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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by the applicant. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was the respondent. The applicant arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival in July 2010 and was subsequently granted a protection visa. He applied for citizenship in October 2017. The respondent requested further information, including overseas-issued documents and a detailed explanation of the applicant's life story to support his identity, along with a statutory declaration. The applicant provided a completed Form 80 but failed to submit the requested statutory declaration.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it could be satisfied as to the applicant's identity, as required by section 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). This involved assessing the applicant's identity through the three pillars: biometrics, documents, and life story, and determining if the applicant had taken genuine and reasonable steps to obtain evidence of his identity. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's demeanour as a witness, the consistency of his evidence, and the adequacy of the documentary evidence provided, particularly concerning his identity prior to arriving in Australia.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be unsatisfactory, noting evasiveness and implausible explanations regarding his travel between Iran and Indonesia, his schooling, and hospital admissions. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies between the applicant's account of departing Iran and publicly available country information regarding strict scrutiny at departure points. Furthermore, the applicant had not provided the requested statutory declaration detailing his attempts to obtain further documentary evidence, despite being advised to do so. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it could not be satisfied as to the applicant's identity, as the provided material, particularly documentary evidence, was inadequate, and significant inconsistencies existed in his life story. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.