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

[2022] AATA 1372

Safar and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2022] AATA 1372 (31 May 2022)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2021/7243

Re:Antar Kori Safar

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

Date:31 May 2022

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – application for conferral of Australian citizenship – whether the Tribunal is satisfied of the Applicant’s good character – Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – violent offences – Applicant disputes convictions – medical conditions – Tribunal not satisfied Applicant is of good character – decision affirmed

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Cases

Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Re (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931
Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44
HZCP v MIBP [2018] FCA 1803
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 61 FLR 354
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT (1999) 91 FCR 234
Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326

Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304

Secondary Materials

Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (27 November 2020)
Refugee, Citizenship and Multicultural Programs Division, Department of Home Affairs, Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (26 February 2021)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

31 May 2022

INTRODUCTION

1. The Applicant seeks review of a decision to refuse his application for Australian citizenship under s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The hearing was conducted on 26 May 2022. The Applicant appeared by video-link and was represented by his brother, Mr Nadir Safar. The Respondent was represented by Mr Lino Kim, a solicitor with Clayton Utz.

3. For the following reasons the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

   BACKGROUND

4. The Applicant is a sixty-six-year-old citizen of Iraq.[1] He is of Assyrian ethnicity and Christian religion.[2] Prior to arriving in Australia he claimed to have served in the Iraqi Army for 16 years, following which he worked as a labourer and taxi driver.[3]

   [1] Exhibit R1, 144.

   [2] Ibid 134; 149.

   [3] Ibid 152; 155; 157.

5. The Applicant’s then wife and two children relocated to Australia approximately six years before him. He reunited with them in September 2013 under a subclass 100 (Spouse) visa and has not left Australia since.[4] Four of his siblings currently reside in Australia,[5] as do his former partner and adult children.[6] The Applicant said he has been unemployed and reliant on Centrelink payments since arriving in Australia.[7]

   [4] Ibid 187.

   [5] Ibid 117.

   [6] Ibid 113-114.

   [7] Ibid 110; 174.

6. The Applicant committed two violent offences within a year of arrival in Australia. On 15 September 2014 he was convicted of Reckless conduct endanger serious injury and Assault police, for which he received a three-month sentence of imprisonment and 18-month Community Corrections Order (CCO).[8] He was released from custody on 14 December 2014,[9] but agrees that Family Violence Intervention Orders continued until 2020.[10]

   [8] Ibid 162.

   [9] Ibid 127.

   [10]  Exhibit R2, 42-62.

7. On 25 September 2017, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.[11] This was refused on 1 November 2018 because it was less than four years since his release from prison.[12]

   [11]  Exhibit R1, 126.

   [12] Ibid; s 22(1)(a) of the Act.

8. On 9 January 2019, the Applicant made a new citizenship application,[13] declaring that the information he provided was ‘complete, truthful, and correct in every detail’.[14] A summary of his subsequent interactions with the Respondent is as follows:

   [13] Ibid 109; 147.

   [14] Ibid 124.

   (a)On 30 October 2020, the Respondent wrote to the Applicant inviting him to comment on his convictions.[15]

   [15] Ibid 164.

   (b)On 26 November 2020, the Applicant provided two Statutory Declarations from a friend and a colleague attesting to his character.[16] In his own Statutory Declaration he contextualised his offending as follows:

   [16] Ibid 171-175.

   …During the period of my offence I was suffering from high level of anxiety and I was new arrival to Australia and before that I was almost 6 years away from my family and it was difficult for me to adapt to life in Australia. I was addicted to watching news about my home country Iraq. As you know Iraq was in brutal civil war and ISIS terrorist group took control of my home town and destroyed everything there including my home and belongings. These events had had a very deep impact on me and I was very very stressed and I was sometimes unable to control my actions…I was always and will oby the law. The offence I commited was the only one in my life. I like Australia and I feel Im part of Australia community and I am ready to serve Australia. I strongly believe I deserve to be Australian citizen. I pleadge my loyality to Australia…[17]

   [17] Ibid 174-175.

   (Errors in original.)

   (c)On 3 August 2021, the Respondent refused the citizenship application based on the good character requirement at s 21(2)(h) of the Act.[18]  

   [18] Ibid 16.

   (d)On 15 September 2021, the Applicant requested an extension of time to file an application for review of the refusal decision.[19] This was granted by the Tribunal without objection from the Respondent.[20]

   (e)On 5 October 2021, the Applicant lodged his review application.[21] In response to the question ‘Why do you claim the decision is wrong?’, he stated:

   Assualt on police charges was not true, I did not assualt on police. I was just embbarrassed and hit my head on the wall when they were arresting me.

   In the court I did not know what was going on at all due to lack of knowledge of legal system and language barriers. Regarding may rehabilitaion, I strongly believe I am rehabilitated now. I had attended a rehabilitation programe arranged by the court, the outcomes of programes was reported to the magistrate court and I was interviewed the judge who sentenced me and she said to me “very good, you did well and you are now rehabilitated person, congratulation

   I also believe the caracter referenences should have given more weight. I also believe my circumstances as a new arrival and been away from his family seven years and spende most his life in wars should have considered more. I strongly believe what I did was not a crime, no hurt or injured, I was just screaming and braked the soffa and threw the food on the floor. My relationship with my daughters and seperated wife is very good, they come my place, they buy me presents and we exchange visits, they also support me for citizenship application, about not mentioning crime on my application, it was just technical mistake.

   (Errors in original.)

   [19] Ibid 177.

   [20] Ibid 186.

   [21] Ibid 7.

   LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

9. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may apply to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. To be eligible for citizenship, a person must meet each of the eight general eligibility requirements under s 21(2) of the Act.

10. Section 21(2)(h) of the Act requires the Minister to be satisfied that the citizenship applicant ‘is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.’ Section 24(1A) of the Act prohibits the Minister (or a person delegated by the Minister under s 53 of the Act) from approving the application unless so satisfied.  

11. Section 52(1)(b) of the Act confers jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to review decisions made under s 24 of the Act.

12. The Tribunal’s decision in Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 is often cited for its explanation of the significance of good character:

    The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home…The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts.  It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of State. The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few years’ time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.[22]

    [22] Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, [8].

    Citizenship Policy Statement and Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions

13. The term ‘good character’ is not defined in the Act, but has been interpreted broadly by the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court: 

    …Parliament clearly intended the term to be used in a broad way, and refrained from taking the approach adopted in the Migration Act of giving specific content to a character criterion…[23]

    [23] Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44, [60].

14. The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (Policy) (issued 27 November 2020) and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs) (reissued 26 February 2021) guide decision-makers exercising powers and discharging their functions under the Act. Although such policy is not binding on the Tribunal, decision-makers undertaking merits review should generally apply such policy unless it is unlawful or ‘there are cogent reasons to the contrary.’[24]  The Tribunal has not identified any reason why the Policy and CPIs should not be applied in this matter. That said, the Tribunal is mindful of the need to consider the exercise of delegated powers based on the specific circumstances of each case.

    [24] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.

15. Relevant to this application is Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15-Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15). CPI 15 explains the meaning of ‘good character’ in the following terms, reflecting the judgment of the Full Federal Court in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs:[25]

    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 their 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 public 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.

    [25] Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422.

16. CPI 15 provides guidance as to the meaning of the term ‘enduring moral qualities’:

    The phrase ‘enduring moral qualities’ encompasses the following concepts:

    ·     characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;
    
    

    ·     distinguishing right from wrong; and
    
    

    ·     behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.

    The good character requirement necessitates consideration of an applicant viewed in a holistic way; that is, all aspects of his/her life may be relevant to consideration of character.

17. CPI 15 provides an inclusive list of characteristics generally expected of a person of good character, noting that ‘as a general proposition, a person who is 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, and pay debts to the Commonwealth);
    
    

    ·not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example:
    
    

    ·intentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications;
    
    

    …

18. Under the heading ‘Community standards’, CPI 15 states that the Preamble to the Act can assist in identifying what the Australian community considers to be proper behaviour when assessing good character:

    Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.

    The Parliament recognises that persons conferred Australian citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations:

    (a)by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people; and

    (b)by sharing their democratic beliefs; and

    (c)by respecting their rights and liberties; and

    (d)by upholding and obeying the laws of Australia.

19. Under the heading ‘Weighing information’, CPI 15 sets out how a holistic assessment of a person’s character may be made:

    In addition to the general principles of good decision-making set out in CPI 17 – Decision-making under the Citizenship Act, officers assessing whether an applicant is of good character should as a general proposition:

    ·     characterise the nature of any offence or behaviour

    ·     is the offence serious or minor?

    ·     did the offence harm other people?

    ·     who were victims?

    ·     is there a pattern of behaviour?

    ·     was it a one off incident?

    ·     were there extenuating circumstances?

    Consider any associations with people or organisations of concern.

    Consider any mitigating circumstances:

    ·     length of time since the offence was committed

    ·     age at time of offence

    ·     behaviour since completing prison sentence or obligations to court

    ·     remorse regarding their offending behaviour

    ·     community support (referee reports etc)

    ·     changes in the life of the applicant. For example, relocation away from people who had a negative influence, marriage or de facto relationship, children, treatment for addiction or mental illness.

    The decision-maker must weigh up all relevant factors to decide whether the applicant is of good character. The decision-maker must look holistically at applicant’s behaviour over time and reach a conclusion about the person’s enduring moral qualities.

20. The requirement for a global assessment of a person’s character has previously been discussed by the Tribunal in Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs:

    a decision about whether a person is of good character requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. It is true to say, however, that, despite the many good qualities possessed by a person, those qualities can be outweighed by a single adverse incident if it is of sufficient weight and seriousness.[26]

    EVIDENCE  

    [26] Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326, [7].

    Documentary evidence

21. The following documents were tendered into evidence:

    (a)Section 37 documents lodged by the Respondent numbering 188 pages;[27]

    (b)Documents obtained under summons from Victoria Police and Broadmeadows Magistrates Court numbering 71 pages;[28]

    (c)Undated one-page document titled ‘Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions’;[29]

    (d)A photograph of a Community Correctional Services Attendance Contract dated 5 March 2015;[30]

    (e)A one-page letter dated 18 March 2022 regarding the Applicant’s completion of the Men’s Behaviour Change Program;[31]

    (f)A one-page letter dated 26 April 2022 from Dr Raafat Eisa of Mercy Family Practice;[32] and

    (g)Four pages of medical test result reports dated between 28 January 2022 and 1 February 2022.[33]

    [27] Exhibit R1.

    [28] Exhibit R2.

    [29] Exhibit A1.

    [30] Exhibit A2.

    [31] Exhibit A3.

    [32] Exhibit A4.

    [33] Exhibit A5.

    Applicant’s evidence

22. In his documentary submissions, the Applicant stated in part:[34]

    4  I believe I did not get a fair trial, I was a new arrival in Australia, I could not speak and understand English language at all and I had zero knowledge of the Australian legal system Although there was an interpreter during the trial but I still could not understand what was going on…

    5  I provided two good references for the character test . One of the references, Hani Yalda, is popular in our community; he is a deacon in the Assembly of God church and I believe his statement should be given more weight

    5  Regarding my offenses,I did not plan or have any intentions to hurt any members of my family, I just wanted to annoy them, nor more than that

    …

    7 The reason my family reported to police domestic violence is just to find an excuse to separate from me because they could not adapt to we live together again , They could not find better way than to report to police to separate because if the separated without excuses they would be blamed by our community since our traditions and religious beliefs do not accept divorce and father to be kicked away from home….

    (Errors in original)

    [34] Exhibit A1.

23. Other documents relied upon by the Applicant include a letter from his general practitioner and several diagnostic records. These detail multiple comorbidities for which he continues to receive treatment. The Applicant said he wanted to become a citizen in part to apply for a passport and travel to Iraq to visit family members.

24. In terms of references supporting his application, the Applicant relies on two Statutory Declarations dated November 2020.[35] They are in comparable handwriting and the authors were not called to give oral evidence. They refer to the Applicant variously as a ‘kind-hearted person’ and ‘beloved friend,’ who is supportive of others. Both Statutory Declarations state in precisely the same terms the authors ‘know all circumstances’ about the Applicant’s offending, which they attribute to his difficult life in Iraq.

    [35] Exhibit R1, 172-173.

25. In his oral evidence, the Applicant said his offending related to a single, isolated incident that has not been repeated. He claims to be rehabilitated because of his CCO in 2014-15 and more recent attendance at a Men’s Behaviour Change Program provided by an organisation called ‘Uniting’. A letter from Uniting states that as of 18 March 2022, the Applicant had completed 14 sessions of the Program. The letter does not indicate what stage of the course this represents, what material has been covered, or the extent to which the Applicant has engaged with this learning. The letter states that participation ‘is in no way predictive of positive change…As such, we can make no comments on this man’s behaviour now or in the future’. The author of the letter was not called to give evidence and there is no other expert evidence to reliably inform judgements about the Applicant’s rehabilitative claims. Aspects of his evidence, discussed later, enliven concerns about the extent of his insight and acceptance of responsibility for past conduct.

26. The Applicant referred to positive relationships with his former partner and adult children, but did not call them as witnesses. When asked why there were no statements from them, the Applicant said he had not asked.

27. Much of the hearing centred on the Applicant’s family violence offending in 2014. While he agreed there was an argument, he initially said it was verbal and he was not violent. When taken through the contemporaneous police reports at the time[36] he denied threatening to kill his ex-partner and children, or throwing a plate of food at his ex-partner, or hitting her. He agreed, however, that he broke a food container on the ground and slapped his daughter for intervening in the argument, claiming she called him a ‘dog’ and a ‘son of a bitch’. The Applicant said the slap was ‘very mild…it wasn’t hurtful – there was no injury’. When challenged that the police report referred to his daughter suffering a cut lip, the Applicant responded: ‘No I don’t remember if there was any injury’. When asked about a reference in the police report to him pulling his daughter’s hair and pushing her, the Applicant responded: ‘100% for sure I did not push her.’

    [36] Exhibit R2, 5-6.

1. When asked about a reference in the police report to him collecting a jerry can of petrol, pouring it throughout the house, switching a lighter on, and threatening to burn the house down, the Applicant denied this. He explained that he only threatened to set himself on fire, but denied switching on a lighter, or having to be restrained from igniting the petrol.

2. The Applicant agreed that police attended his home and arrested him. When asked about the Assault police conviction and how he cut his head, the Applicant denied assaulting police and said he cut his head by intentionally hitting it on a door. He explained this resulted from embarrassment about being arrested, which caused him to become ‘agitated’.

3. The Applicant said the length of his separation from his family prior to re-joining them in Australia had caused friction between them. He said one daughter was no longer ‘comfortable’ in his presence and treated him like a stranger. The Applicant said he did not feel welcome and family members did not take him shopping, invite him on outings, or allow him to attend school events. Because of this, he decided to ‘annoy them a bit’ by ‘breaking a plate or something like that’, but never hit them. He stated: ‘I love them even if they don’t love me’. The Applicant claimed his family used the 2014 incident as ‘an excuse’ to cause their separation from him, rather than facing cultural blame from their ethnic community for kicking their husband and father out of the family home.[37]

   [37] Exhibit A1, [7].

4. The Applicant agreed he was represented by a lawyer when attending court and had the services of an Assyrian interpreter. He pleaded guilty to both charges but claimed this was because his lawyer told him: ‘you have to say guilty otherwise wouldn’t be good for you.’ He claimed not to understand what he pleaded guilty to despite having an interpreter.

   Evidence of Mr Nadar Safar

5. Mr Nadar Safar, the Applicant’s brother, made several submissions in support of approving the citizenship application, which are summarised as follows:

   (a)  The Applicant has not reoffended since the single, isolated incident in 2014;

   (b)  Due regard has not been given to the Applicant’s ‘cultural background’ and its relevance to his offending;

   (c)   The Applicant ‘suffered a lot’ prior to arriving in Australia and found it hard to adapt because he was alienated by his family;

   (d)  The Applicant’s former partner and adult children did not like him and tried to find ‘any excuse’ to ‘kick him out’ of the family home. It was contended they did this by ‘making their statement [to police] bigger’ than his conduct deserved;

   (e)  The Applicant has undertaken a recent rehabilitation program;

   (f)    The Applicant wants to apply for an Australian passport and travel back to Iraq to see his cousins and sisters, which would positively impact his health; and

   (g)  The Applicant’s character references should be given more weight.

   CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

   Applicant

6. Mr Nadar Safar reinforced that the Applicant had no intention of harming his family in 2014 or since and is now rehabilitated. He said the Applicant’s ‘actions and behaviour’ were affected by his experiences in Iraq, but he no longer posed a danger to others because of his medical conditions.

   Respondent

7. Mr Kim said the Applicant continues to blame his family rather than reflecting on his own behaviour. He said the Applicant had still not come to terms with his objectionable conduct, and little weight should be placed on his rehabilitative claims. Mr Kim referred to conduct by the Applicant leading to charges that were subsequently struckout / withdrawn, and the contemporaneous police accounts leading to these charges, as preferable to the Applicant’s uncorroborated claims.

   CONSIDERATION

8. The Tribunal considers there is no discernible motive for the police officers who raised contemporaneous reports to have recorded other than what they saw or was conveyed to them. That is reinforced by the Applicant’s acceptance during the hearing that he slapped one of his daughters, but which does not appear to have been pursued in court. As Kenny J has pointed out, however, the Tribunal should treat ‘police service files’ carefully and acknowledge the ‘limits to the material…that was said to evidence such conduct, including its cogency and reliability’.[38] Anastassiou J has similarly expressed the need for care about ‘reaching a view that criminal conduct has occurred, absent a prosecution and conviction’.[39] Out of an abundance of caution, the Tribunal has only given weight to police records that either resulted in a conviction or where the Applicant conceded his involvement during the hearing. The prejudicial impact of relying on police reports that are explicitly denied and untested in court, or not corroborated by other probative evidence, is too great.

   [38] CVN17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 163 ALD 101, [98]-[100].

   [39] QDQY v minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1394, [74], citing Brown v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] 112 ALD 67, [85] (Edmonds J) and echoed by the Full Court on appeal in Brown v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] 183 FCR 113, [128] (Nicholas J, with whom Moore and Rares JJ agreed).

9. The Applicant’s medical evidence persuasively establishes he has several serious comorbidities, which are understandably difficult to deal with. Although the Tribunal has considered this information, the reviewable decision relates to his character and not his medical status.

10. The Applicant committed family violence offences against his former partner and their two children.[40] His reckless conduct exposed family members to a risk of serious injury and he assaulted police when they tried to arrest him. Interim and final Family Violence Protection Orders were taken out to protect his victims, the last of which expired in October 2020.[41] Although the Tribunal does not have access to any agreed prosecution facts or sentencing remarks, it is well established that a plea of guilty constitutes admission to and acceptance of all elements of an offence.[42] It is also not open to the Tribunal to impugn the essential factual basis of criminal convictions or sentences.[43] The seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct is evident from the imposition of a three-month custodial sentence and 18-month CCO, despite the Applicant being a first-time offender.[44]

    [40] Exhibit R2, 5-7.

    [41] Ibid 42-62.

    [42] Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501, [19].

    [43] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 61 FLR 354 at 358; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT (1999) 91 FCR 234 at 244–245; HZCP v MIBP [2018] FCA 1803, [102] (Bromberg J).

    [44] Exhibit R1, 160.

11. The Applicant’s attribution of his offending to a ‘high level of anxiety’, difficulties in adapting to life in Australia,[45] and being ‘addicted’ to watching news about problems in Iraq, came across as an attempt to diminish his personal culpability. Many people experience difficult circumstances in their country of origin and anxiety, which never justifies harming others. In the absence of any expert evidence, the Tribunal rejects the submission that psychological harm from his life in Iraq is contextually relevant to the Applicant’s offending.

    [45] Ibid 174.

12. It is of concern to the Tribunal that almost eight years after his convictions, the Applicant continues to blame his victims for reporting him to police as ‘an excuse’ to separate from him.[46] The Tribunal rejects this and, in the absence of any evidence from his former partner or adult children, is unable to accept his claims that they enjoy positive and mutually supportive relationships.

    [46] Exhibit A1, [7].

13. Despite completing a CCO in 2014 and 2015,[47] and recent participation in a Men’s Behaviour Change Program[48] the Applicant’s evidence reflects a continuing lack of insight into the damaging effects of his past conduct. There is limited evidence at best about his rehabilitation and the United letter makes clear his participation to date ‘is in no way predictive of positive change…As such, we can make no comments on this man’s behaviour now or in the future’. Having regard for the totality of the evidence, the Tribunal finds the Applicant has not yet fully benefitted from rehabilitative opportunities.  

    [47] Exhibit A2.

    [48] Exhibit A3.

14. The Applicant’s expressions of remorse during the hearing had more to do with his own personal circumstances than the effects on his victims. His claims about the passage of time and rehabilitative progress, are contradicted by continuing mischaracterisation of his past conduct and its harmful effects on his former partner and their children.

15. The Applicant failed to disclose his conviction for Assault police in his citizenship application,[49] and it is not accepted this was a ‘technical mistake’.[50] He signed this document to certify it was ‘complete, truthful, and correct in every detail’[51] and is responsible for information submitted in his name. The Tribunal accepts he received assistance from his brother in completing this form, but both were aware of his 2014 convictions at this time and neglected to include this relevant information. Having previously had a citizenship application refused, it is reasonable to expect the Applicant and his brother would have made every effort to ensure the information provided in this later application was complete, truthful, and correct in every detail. 

    [49] Exhibit R1, 121.

    [50] Ibid 8.

    [51] Ibid 124.

16. The Tribunal has considered material in support of the Applicant, namely Statutory Declarations from two friends dated November 2020. Less weight is placed on this material because both Statutory Declarations are in comparable handwriting, use the same words regarding the circumstances of his offending, make general claims at best, and neither author was called as a witness.

    CONCLUSION

17. The Australian community reasonably expects non-citizens to be law-abiding and truthful when dealing with government agencies. The Applicant committed violent crimes within a year of arriving in Australia. It is accepted this related to a single course of conduct and eight years have since passed. It is of concern, however, that despite recent offence-specific rehabilitation, he continues to impugn his convictions, deflects blame on his victims, and raises other factors of questionable relevance that derogate from the seriousness of his conduct. The Tribunal is unconvinced the Applicant is persuasively reformed.

18. Having weighed factors positive to this application against character concerns, the Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant is currently of good character as required by s 21(2)(h) of the Act. Refusal of his citizenship application does not affect his visa status in Australia, nor deprive him of the income support, healthcare, and other benefits he has received since arriving in Australia. Citizenship is not a pre-condition for the Applicant to travel. He is also not prevented from making a new application for citizenship when he is better able to able to satisfy the good character requirement.

    DECISION

19. It follows that the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

……………[sgd]…………………….
Associate

Dated: 31 May 2022

Date of hearing:	26 May 2022
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr Nadir Safar
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Lino Kim
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz