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

Saidi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 1916 (25 June 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/4697
Re:Zainab Saidi
APPLICANT

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

DECISION
Tribunal:Member K. Parker
Date:25 June 2020
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review.
[sgd]...............................................................
Member K. Parker
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – refusal of application for citizenship by conferral – whether Tribunal satisfied as to Applicant’s identity – inconsistent information provided about identity of the Applicant in previous visa applications – Tribunal not satisfied as to Applicant’s identity – approval of application for citizenship by conferral prohibited under s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – reviewable decision affirmed
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Secondary Materials
Citizenship Policy, issued 1 June 2016
Attorney-General’s National Identity Proofing Guidelines, 2016
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member K. Parker
25 June 2020
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant, Ms Zainab Saidi, seeks review of a decision made on 18 July 2019 to refuse her application to become an Australian citizen (Decision Under Review). This decision was made on the following bases:
(a)the relevant delegate was not satisfied as to Ms Saidi’s identity and that approval of her application for citizenship by conferral was prohibited by reason of s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act); and
(b)the relevant delegate was not satisfied that Ms Saidi is of “good character” and therefore, does not meet the eligibility requirement for conferral of citizenship under subsection 21(2)(h) of the Act.
For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal is not satisfied as to Ms Saidi’s identity. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review on the basis that approval of Ms Saidi’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral is prohibited under s 24(3) of the Act.
BACKGROUND
On 18 March 2010[1] Ms Saidi was included in a visa application (together with other purported members of her family), for a special humanitarian (subclass 202) visa under the name “Zainab Salimi” (2010 visa application). The main applicant was stated to be “Gul Bibi Sasimi” and an Afghan citizen.[2] This application was sponsored by a person by the name of “Altaf Ali Ali” who gave an address in Oxley Road, Oxley, Queensland, date of birth of 1 January 1983 and place of birth of Shashpaar, Afghanistan. The main applicant was described on the visa application form as being Mr Ali’s aunt.[3] On this form, Zainab Salimi’s date of birth was listed as 1 January 1994 and she was described as the eldest daughter of Gul Bibi Sasimi. Three further (younger) daughters were listed on the form as other applicants for the visa, namely, Zeenat Salimi (date of birth 1 January 1996); Kaneez Salimi (date of birth 1 January 2000), and Reda Salimi (1 January 2003).
[1] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T2(d)/69.
[2] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T2(e)/72.
[3] Ibid.
On 24 July 2010, the 2010 visa application was refused.
There was a marriage certificate before the Tribunal indicating that on 11 November 2011 the Applicant married “Zahir Hussain Saidi” in Quetta, Pakistan. At the time of the marriage, Mr Saidi was a resident in Australia and had both an Afghan and Australian passport. The marriage certificate produced to the Tribunal was not issued until 5 July 2012, that is, eight months after the stated day upon which the marriage took place.[4] On the marriage certificate, Ms Saidi’s date of birth was recorded as 11 January 1990.
[4] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T3(j)/181.
On 10 July 2012 Ms Saidi applied, at the Australian High Commission Migration Section in Islamabad, to migrate to Australian under a partner visa under the name “Zainab” (2012 visa application). On the form, Ms Saidi was stated to be a citizen of Pakistan with a date of birth “11-Oct-1990” and place of birth being Quetta, Pakistan. On the first page of the form at Question 6, Ms Saidi was asked whether she had ever been refused a visa to Australia. The “No” box was ticked. Question 73 posed the question: did you enter into this relationship with your fiancé or partner solely to gain permanent residence in Australia? The “Yes” box was ticked. On the visa application form, Ms Saidi’s listed siblings included:
(a)Fatima (no surname), date of birth 5 April 1978 residing in Pakistan;
(b)Laila (no surname), date of birth 6 July 1979 residing in Pakistan;
(c)Ali Akbar (no surname), date of birth 30 June 1981 (deceased);
(d)Ali Asghar (no surname), date of birth 15 September 1983 (deceased);
(e)Masooma (no surname), date of birth 15 April 1985 residing in Pakistan;
(f)Maryam (no surname), date of birth 20 April 1989 residing in Pakistan;
(g)Zeenat (no surname), dated of birth 15 December 1992 residing in Pakistan;[5]
(h)Kaniz (no surname), date of birth 3 February 1997 residing in Pakistan;[6]
(i)Rida Zahra (no surname), date of birth 6 August 2001, residing in Pakistan.[7]
[5] Refer page 25 of the application form.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
On this visa application form, Ms Saidi’s mother was listed as being “Hafiza” (no surname) and her date of birth was 1 January 1954. Ms Saidi’s father was listed as being Mohammad Musa (deceased) and his date of birth was 26 November 1951.
This visa application was sponsored by Ms Saidi’s husband named on the form as being, “Zahir Hussain Saidi”. Mr Saidi completed a sponsorship form (Form 40SP) on 24 June 2012. On this form, Mr Saidi’s date of birth was recorded as 8 November 1993 and his place of birth as Jaghori, Afghanistan. On the form, Mr Saidi was stated to be an Afghan citizen and that he arrived in Australia on 24 June 2009. The form indicated he had been employed as a poultry process worker since 1 March 2011. Details were provided on the form of Mr Saidi’s Australian passport.
On 16 August 2012 the Australian High Commission in Islamabad received a letter from Ms Saidi’s husband, this time named as being “Ajaz Hussain Shafai”, as follows:[8]
To dear Karima,
I’m Ajaz Hussain Shafai and my fiancé name is Zainab Zainab and her date of birth is 01/01/1991. She don’t have case file number yet, just I send her application form last 3 weeks before. I did mistake on application form 40SP part no “C” question no “9” and “10”. Now I attach a new page of 40SP. My address is XX Walter street Gosnells WA 6110 and her address is house no X/X Juma Ali Street Alamdar Road Quetta Pakistan.
Many thanks.
[8] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T3(i)/130.
The new page provided for Form 40SP contained different answers to questions 9 and 10, and the Tribunal notes it also provided different answers to questions 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 13.
When Ms Saidi made the 2012 visa application, she did not disclose that the 2010 Visa Application had been submitted on her behalf under a different name. As mentioned above, Ms Saidi indicated on the form that she had not been refused a visa previously, when this was not the case. Ms Saidi now admits that both the 2010 Visa Application and 2012 Visa Application were made on her behalf.
On 26 November 2012 a police clearance certificate, showing a facial photograph of Ms Saidi, was issued in the name of “Ms. Zainab D/O Mr. Muhammad Musa” by the Office of the Capital City Police Officer, Quetta, declaring that there was no record of anything adverse against her.
On 8 January 2013, the relevant delegate granted a partner visa to Ms Saidi.[9]
[9] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T3(c)/112 & 113.
On 12 May 2017, an application for Australian citizenship by conferral was submitted electronically by Ms Saidi under the name “Zainab Saidi”.
On 18 July 2019 the relevant delegate decided that she was not satisfied as to Ms Saidi’s identity or that she was of “good character” and for those reasons, notified Ms Saidi that she had refused her application for Australian citizenship by conferral.[10]
[10] Refer T-Documents T2/7-15.
Ms Saidi seeks review by this Tribunal of the Decision Under Review. She was self-represented at the hearing before the Tribunal on 2 March 2020 and assisted, when giving evidence, by a Dari interpreter.
The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Minister) lodged a set of documents comprising 110 pages relevant to this application on 10 September 2019 (T-Documents) and a further set of documents comprising 215 pages on 11 October 2019 (Supplementary T-Documents). The Minister also lodged a statement of facts, issues and contentions on 7 February 2020 (Minister’s Submissions). A copy of those documents was provided to Ms Saidi at the time they were lodged with the Tribunal.
Ms Saidi lodged the following documents in support of her application with the Tribunal on 7 February 2020:
(a)witness statement by Zainab Saidi dated 7 February 2020 (Ms Saidi’s Witness Statement);
(b)witness statement by Namate Nazari dated 6 February 2020;
(c)news report about Pakistan suicide bombing;
(d)country advice for Pakistan; and
(e)news report about Hazara killings.
ISSUES
The issues arising for determination by this Tribunal are:
(a)whether the Tribunal is satisfied as to Ms Saidi’s identity, in order to establish whether the prohibition in s 24(3) of the Act applies in respect of her citizenship application; and
(b)if the Tribunal is not prohibited from granting citizenship by reason of s 24(3), whether the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Saidi otherwise meets the eligibility requirement for conferral of Australian citizenship under subsection 21(2)(h) of the Act, that is, whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that she is of “good character”.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
A person may apply for conferral of Australian citizenship under s 21 of the Act. Upon making such application, s 24(1) of the Act requires the Minister to approve or refuse the person becoming a citizen. Section 24(3) of the Act provides:
Identity
(3)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.
Note: Division 5 contains the identity provisions.
Before the Minister approves the person becoming a citizen, the person must also satisfy several eligibility requirements, including under s 21(2) of the Act. Section 21(2) comprises a set of eligibility requirements listed in subsections (a) to (h). As relevant to this application, subsection 21(2)(h) of the Act provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person is of “good character” at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application. The phrase “good character” is not defined by the Act.
CITIZENSHIP POLICY
On 1 June 2016, the then Department of Border Protection (now the Department of Home Affairs) (Department) issued a policy entitled Citizenship Policy intended to provide guidance on the interpretation of, and the exercise of powers under, the Act and corresponding regulations (Policy). In the Introduction of the Policy, it states that the Policy cannot constrain the exercise of delegated powers under the Act or the regulations.[11]
[11] Refer T-Documents T11/91.
Policy guidance on the issue of identity
Chapter 13 of the Policy deals with “Identity”.[12] The Policy states:
The identity provisions prohibit the approval of a citizenship applicant in cases where the decision maker (the Minister or their delegate) is not satisfied of the person’s identity.
In addition to being a legislative requirement under the Act, the Australian community expects that decision makers will not approve a person for citizenship or give evidence of citizenship if they are not satisfied of the person’s identity.
[12] Ibid at T11/105.
The Policy also provides that the concept of identity is as described in the Attorney-General’s “National Identity Proofing Guidelines” (NIPG). The Policy refers to the NIPG issued in 2004. The Tribunal notes the NIPG was updated in 2016.
The Policy provides that an application must be made in the most recent name that the applicant has been known by according to acceptable identity documents.[13] The Policy provides that if the applicant has changed their name, date of birth, sex or gender, they will need to provide evidence that explains each change and shows a clear link between their original identity details and the identity details they are currently using or seeking to use.[14]
Policy guidance on the issue of “good character”
[13] Refer T-Documents T11/106.
[14] Ibid at 107.
Chapter 11 of the Policy addresses the meaning of “good character” in a range of different contexts including in the context of interpreting subsection 21(2)(h) of the Act.
Of relevance, Chapter 11 of the Policy states as follows:[15]
[15] Refer T-Documents T11/92-94.
Overview of chapter
…
It is not for departmental policy for decision makers to be bound by a check-list. Decision makers need to look at the merits to each case and to turn their minds to the issues of character until they are ‘satisfied’, on a reasoned basis that an applicant is, or is not, of good character.
…
What is good character
‘Good character’ refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and is an indication of whether an applicant is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia and other commitments made through the pledge should they be approved for citizenship…
Character considerations under the Migration and Citizenship Act are not the same and it is possible that an applicant could have passed the migration character test but still not be of good character under the Act (refer to Relationship between citizenship and migration legislation).
…
Definition of good character
The term ‘good character’ is not defined in the Act. Therefore, the Federal Court and the AAT have used the ordinary meaning of the words, and made reference to dictionary definitions. Most cases have adopted the following definition from the     Full FC judgment in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs ((1996) 68 FCR 422; at 431-432):
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 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 should be objective assessment to be a person of bad character.
In this context, ‘moral’ does not have any religious connotations. The phrase ‘enduring moral qualities’ encompasses the following concepts:
Characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time
Distinguishing right from wrong
Behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
The good character requirement looks at the essence of the applicant.                    Their behaviour is a manifestation of their essential characteristics.
This broad definition means that a decision maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout their migration and citizenship processes.
In Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, Deputy President Breen discussed the role of the character requirement in a citizenship application (at [8]):
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 from applying for citizenship again in a few years’ time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.
A list of characteristics of “good character” are set out in Chapter 11 and of relevance, they include that the applicant of good character would:[16]
· respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;
· be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments or organisations, for example:
·providing false personal information…or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications…
[16] Refer T-Documents T11/95.
Chapter 11 also provides guidance in respect of “weighing up the character decision”, as follows:[17]
[17] Refer T-Documents T11/97-98.
Essentially, the question for decision makers is whether any mitigating circumstances and/or explanation provided by the applicant outweigh the behaviour in question. The assessment about whether an applicant is of “good character” requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. Decision makers should place more weight on significant offences.
In weighing up the various factors, the decision maker must not apply their own personal standards, but must apply community standards. Having regard to the words of the Preamble, and the pledge to be made if citizenship is approved, decision makers are asking themselves:
·would the person of good character have behaved in the way the applicant did
·what is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law
·has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia’s community standards
·does the applicant share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties.
…
A decision maker needs to look holistically at an applicant’s behaviour over a lasting or enduring period of time. The amount of time considered to be ‘lasting’ or ‘enduring’ depends of the merits of each case, but in most cases will go back prior to any visa application.
If a person has committed a very significant offence (such as taking the life of another person, sexual assault, crimes against children, war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide) the lasting/enduring period would be much longer, potentially over a period of many years. In such an assessment, the nature of the significant offence is more relevant to whether or not the person is of good character than the period of time since the crime was committed. Thus, it may be extremely difficult for a decision maker to be satisfied that a person is of good character after having committed such offences, even after the passage of many years.
MS SAIDI’S EVIDENCE AND CONTENTIONS
Explanation provided by Ms Saidi in May 2019
On 6 May 2019, Ms Saidi provided a response to the Department when given an opportunity to provide an explanation about the inconsistent information that had been provided to the Department. Ms Saidi stated:[18]
…In regards to the statement above all I can say is that, I have never lodged an application for an Australian visa before I was sponsored by my husband Zahir Hussain Saidi and I really don’t know how a biometric and facial imaging match in departmental systems has been found, where I am saying that I have had no application for Global Special Humanitarian visa Offshore (XB202) – Primary applicant Gul Bibi Salimi – File reference number OSFXXX173. I am hundred percent sure that none of my family member has got any Afghani document and have never been known as afghan citizen.
I will be providing any legal documents of my own and any of my family member in support to my application if needed later on.
[18] Refer T-Documents T9/60.
Explanation given by Ms Saidi in her witness statement in February 2020

In Ms Saidi’s Witness Statement, she stated as follows:
(a)she could not get any help from a legal adviser because she was “overseas at the moment”;
(b)in reference to the letter she received from the Department dated 17 April 2019, inviting her to address concerns held by the relevant delegate about her identity arising from other visa applications made with different names, (namely, Gul Bibi Salimi, Zainab Salimi, Zeenat Salimi, Kaneez Salimi and Rida Salimi), she replied by stating “I have got no idea what this letter means to me”, because “I really had no idea about this matter, so my answer was no, i have never had any previous application in Australian immigration”;
(c)Ms Saidi was so worried she asked her mother about it. She stated her mother did not know anything about it. She stated her mother telephoned a few days later and told Ms Saidi that she remembered that her neighbour by the name of Altaf Ali had “put an application through to immigration” for the persons who had been named in the Department’s letter; and
(d)Ms Saidi stated it was “really a hard time” for her, her mother and other family members after they lost her father, Mohammad Musa, in 2009 and her brother, Ali Akbar, died one year later from a brain haemorrhage. She said they were left alone without any “male member and income earner”. She stated her mother started getting weak every day due to the loss and shock she had suffered.
In her witness statement, Ms Saidi made the following further statements:
My mother Hafiza Mohammad Musa thinks, It was when Altaf Ali being a good neighbour lodged our application as a refugee to Australian immigration, however the application did not process any further from first stage just because we did not have any Afghani documents to prove our self Afghan. There was no other ways that we could escape from Pakistan being a citizen of Pakistan and we were really left stranded without any male member in the family.
In countries like Pakistan specially in our society its almost impossible to survive without a men in the family, people still believe that it’s embarrassing for a women to work in the society.
Back in 2009 the situation and Pakistan wasn’t good at all the Hazara Genocide was at the highest peak, Hazaras were getting killed every single day. Men, women, children were all targeted and were getting killed mercilessly.
I understand what ever has happened is not right but i can prove myself being Pakistani Citizen and i can verify all my legal Pakistani documents to assure the Minister of Home Affairs that I am from Pakistan and a good character person as well.
I am attaching some documents of evidence on “HAZARA GENOCIDE” in Quetta city capital of Baluchistan Pakistan since 2001.
The further documents provided by Ms Saidi to the Tribunal included a “Country Advice Pakistan” issued on 30 March 2010. The Tribunal notes this report referred to “well over one hundred” targeted killings of Hazara in Quetta in “recent years”. The Tribunal accepts that Ms Saidi and her family would have been motivated by this, as she says she was, to leave their home in Quetta, Pakistan.
Explanation provided by Ms Saidi at the hearing in March 2020
At the hearing, Ms Saidi was given the opportunity to make further submissions to the Tribunal. Ms Saidi said that the two visa applications were, “not made under two identities; only two names”. She explained that it was “just for the reason that the situation was dangerous” and they did not have any “guardians”.
Ms Saidi told the Tribunal that she was “very little” when the application was made, and her mother did not tell her anything about it. The 2010 Visa Application was made on 19 March 2010. According to Ms Saidi’s evidence, she was born in October 1990. This would make her 19 years of age when the 2010 Visa Application was submitted.
Ms Saidi said that on the first application, her father and brother were deceased and her mother “was in shock and forgot about the information”. Ms Saidi told the Tribunal that when she received an email from the Department, she informed the relevant person that it was not her (named in the 2010 Visa Application). Ms Saidi said that when she got the second email from the Department (refusing her visa application), she questioned her mother (about the earlier visa application). She said her mother “did not know”, but she told Ms Saidi there was another person, “a neighbour”, helping her to fill in the application. Ms Saidi said without that, they could not leave Pakistan.
Ms Saidi explained that they did not have a “guardian” to know how to make an application correctly. Ms Saidi said their application was refused as “he” did not have any Afghanistan documents and it was not processed. Ms Saidi said that in 2011, she was engaged to be married and her husband lodged the 2012 Visa Application for her.
In closing, Ms Saidi told the Tribunal that all the evidence she had provided to the Tribunal was “true and correct”. She said, “whatever Pakistan documents you require, I can provide”. She explained that her father and brother passed away and they had no “supporter”. She said there were only females in our home, and it was “very difficult”.
EVIDENCE AS TO MS SAIDI’S IDENTITY
The Tribunal was provided with copies of:
(a)the “Certificate of registration for children below the age of 18 years” issued on 22 January 2004 by the National Database & Registration Authority (Ministry of Interior), Government of Pakistan numbered XXX0-05 (CRC) showing the applicant’s name as being “Muhammad Musa” (and his address listed as H.No.XX, Street Nasirabad, Mohalla Nichari, Alamdar, Quetta) and listing his children as follows (in the order they appear in the certificate) (with the mother of each listed as “Hafza”):[19]
[19] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T3(j)171 & 172.
(i)Mariyam (identification number xxx43-2) with date of birth, 20 April 1989;
(ii)Zainab (identification number xxx86-4) with date of birth, 11 October 1990;
(iii)Zeenat (identification number xxx98-2) with date of birth, 15 December 1992;
(iv)Kaneez (identification number xxx96-1) with date of birth, 3 February 1997; and
(v)Rada Zehra (identification number xxx86-4) with date of birth, 6 August 2001.
(b)a National Identity Card numbered xxx86-4 issued by the Government of Pakistan on 3 February 2011 in the name of “Zainab” with Name of Father/Husband listed as “Muhammad Musa” and address listed as “H.No. XXX, Nasirabad, Alamdar Road, Quetta”;[20]
(c)a passport (or part thereof) numbered BAXXX61 issued on 10 January 2012 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the name of “Zainab” (listed as the surname with no given names listed) listing her father’s name as “Muhammad Musa”, date of birth as 11 October 1990;[21]
(d)a birth certificate shown to be issued by “The Govt of Balochistan Pakistan” numbered xxx031 dated 25 June 2012, issued in the name of “Zainab” said to be the child of “Mohammad Musa” (father) and “Hafiza” (mother) showing her religion as “Islam” and District and date of birth as “Quetta” and “11 October 1990”;[22]
(e)the marriage certificate referred to in paragraph [5] of these Reasons for Decision;
(f)the police clearance certificate referred to in paragraph [12] of these Reasons for Decision;
(g)a passport (or part thereof) numbered BAXXX62 issued on 14 December 2016 by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the name of “Zainab” (listed as the surname with no given name) showing a date of birth as 11 October 1990 and place of birth as “Quetta, Pak”;
(h)a change of name certificate issued by Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Office, Adelaide on 19 July 2013 showing a change of name from “Zainab” to “Zainab Saidi” with other identifying information provided as the person was female, born on 11 October 1990 and born in Quetta, Pakistan; and
(i)bank statements issued by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for an account held by “Mr Z H Saidi and Mrs Z Saidi” for the period December 2016 to May 2017.[23]
[20] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T3(j)/175-177.
[21] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T3(j)/173.
[22] Refer T-Documents page 41.
[23] Refer T-Documents T4/42-44.
The above evidence includes identity documents that prima facie came into existence before and after the date that Ms Saidi submitted the 2012 Visa Application. There was no suggestion by the Minister that any of those documents were not authentic and no evidence provided from which it could be inferred that any of the documents were forgeries. The Tribunal accepts that these documents are authentic.
However, there are a significant number of inconsistences in respect of certain aspects of Ms Saidi’s identity in the documents that were provided to the Department and subsequently, to the Tribunal. They include the following:
(a)inconsistent references to and use of the Applicant’s name, specifically:
(i)on the 2010 Visa Application form, the Applicant’s name was listed as “Zainab Salimi”;
(ii)whereas on the CRC issued in 2004 and 2012 Visa Application form, the Applicant’s name was listed as “Zainab”;
(iii)and further, in the letter from the Applicant’s husband received by the Department on 16 August 2012, he stated that her name was “Zainab Zainab”;
(iv)and further, on the change of name certificate referred to above that was issued on 19 July 2013, the Applicant’s name was registered as having changed from “Zainab” to “Zainab Saidi”;
(b)inconsistent references to the Applicant’s date of birth, specifically:
(i)on her birth certificate, national identity card, two passports, CRC, 2012 Visa Application form and citizenship application form, the Applicant’s date of birth was recorded as 11 October 1990;
(ii)whereas on her marriage certificate issued on 5 July 2012 her date of birth was recorded as 11 January 1990;
(iii)and further, in the 2010 Visa Application form her date of birth was recorded as 1 January 1994;
(iv)and further, in the letter from the Applicant’s husband received by the Department on 16 August 2012, he stated that her date of birth was 1 January 1991;
(c)inconsistences as to the Applicant’s description of her siblingship, specifically:
(i)on the CRC issued in 2004 and on the citizenship application form, the Applicant was listed as having four siblings born between 1989 and 2001 named Mariyam, Zeenat, Kaneez and Rada Zehra (and spelt Mariam, Zeenat, Kaneez and Reeda, on the citizenship application form);
(ii)whereas on the 2010 Visa Application form, the Applicant was listed as having three younger sisters born between 1996 and 2003 named Zeenat Salimi, Kaneez Salimi and Rida Salimi;
(iii)and further on the 2012 Visa Application form, the Applicant was listed as having nine siblings (two of them deceased) born between 1979 and 2001 with the names Fatima, Laila, Ali Akbar (deceased), Ali Asghar (deceased), Masooma, Maryam, Zeenat, Kaniz and Rida Zahra;
(d)inconsistencies with respect to the name and date of birth of the person said to be the Applicant’s husband, specifically:
(i)on the marriage certificate issued on 5 July 2012 and in the 2012 Visa Application form, his name is recorded as “Zahir Hussain Saidi”;
(ii)whereas in the letter he wrote to the Department (received on 16 August 2012), the Applicant’s husband, after describing himself as Ms Saidi’s fiancé, referred to himself by the name of “Ajaz Hussain Shafai”. The Tribunal also notes that it raised concerns that he described himself at the time he wrote this letter as the Applicant’s fiancé when he was at the time, according to the date of marriage on the marriage certificate, supposedly married to the Applicant;
(iii)and further, he went by the name “Ajaz Hussain Shafai” at the address of “XX Walter Street, Gosnells” in Western Australia; and
(iv)his date of birth was recorded the marriage certificate as 8 November 1997;[24]
(v)whereas, his date of birth was recorded in the Form 40SP submitted with the 2012 Visa Application was recorded as 8 November 1993;[25]
(vi)and further, his date of birth was recorded in the National Police Certificate as 1 January 1993.[26]
[24] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T3(j)/182.
[25] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T3(a).
[26] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T3(j)/132.
There was limited information before the Tribunal in relation to Ms Saidi’s life story. However, based on the information provided, the Tribunal notes other inconsistencies appeared.
The 2010 Visa Application form stated that Ms Saidi was of Afghan citizenship and born in Jaghori, Afghanistan, as were her two sisters Zeenat and Kaneez and that her youngest sister, Rida, was an Afghan citizen born in Quetta, Pakistan. This application form included a statement (appearing to have been made by the Applicant on account of the way it was expressed), that her parents migrated to Pakistan when she was six years old and that she had “no idea about documents” and “I never have had a document”. However, elsewhere in the evidence presented Ms Saidi (and her siblings) were recorded as being citizens of Pakistan. As referred to above, Ms Saidi produced two passports issued by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the name of “Zainab” confirming as such and a birth certificate registering her as having been born in Pakistan. Ms Saidi gave evidence at the hearing that she was born in Pakistan and that her parents were born in Afghanistan. Ms Saidi was taken to her citizenship application form where she had listed her mother’s place of birth as “Quetta, Pakistan”. Ms Saidi said that indicated that she was not sure about this and she had thought it was Afghanistan.
In the 2010 Visa Application, the main applicant (described to be the Applicant’s mother) stated that she had left Afghanistan illegally after her husband had paid money to smugglers to get them out of the country. The main applicant also stated as follows at Question 29:[27]
I, believe that if I, my return to my country, the Taliban and pashtoons will kill me. Secondly I’m a widow woman with my 4 daughters have no body in Afghanistan. As it is clear that in Afghanistan woman are not allowed to work, I would not be able to servive(sic), the womens in Afghanistan that are widow or having no man. Such as son, father, brother, brotherinlaw and any other supporter, their life are at risk.
[27] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T2(a)/22.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that she was unaware of any history involving an early life in Afghanistan. Ms Saidi explained to the Tribunal that her mother was illiterate and could not read or write. Ms Saidi said that someone must have helped her fill in the application form, but she did not have any idea about who it was.
When Ms Saidi was asked to describe her relationship with the “proposer” on the 2010 Visa Application (i.e. Mr Ali), she said he was “a neighbour”. On the forms, the proposer stated that Ms Saidi’s mother (the main applicant in the visa application) was her aunt, as also mentioned further in some of the character reference letters attached to the visa application and in Mr Ali’s statutory declaration dated 17 July 2009.[28] This would make Mr Ali the cousin of Ms Saidi. Mr Ali described himself as being the “head of his household” and that he was “responsible for the entire family”. Mr Ali stated that his paternal uncle’s wife and her children were dependent upon him.
[28] Refer Supplementary T-Documents T2(b)/60-65.
At the hearing Ms Saidi continued to deny that Mr Ali was her cousin. She said he was “a very close neighbour”. When asked whether he “was family”, Ms Saidi responded, “No, in Pakistan, neighbour has a very close relation”. The Tribunal asked Ms Saidi to confirm whether the neighbour was any relation of hers, to which she said, “Just neighbour, not family member”.
Ms Saidi was taken to the answer provided to Question 17 on the 2010 Visa Application form requesting the main applicant to provide details of the proposer. The proposer was named as “Altaf Ali Ali” and where the form called for details of the main applicant’s “relationship of the proposer to you”, the following text was inserted, “son of my brother in law”. Ms Saidi told the Tribunal that “they” had just called her mother his cousin “for the sake of processing the application”. Ms Saidi gave evidence that this statement on the form was wrong and that they were not related to Mr Ali. When the Tribunal asked Ms Saidi what she thought about that, Ms Saidi said, “it was just for the sake of us coming here”.
The Minister contended that the Tribunal should give minimal weight to the statement of Ms Saidi, because no statement had been provided by Mr Ali or Ms Saidi’s mother to confirm the truth about the nature of their relationship and that the statements made in the 2010 Visa Application were not true and made for the sake of the visa application process, as suggested by Ms Saidi. The Minister contended that the Tribunal should, instead, prefer a conclusion of there being “two competing identities” in this case. The Minister contended that it was not necessary for the Tribunal to find that Ms Saidi was “someone else”, but the Tribunal needed to reach an “affirmative belief” on the evidence before the Tribunal as to Ms Saidi’s identity.
The Minister contended that Ms Saidi relied upon “one short character reference” which was insufficient. This reference comprised a signed letter (not a statutory declaration) by Namate Nazari residing in Narre Warren South in Victoria stating as follows:
I Know Zainab Saidi for the last 8 years and we are very good family friend and I know she very honest person she is reliable and she has very good character. I believe that the fact stated in this witness statement are true.
The Tribunal accepts the contentions of the Minister.
The Tribunal finds on the evidence that there are significant inconsistencies in respect of key aspects of Ms Saidi’s identity in the documents that have been provided to the Department and the Tribunal, as explained in the paragraphs above. The Tribunal is not satisfied with Ms Saidi’s explanations as to those discrepancies. The assertions made by Ms Saidi that Mr Ali and/or Ms Saidi’s mother had submitted incorrect information were not corroborated by any other evidence.
Further, this explanation does not explain the remaining inconsistencies between the different list of siblings provided in several of the documents, including the CRC. There was no explanation provided in Ms Saidi’s statement as to why her husband also referred to himself by a different name when dealing with the Department and why his date of birth was different on the marriage certificate from the date of birth recorded on the 2012 Visa Application and citizenship application form.
There was insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to be satisfied that the life story of Ms Saidi aligned with the life story of the applicant in the previous applications made to the Department. Even the information about how Ms Saidi met her husband and came to be married to him changed dramatically when her husband submitted a new first page of his proposer form as part of the 2012 Visa Application, providing a very different account of those circumstances to the account given in the original application form. Specifically, in the original Form 40SP, Mr Saidi stated that he first met Ms Saidi in person on 7 November 2011 in Quetta Pakistan; that they commenced a relationship four days later; decided that they wanted to commit to a long-term spouse or de facto relationship or intended to marry each other on 8 November 2011; began a married or de facto relationship with each other on 8 November 2011; and were married on 11 November 2011.[29] In the replacement Form 40SP lodged by Ms Saidi’s husband with the Department on 16 August 2012, he stated that he had first met Ms Saidi in person for the first time on 21 March 2008 at “Help English Language”. He also stated that he met Ms Saidi in person on 21 November 2008 at “Help English Language”. He stated that he had been in a relationship with Ms Saidi for three years and that he had made the decision with Ms Saidi to commit to a long-term spouse or de facto relationship or intended to marry each other on 28 August 2011.[30]
[29] Refer T-Documents T3(a)78 & 79.
[30] Refer T-Documents T3(i)/131.

There were no other identification documents as far as the Tribunal could discern from the documents provided to the Tribunal, apart from the CRC, to assist the Tribunal in establishing the identity of Ms Saidi’s siblings or historical family photographs or other evidence provided to offer details about and to confirm her life story. There were no other witness statements by other members of Ms Saidi’s biological family to assist in establishing her identity within her biological family unit. The Tribunal has noted the death certificate and other identity documents of Muhammad Musa, Ms Saidi’s father, was provided but this is insufficient.
CONCLUSION
On account of the great number of inconsistencies in relation to key aspects of Ms Saidi’s identity, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the current evidence before the Tribunal as to her identity. For this reason, the Tribunal concludes that approval of Ms Saidi’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral is prohibited under s 24(3) of the Act. Given this prohibition applies, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider whether Ms Saidi has met the “good character” eligibility requirement under subsection 21(2)(h) of the Act, other than to observe that the history outlined above raises some concerns about whether Ms Saidi would be able to establish that she meets this requirement based on the current evidence before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirms the Decision Under Review.
Ms Saidi may wish to consider re-applying for conferral of Australian citizenship if she has further evidence to establish her identity to the satisfaction of the relevant decision-maker, and to establish that she is of “good character” in the event that her identity is established. Ms Saidi may also wish to consider seeking legal advice to assist her with the process.

I certify that the preceding fifty-seven (57) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member K. Parker

....[sgd]............................................................
Associate
Dated: 25 June 2020

Date of hearing:

2 March 2020

Advocate for the Applicant:

Advocate for the Respondent:

Self-represented

Mr Christopher Orchard

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

[2020] AATA 1916

25 June 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction