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

[2021] AATA 1107

Saeedavi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1107 (30 April 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2019/7874

Re:Abdullah Saeedavi

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:R Cameron, Senior Member

Date:30 April 2021 

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

.......[sgd].................................................................

R Cameron, Senior Member

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – identity of applicant – insufficient documentary evidence – inconsistencies in life story – Tribunal not satisfied as to the identity of the applicant – decision under review affirmed

Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Cases
CDNB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 757
Dhayakpa v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310

Secondary Materials
Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, reissued 27 November 2020
Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection, “Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act”, Citizenship Procedural Instructions, issued 10 April 2019

REASONS FOR DECISION

R Cameron, Senior Member

30 April 2021

INTRODUCTION

1. On 22 November 2019, the Respondent refused an application made by the Applicant for Australian citizenship by conferral.[1]

   [1] Hereinafter referred to as the "reviewable decision". It is document T2 of the documents lodged pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“T Documents”).

2. The grounds relied upon in the reviewable decision for refusing the application for Australian citizenship by conferral were that the decision-maker was not satisfied as to the identity of the Applicant. Therefore, the prohibition contained in s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 applied.[2]

   [2] The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 is hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

3. Section 24(3) of the Act provides: “The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.”

4. With respect to the question of the Applicant’s identity, a decision-maker is entitled to have recourse to the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement and the Citizenship Procedural Instructions, which contain guidance at “3.4. Acquiring citizenship by application” and Chapter 16 respectively, when making such an assessment. The contents of those documents are referred to in full for their force and effect.

5. Critically for the purposes of this application, Chapter 16 of the Citizenship Procedural Instructions describes “three pillars of identity”[3] to be applied by a decision-maker when determining whether an applicant has satisfactorily produced evidence of his or her identity. Those three elements are as follows:

   (a)“Biometrics”: “Personal identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person’s signature. Biometrics can be used for comparison, with, for example, facial images held by the Department or other domestic or international agencies.”[4]

   (b)“Documents”: “Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features. Documents contain bio data, or personal information, such as name, date of birth, nationality and/or citizenship, and may also contain biometric information.”[5]

   (c)“Life story”: “A person’s life story is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. Officers should consider the events that happened to the person, and the information and detail correlating to the events. A person’s life story may include descriptions of family composition, education, employment, countries of residence, countries visited, social footprint and online presence.”[6]

   [3] Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, Chapter 16, Clause 4. 4.

   [4] Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, Chapter 16, Clause 4. 4, Table 3.

   [5] Ibid.

   [6] Ibid.

6. The Citizenship Procedural Instructions also provide as follows:

   (a)“Officers should not rely on a single pillar to establish a person’s identity. Considering a single pillar in isolation is generally inadequate for providing a reliable basis on which to establish a person’s identity. In order to comprehensively test and evaluate a person’s claims with regard to their identity, decision-makers should consider each pillar.”[7]

   (b)“In order to make an informed assessment of a person’s identity, officers must seek to establish a person’s identity from birth using an evidence-based approach. It is not sufficient to be satisfied of a person’s identity at one point in time, as a person’s identity is not a point in time concept; it must be verified incrementally throughout a person’s life and considered historically.”[8]

   (c)“The way in which officers should approach the concept of assessing a person’s identity from birth is to create an identity timeline, thus creating a complete picture of the person’s identity from birth to present. The objective is to link the applicant’s identity at birth to the identity provided in their application for Australian citizenship by considering key chronological events in the person’s life. The three pillars are the methodology for establishing a person’s identity, and officers must turn their mind to the individual characteristics in order to piece together a person’s identity timeline and create an “identity picture”.”[9]

   [7] Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, Chapter 16, Clause 4.4.

   [8] Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, Chapter 16, Clause 4.12.

   [9] Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, Chapter 16, Clause 4.12.

   OBSERVATIONS ON THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE

7. The Applicant gave evidence on affirmation with the assistance of an interpreter in the Farsi language. He was subjected to cross-examination. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to make some observations about his general demeanour as a witness. Overall, he was most unsatisfactory. On occasions he was evasive. From time to time he had the practice of not answering a question but responding with a question when it was uncalled for. This often occurred in a setting where the question was straightforward and clearly comprehensible. Some specific examples of the unsatisfactory nature of his evidence will be given further in these reasons. Amongst other things, they relate to his explanation concerning the passport he travelled on between Iran and Indonesia, whether he went to school and whether he had been admitted to hospital. His evidence on these topics was completely implausible.

   CONSIDERATION

8. The Applicant came to Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival on or about 17 July 2010.[10] He was subsequently granted a protection visa on 12 October 2011.[11]

   [10] T Documents, T7.

   [11] T Documents, T8.

9. On 16 October 2017, the Applicant made an application for Australian citizenship by conferral. The application was accompanied by several documents which were all certified copies. Those documents were all official documents that had been created by various government agencies since the Applicant’s arrival in Australia.[12]

   [12] The application for Australian citizenship by conferral and the attached documents are at T4 of the T Documents.

10. On 17 October 2019, the Respondent, by way of a letter, requested further information from the Applicant. The letter was detailed and explained what further material was required. The material requested was “Overseas Issued Documents”, “Life Story to Support your Identity” and the provision of a statutory declaration as to these matters. Precise details of what was required to be included in the proposed statutory declaration were referred to in bullet point form. Specifically, the letter stated that if the Applicant were unable to present any of the documents or information sought in support of his claimed identity, the statutory declaration should provide an extensive and detailed explanation of what attempts he had made to obtain the documents and the reasons why he was not able to present them. The reader of the document could be in no doubt as to what was required in the making and completion of the requested statutory declaration. Attached to the letter was a “Form 80 – Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment”.[13]

    [13] These documents are at T5 of the T Documents.

11. On 18 November 2019, the Applicant provided to the Respondent the completed “Form 80” with four attached certified documents.[14] These documents had already been furnished by the Applicant to the Respondent with his application for Australian citizenship made on 16 October 2017.[15] Surprisingly, the Applicant did not provide the requested statutory declaration.

    [14] T Documents, T6.

    [15] T Documents, T4.

12. As noted earlier, the reviewable decision was made on 22 November 2019 refusing the application for Australian citizenship.

    Inconsistencies in Applicant’s evidence

13. There were a number of inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence before the Tribunal and in the documents that were tendered in evidence.

    Passports

14. In the evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing of the application, the Applicant’s evidence concerning a passport that he travelled with shifted. He gave evidence that he obtained a passport in Iran and used it to travel to Dubai and then to Indonesia. His evidence was that he threw the document overboard when he was in a boat travelling from Indonesia to Australia. He said he did so because everyone else in the boat did so. He said, implausibly, that he did not know that it might be required later, particularly in Australia. He admitted a passport was required to travel everywhere else he had travelled including Iran, Dubai and Indonesia but that somehow it would not be required in Australia. This evidence was implausible. Then he stated he did not know if the passport was a forged one or a genuine one. When probed he said he paid a lot of money to a people smuggler to obtain it. He stated that the passport he threw in the water had his photograph on it and his true name.

15. The process used to obtain the passport he said was that the people smuggler took him to a police station. On arrival at the police station they were introduced to a police officer who gave the Applicant a form to sign, which he did. Then he made a payment and received the passport. He then said, once again implausibly, he didn’t know the difference between a forged and a genuine passport as it was the first time he had a passport. He also said in his evidence on affirmation that he did not know if the passport was an Iranian passport. He did not read it. This evidence seems completely and utterly implausible. The Applicant presented as someone who was literate, articulate and very much alive to protecting his own interests. It seems inconceivable, having had the opportunity to observe him, that he would not have read the passport to familiarise himself with its contents and its accuracy.

16. His evidence concerning his passport was also inconsistent with the contents of his Application for a Protection (Class XA) visa.[16] In that document at question 30 he stated that he did have a passport from Iran but the name on the document was unknown. In that answer when asked where the document was now, he responded, “smuggler took it”. This is also inconsistent with his evidence on affirmation that he threw the document overboard into the water.

    [16] Supplementary T (ST) Documents, ST3, p 42.

17. The Applicant’s evidence was at variance with some of the documents before the Tribunal. In the Biodata form dated 17 July 2010 completed on or about the day of his arrival in Australia, question nine asked specifically if he had any passports.[17] He only referred to a “white card” (apparently a form of internal identity document in Iran) which was currently located in the city where he says he lived, namely Ahwaz. He did not say he gave the white card to the people smuggler to get his passport. He did not reveal the existence of the passport, let alone whether it was Iranian or not. It is apparent from the evidence given by the Applicant to this Tribunal in the course of the hearing of the application that this answer was not strictly correct, if not false and/or misleading.

    [17] ST Documents, ST1, p 2, question 9.

18. In the notes from the Applicant’s entry interview of 26 August 2010, the Applicant was asked about passports at question 11.[18] In response to that question he admitted he had a white card. He had no idea of its current location, stating he gave the white card to the smuggler to make a passport. He then stated he had an Iranian passport “fake” and the current location was with the smuggler. This response is false as he gave evidence on affirmation that in fact, he had thrown the passport overboard. He also gave evidence on affirmation as noted earlier, that he did not know which country the passport came from, although, the Tribunal finds this particular piece of evidence implausible. There must also be a real doubt as to whether the passport was indeed a “fake,” as on the Applicant’s own admission it had a true photograph and his true name on it and was apparently obtained through official channels.

    [18] ST Documents, ST2, p 10.

    School attendance

19. The Applicant gave evidence on affirmation that he had never been to school. He was shown document ST5 being an “IAAAS Interview – Request for RSA and Statement of Claims.”[19] An attachment to that document headed “Education” reveals that the Applicant had attended two primary schools in Tehran, Iran.[20] When he was shown this document, he said “I have not seen this document before. It is the first time I have seen it, it does not belong to me”. When confronted with the signature on the document,[21] he admitted that the signature on that page was his. He was asked, given his acknowledgement that he signed the document, if he wished to change his evidence that he had not been to school or that it was the first time he had seen such document and that it did not belong to him. He declined to do so. The Tribunal finds this evidence implausible given that he signed the document which shows his education history.

    [19] ST Documents, ST5.

    [20] Ibid, p 66.

    [21] ST Documents, ST5, p 83.

    Hospital admission

20. There was another aspect of the Applicant’s evidence that was also most unsatisfactory. He was asked if he had ever been admitted to a hospital. He replied he had never been admitted to hospital. He only went to a hospital when he had a flu or fever and needed to obtain a prescription to buy tablets.

21. The Applicant was then taken to a transcript of an interview of 30 June 2011 conducted as part of an Independent Merits Review.[22] The record of interview reveals that the Applicant stated he had been to hospital for approximately five days after he had been beaten up by his then partner’s brothers.[23] This of course is inconsistent with the bold statement he made earlier that he had never been admitted to hospital. He sought then to explain away this discrepancy in his evidence by saying that the admission to hospital was only for injury and not for sickness. This response was disingenuous. He full well understood the question had he ever been admitted to hospital. His response was no. Having been confronted with his admission in the interview, he then created this distinction between injury and sickness which the answer to the question did not call for. It reflects poorly upon him. The Applicant stated that he had not attempted to obtain any records from the hospital that may have assisted in verifying his identity.

    [22] ST Documents, ST9.

    [23] Ibid, p 128.

    Three pillars of identity

22. Consideration will now be given to the three pillars of identity referred to in the Citizenship Procedural Instructions.

    First pillar

23. All documents containing biometrics or personal identifiers, within the meaning of the first pillar, have come into existence after the Applicant’s arrival in Australia. They really have little or no value in reaching a concluded view on the Applicant’s proof of identity for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act.

    Second pillar

24. A similar problem besets a consideration of the second pillar concerning documents. No documents have been provided to establish the Applicant’s identity that have come into existence prior to his arrival in Australia.

25. The Applicant was probed in cross-examination as to the efforts that he has made to obtain any documentary evidence from Iran that might go towards establishing his identity. The efforts, it is fair to say, undertaken on his behalf or by him, have been limited.

26. He readily conceded that he had previously held both an Iranian “Green Card” and “White Card”.[24] Once again, the evidence concerning their whereabouts varied. In the witness box he said he had both a green card and then a white card which he gave to the person who prepared the travel document for him. It was not clear from his evidence whether he gave the white card to the people smuggler or the policeman at the police station he attended when he obtained his passport. He did not identify what travel document he was referring to. In the notes from his entry interview of 26 August 2010 he said he had a white card but didn’t know what happened to it as he gave the white card to the people smuggler to obtain a passport.[25]

    [24] This was also consistent with the contents of the "Form 80 – Personal particulars for character assessment” at question 14 where he stated he had held both the Green Card and White Card: ST Documents, ST6, p 85.

    [25] ST Documents, ST2, p 10,

27. The Applicant was probed as to what attempts he had made to obtain documents that would assist in proving his identity. Those attempts were limited. He said that he had telephoned his brother and asked him to make enquiries. His brother went to an office that had previously been some form of official office to discover that it no longer is and is currently a medical practice. No other attempts were made by the Applicant or his brother to locate the correct office and make official enquiries. The Applicant himself it appears made no further enquiries and certainly did not ask his brother, his sisters or (for that matter) his mother to make any further enquiries. This is surprising indeed.

28. The Applicant did not approach any foreign embassies (including the Iranian Embassy) or authorities himself, either in Australia or from Australia. He said that he made some enquiries, which he did not explain, but did not succeed. Given the implausibility of much of the Applicant’s evidence outlined previously, the Tribunal cannot place much weight upon this evidence, if at all.

29. The Applicant did not have a birth certificate. His evidence on this topic was somewhat evasive. He was asked if he was aware that registration of births was compulsory in Iran. He said he didn’t understand the question and when instructed to answer it said he didn’t know. No attempt has been made to obtain a birth certificate and none was produced. This is surprising indeed.

30. No school documents have been produced and the evidence given previously concerning his schooling was most unsatisfactory.

31. Another feature of his evidence that was quite surprising was there had been no attempts by him to obtain any identity documents for his family members residing in Iran. The Applicant readily conceded that his family members had identity documents in Iran.[26] He gave evidence on affirmation that he had asked his family members for these documents but was told by them that they could not send them out of Iran. It was put to him in cross-examination that he could have asked for photos or photocopies of the documents. The Applicant responded that he tried by asking his brother who said he did not want to send a copy of the documents. The reason that his brother gave him for not wanting to send copies of the documents was that it could cause problems for him. When probed as to what those problems were, it was simply put by way of response that the Applicant’s brother was thinking about his own life and thought that the authorities in Iran might question him on why he would do that. The explanation given by the Applicant on this topic seemed thoroughly unconvincing.

    [26] This would also be a means of corroborating the birthdates of his immediate family members about which more will be said later in these reasons.

1. There was also no attempt by the Applicant to obtain supporting statements in whatever form, from his immediate family members. He gave evidence, and the documents establish, that he is one of a family of four. One might have expected some of those family members to have made statements or statutory declarations in support of the Applicant, particularly concerning his identity. This is even more surprising when one considers the evidence that the Applicant gave concerning the support he had from his brother for the attempt, that was ultimately successful, to move to Australia. He said that his brother was part of the source of the funds he raised of approximately $6,000 to $8,000 USD to pay the people smuggler. Those funds were raised by the Applicant’s brother selling a small parcel of land and contributing such funds to the Applicant to assist with paying the smuggler. It seems surprising that if his brother had invested so much in the Applicant’s future travel plans that he would not have been prepared to assist in every other way when it comes to establishing the Applicant’s identity.

2. The Applicant was also questioned in cross-examination as to whether he had any photographs from his time in Iran. He said he had one photograph, but it was not produced. It seems surprising that his family would not have at least some family photographs of the Applicant during his time in Iran that could be produced by way of corroboration.

3. Another question asked of the Applicant in cross-examination was whether he had contact with people in Iran who knew him from his time there who could have furnished supporting statements to verify his identity. His response was that he did not have friendly relationships with anyone there. At best he has a few people he knows who he exchanges greetings with but no friends. This explanation also seems rather implausible.

4. For completeness, it should also be mentioned that there are a range of other documents which it is more probable than not that the Applicant has, or has had, access to which might assist in verifying his identity. These include such things as rental records, his father’s death certificate and records concerning his journey to Australia, including tickets and records from hotels where he had stayed from time to time, particularly in Jakarta. None of these documents were produced and no explanation was offered as to what has happened to them and/or why they were not produced.

5. The Respondent contends and the Tribunal agrees that there is an onus on an Applicant to provide information or evidence to establish his identity. The provisions of paragraph 4.12 of Chapter 16 of the Citizenship Procedural Instructions are referred to. The Respondent also relies upon the decision of Dhayakpa v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[27] where this Tribunal observed, amongst other things, that “where an applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist and which he has been advised to secure, the application ought to be rejected.” The Tribunal finds in this instance that the Applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities to secure evidence of identity which he might reasonably have been expected to do and which more probably than not exist. This must count against him.

   [27] [2015] AATA 310 at [117].

6. The Respondent also referred to the decision of CDNB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[28] The Tribunal held there that where documents are not produced to establish identity, “there will need to be a cogent and acceptable explanation as to why, in order for [the Tribunal] to reach a state of positive satisfaction of the identity of the applicants. Furthermore, [the Tribunal] must form a view that other evidence given by the applicants as to their personal background must be reliable.” The Tribunal cannot accept the Applicant’s explanations as to the absence of documentary evidence and, as noted earlier, cannot accept much of his evidence. Therefore, he has not given a cogent and acceptable explanation enabling the Tribunal to reach a state of positive satisfaction of his identity.

   [28] [2018] AATA 757 at [9].

   Third pillar

7. With respect to the third pillar, the Applicant’s life story, the Respondent identifies a number of inconsistencies which also prevent the Tribunal from reaching a state of positive satisfaction as to the Applicant’s identity.

8. Different dates have been furnished by the Applicant concerning the date of birth of his mother. In his application for Australian citizenship[29] he stated that her date of birth was 5 February 1949. In the “Form 80 – Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment”,[30] he stated that her date of birth was 6 February 1943.

   [29] T Documents, T4, p 184.

   [30] T Documents, T6, p 238.

9. Different dates have been furnished by the Applicant concerning the date of birth of his father. Once again, in his application for Australian citizenship[31] he stated that his father’s date of birth was 25 July 1943. In the “Form 80 – Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment”,[32] he stated that his father’s date of birth was 27 July 1943.

   [31] T Documents, T4, p 184.

   [32] T Documents, T6, p 238.

10. There are other documents made by the Applicant where he stated he did not know his mother’s or father’s birthdates. These were as follows:

    (a)Biodata form signed by the Applicant on 17 July 2010;[33]

    (b)Notes from his entry interview dated 26 August 2010;[34]

    (c)Application for a Protection (Class XA) visa;[35]

    (d)Request for Refugee Status Assessment and Statement of Claims;[36] and

    (e)“Form 80 – Personal particulars for character assessment”.[37]

    [33] ST Documents, ST1, pp 3-4.

    [34] ST Documents, ST2, p 12.

    [35] ST Documents, ST3, p 34.

    [36] ST Documents, ST5, p 74.

    [37] ST Documents, ST6, pp 87-88.

11. Different dates have been furnished by the Applicant concerning the date of birth of his brother. Those different accounts are as follows:

    (a)In his application for Australian citizenship by conferral he stated that his brother’s date of birth was 23 March 1980;[38]

    (b)In the “Form 80 – Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment” signed by him on 13 November 2019, he stated that his brother’s date of birth was 23 May 1980;[39]

    (c)In the notes from his entry interview of 26 August 2010 he stated that his brother’s date of birth was “1978”;[40]

    (d)In his Application for a Protection (Class XA) visa made on 22 October 2010 he stated that his brother’s date of birth was “approx. 1978”;[41] and

    (e)In the “Form 80 – Personal particulars for character assessment” made on 22 October 2010, he gave his brother’s date of birth as approximately 1978.[42]

    [38] T Documents, T4, p 185.

    [39] T Documents T6, p 239.

    [40] ST Documents, ST2, p 12.

    [41] ST Documents, ST3, p 34.

    [42] ST Documents, ST6, p 88.

12. It seems inconceivable to the Tribunal that the Applicant could give so many different versions of the dates of birth of his parents and his brother. In his evidence from the witness box, the Applicant offered no satisfactory explanation for the inconsistencies in the dates that had been provided. The best he did was to say that upon his arrival at Christmas Island when he first arrived in Australia, he told an interpreter that he did not know their birthdates. Putting aside the implausibility of this explanation, he then stated that he was told by an interpreter that it did not matter and he could fix it later. The Tribunal finds it difficult to accept this explanation. Even if it were given by an interpreter, which seems unlikely, one finds it difficult to accept that on so many occasions the Applicant could get it so wrong. If he did not know their dates of birth, he should have said so from the outset. Although, it seems unlikely that he would not have known when his parents and brother were born. Particularly, with respect to his brother, there are significant variations between the dates of birth. This is troubling.

13. The issue of the cost to the Applicant of departing Iran also warrants consideration. As noted above, the Applicant stated that the cost of paying the people smuggler was approximately $6,000-$8,000 USD. This evidence given on affirmation to the Tribunal in the hearing varied slightly from the account he gave in the interview on 25 October 2010 as part of the Refugee Status Assessment where he said it was $8000 USD.[43] His evidence before the Tribunal concerning the assistance rendered by his brother also varied slightly from the version that he gave in the Refugee Status Assessment interview. It will be recalled that to the Tribunal he stated that his brother sold some land and the proceeds applied towards payment of the $6,000 to $8,000 to the people smuggler. In the interview he stated that his brother helped him a lot, probably from his savings. There was no reference in the interview to the sale of the parcel of land. Yet again, it is part of a pattern of inconsistencies.

    [43] ST Documents, ST7, p 103.

14. The Applicant stated that he obtained money towards the cost of travel to Australia from carrying on business as a street vendor. He said he had been undertaking this occupation since childhood. As noted earlier, he also stated he had assistance from his brother. He stated he started work as a street vendor from the age of 12. He said he did not make good money. Additionally, it should be noted he stated that he helped pay for house expenses and that his mother and siblings are also dependent on him.

15. It is the Respondent’s contention that the Applicant’s version of how the funds, whatever amount there may have been, were raised to pay the people smuggler is implausible. This is put in the context that the amount paid to the people smuggler exceeded the Applicant’s  total earnings that were used to support himself and his family. It is not possible for the Tribunal to reach a concluded view on this topic. However, it does raise considerable doubts about the credibility of the explanation given as to the source of the funds. There is no independent verification, or even verification from his brother or his mother and sisters, that corroborate this aspect of the Applicant’s life story. It seems unlikely that, on the Applicant’s version of events, even with the support of his brother, it was possible for him to raise the money necessary to pay the people smuggler. Once again, this version of events seems rather implausible.

16. The Respondent also raises several concerns regarding the Applicant’s account of his departure from Iman Khomeini International Airport in Tehran, Iran.[44] These concerns centre around the issue of whether the Applicant’s passport was authentic. Much has already been canvassed in these reasons concerning the question of the passport used by the Applicant and its authenticity. It need not be repeated. The point being made by the Respondent is that the Applicant paid $500 at the check-in to buy a ticket and otherwise had no trouble passing through Imam Khomeini Airport from where he travelled to Jakarta via Dubai. The Respondent identifies several reputable publications (collectively known as “Country Information”[45]) that indicate the security measures at the airport are extremely robust. There is, therefore, an extremely low likelihood of successfully exiting the country using a false passport.

    [44] The contents of paragraphs 39 to 44 of the Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (“SFIC”) are referred to.

    [45] The Respondent referred to DFAT Country Information Report Iran, 14 April 2020 (Annexure 5 to Respondent’s SFIC, [5.41]- [5.43]), Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Iran: exit and entry procedures at airports and land borders, April 2006 (Annexure 3 to Respondent’s SFIC, page 1) and Danish Immigration Service, Human Rights Situation for Minorities, Women and Converts, and Entry and Exit Procedures, ID Cards, Summons and Reporting, etc, April 2009 (Annexure 4 to Respondent’s SFIC, page 40).

17. The Tribunal agrees that the Applicant’s account of his departure from Imam Khomeini Airport is inconsistent with the publicly available Country Information which indicates that extremely strict scrutiny is applied to people departing from Iran. The likelihood is extremely high that a false passport would be identified at the point of departure. The Tribunal considers it highly likely that indeed the passport used by the Applicant may well have been a valid one, as noted earlier in these reasons, because it was a passport issued with the Applicant’s true photograph and correct name and was obtained from an Iranian Police Station. It should be repeated that the Applicant’s evidence concerning the passport was most unsatisfactory. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied as to this element of the Applicant’s life story.

    CONCLUSION

18. The Tribunal, by reason of the foregoing analysis, cannot reach the required state of satisfaction as to the Applicant’s identity as required by s 24(3) of the Act. The Applicant has not established to the Tribunal’s satisfaction any one of the three pillars, being biometrics, documents and life story.

19. There is inadequate material, particularly documentary evidence, of his identity prior to his arrival in Australia. Significant inconsistencies are apparent on the limited version of the Applicant’s life story that has been provided. Additionally, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant has not taken genuine and reasonable steps to secure evidence (including documentary evidence) of his identity which might reasonably be expected to exist which he had been advised by the Respondent to secure. It is certainly not a complete picture of his identity from birth to present. The “identity picture” of the Applicant as contemplated by the Citizenship Policy Statement has not been created.

20. Accordingly, the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the reviewable decision. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 51 (fifty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of R Cameron, Senior Member

.....[sgd].............................................

Associate

Dated: 30 April 2021

Dates of hearing:	20 April 2021
Applicant:	Self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Lauren Hargrave
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz