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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, where the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was of good character, as required by paragraph 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The applicant had a criminal conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in January 2010, for which he was placed on a good behaviour bond. The sole issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the "good character" requirement.

The Tribunal was required to determine the meaning of "good character" in the context of the Act and whether the applicant's past offending demonstrated a lack of enduring moral qualities. The Tribunal considered the applicant's explanation for his offending, which he attributed to difficulties adapting to Australia as a young immigrant from a non-English speaking background, leading to poor decision-making and association with undesirable friends. Evidence was also presented in the form of a letter of support, which acknowledged the applicant's past offending but highlighted his subsequent realisation of wrongdoing, his move away from negative influences, and his participation in community and educational activities aimed at self-improvement and advising young people.

The Tribunal applied the established legal principle that "good character" refers to a person's enduring moral qualities, rather than their reputation in the community. This assessment is primarily an issue of fact requiring a value judgment by the decision-maker. While the applicant's past offending was serious, the Tribunal acknowledged that a person can demonstrate reformed character over time. However, in this instance, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not yet demonstrated sufficient evidence of enduring good character, particularly given the nature of the offence and the passage of time since the conviction.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. It noted, however, that this did not preclude the applicant from making a future application for citizenship, should he be able to demonstrate that he meets the good character requirement with the passage of further time.