior Member Tavoularis made observations concerning the danger to the community in the breach of traffic laws. This Tribunal respectfully adopts those observations:
43.… There is, to my mind, nothing to be said in mitigation for serious irresponsibility in the management and control of a motor vehicle. His offences of drink-driving and un-licensed driving clearly point to an incapacity to distinguish right from wrong and to otherwise conform to the rules of Australian society in so far as operation of a motor vehicle on a public road is concerned. The catastrophic potential of losing control of a motor vehicle as a result of being affected by alcohol and/or prohibited substances is the subject of constant campaigns by governments at all levels.
44. I have similar concerns about the Applicant’s failure to realise the potential adverse impact arising from unlicensed driving. This Applicant (as is the case with virtually all drivers) knew or ought reasonably to have known the potentially serious adverse consequences of unlicensed driving, or driving an unregistered/uninsured vehicle, for other road users. Whilst no expertise in the motor insurance industry, it is common knowledge that there are insurance implications for unlicensed drivers and/or drivers of unregistered/uninsured vehicles who become involved in motor vehicle accidents. Again, for the Applicant to ignore this obvious and serious consequence of his driving conduct demonstrates an incapacity to distinguish right from wrong and to otherwise conform to the insurance/registration regime of the Australian community as it relates to the ownership and operation of the vehicle.
45. The Applicant’s driving offences may, at first blush, be considered relatively minor when viewed against the balance of his history. However, the theme of attendant recklessness and indifference to laws and rules governing the operation of a motor vehicle is, in and of itself significant. Indeed laws that protect road users “go to the essential safety of the community”. other parts of his criminal history are perhaps more serious than his driving/traffic convictions. But, his failure to understand right from wrong when operating a motor vehicle – be it drinking and driving, driving without a license, or driving an unregistered vehicle – can only lead me to conclude that this component of his history further confirms the seriousness of his offending and potential risk to the community.
[citations omitted]
[54] [2017] AATA 1561 at [43] – [45].
As has been observed by Deputy President McDermott,[55] this Tribunal has consistently emphasised[56] that the traffic history of an Applicant for Australian citizenship is a relevant consideration in considering the character of an Applicant for Australian citizenship.
[55] Per D.P. McDermott in Oliveira Abitante and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 68 at paragraph 26.
[56] Apire and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 193; Gage and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 326; SLNY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 344; Berryman and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 421; Mayes and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 32.
The Applicant has a history of domestic violence[57] which was not satisfactorily explained by credible evidence.
[57] Exhibit R2, Respondent’s Tender Bundle, TB2 pages 8-11, 14-16, 22, 24-25, 29, 31-32, 34-36.
The Tribunal accepts the submission by the Respondent that violence in a domestic situation by one partner against another cannot be trivialised or downplayed.
The Tribunal respectfully adopts the words of Senior Member Puplick in Mendoza and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 686 at [48]:
The Australian community, rightly, professes zero tolerance for violence against women. There is zero tolerance for domestic violence perpetrated against any woman, man or child. Such forms of violence are unacceptable at any time – in any place – in any circumstances – and whether manifest physically, emotionally or psychologically.
Being the Respondent to a Temporary Protection Order is not readily consistent with being a person of good character.
The Applicant’s history is replete with instances of reckless conduct which demonstrate that he is not a person of good character.
The Applicant in this case has over many years, made false and misleading statements to government authorities both in the United States of America and in Australia. He failed to disclose offences and imprisonment in the United States of America and a litany of serious traffic offences in Australia which have exposed him and members of the public to great danger. He does not exhibit consideration for the safety of others. He has engaged in acts of violence both in the United States of America and in Australia. He does not exhibit respect for the rule of law, or those charged with its administration. He has sought to conceal and minimise his own wrongdoing, and chosen to attack the honesty, integrity and motives of police and those involved in public administration.
The Applicant has a lengthy history of saying and doing what he seems to think he can get away with in the circumstances.
Before this Tribunal the Applicant gave evidence that he returned a blood alcohol concentration of 0.131 after consuming only two standard drinks over a period of what must have been many hours. The Tribunal finds that he did not tell the truth to the police regarding this episode, and the Tribunal further finds that neither did he tell the truth at the hearing. The Tribunal therefore rejects his evidence in total and finds that he is not a credible witness. In consequence, the Tribunal also finds that as at the date of this decision, he is not a person of good character.
In ruling against the Applicant, the Tribunal is mindful of the fact that after a period of time, it may be that he is able to satisfy the good character requirement. That remains to be seen, and presently appears to be some way off.
DECISION
In the light of all of the foregoing, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant was a person of good character at the time the Reviewable Decision was made, or as at the date of this Decision, and accordingly, the reviewable decision is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 88 (eighty eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member R Maguire

..................................[SGD]......................................
Associate
Dated: 2 September 2021

Date(s) of hearing: 19 May 2021

Date final submissions received: 22 April 2021

Applicant: Self-Represented, by Microsoft Teams

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms C Allen, by Microsoft Teams

Date(s) of hearing:	19 May 2021
Date final submissions received:	22 April 2021
Applicant:	Self-Represented, by Microsoft Teams
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms C Allen, by Microsoft Teams