Sangar and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

[2024] AATA 3491

Sangar and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2024] AATA 3491 (23 September 2024)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:2023/9290         

Re:Miaway Tougbay Sangar  

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal: Member R. West  

Date:23 September 2024

Place:Melbourne

The decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated 6 December 2023, to refuse the approval of the Applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral under s 24(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) is affirmed.

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

Member R. West

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – eligibility – refusal of citizenship – whether applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act – CPI 15 – criminal conduct – domestic violence – other criminal charges – providing false information relating to criminal conduct on application – other factors – Tribunal not able to reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character – decision affirmed.

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

Cases
Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 231 FCR 128
VFWQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 230
BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

Secondary Materials

Citizenship Procedural Instructions – CPI15 – Assessing Character under the Citizenship Act

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member R. West

23 September 2024

1. This matter concerns an application for the review of the decision of a delegate of the Respondent to refuse to approve the Applicant becoming an Australian citizen by conferral, pursuant to s 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’), because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.

   BACKGROUND

2. The Applicant was born in Liberia in June 1988.

3. The Applicant first arrived in Australia in August 2008 as the holder of a permanent Refugee (subclass 200) visa (‘Visa’).

4. In the period 2012-2016 the Applicant was found guilty of offences under Victorian law.[1]

   [1] ST1, 1-31. In this regard, references to ‘T’ or ‘ST’ documents are references to documents required to be given to the applicant under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

5. On 11 October 2022, the Applicant lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral.[2]

   [2] T3, 20.

6. On 6 December 2023, a delegate of the Respondent refused the application on the basis that the Applicant did not meet the good character requirements in s 21(2)(h) of the Act (‘Reviewable Decision’). [3] 

   [3] T2, 4.

7. On 15 December 2023, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Reviewable Decision (‘Application’). [4]

   [4] T1, 1-3.

   HEARING

8. The Tribunal conducted a hearing of the Application on 10 September 2024.  The Applicant was self-represented and had the assistance of a Gio interpreter. The Respondent was represented by Mr Christopher Orchard, a solicitor of Sparke Helmore.

9. In conducting the review, the Tribunal had regard to:

   (a)the documents produced to the Tribunal by the Respondent pursuant to s 37 and s 38AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (‘the AAT Act’) sequentially numbered T1 to T16 and paginated from pages 1 to 234 (‘T Documents’), and further documents including those produced under summons and lodged by the Respondent as supplementary documents sequentially numbered ST1 to ST3 and paginated from pages 1 to 132 (‘ST Documents’);

   (b)the documents lodged by the Applicant and marked as Exhibits in Appendix A, and

   (c)the oral evidence of:

   (i)the Applicant;

   (ii)Allyse Reid, the applicant’s employer;

   (iii)Wonnah Sahn, Nimba Community Leader; and

   (iv)Gbeadeh Tougbay Sangar.

   LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

10. Subsection 21(2) of the Act provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:

    (a)  is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and

    (b)  is a permanent resident:

    (i)  at the time the person made the application; and

    (ii)  at the time of the Minister's decision on the application; and

    (c)  satisfies the general residence requirement (see section   22) or the special residence requirement (see section   22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section   23), at the time the person made the application; and

    (d)  understands the nature of an application under subsection  (1); and

    (e)  possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; and

    (f)  has an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and

    (g)  is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and

    (h)  is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.

11. Subsection 24(1A) provides that:

    The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection   21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).

    ISSUES

12. The Reviewable Decision indicates that the Minister was satisfied that the Applicant meets the eligibility criteria stated in s 21(2) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Act.  The delegate refused the application on the basis that the Applicant did not meet the good character requirements in s 21(2)(h) of the Act.[5]

    [5] T2, 8- 9.

13. Accordingly, the sole issue before the Tribunal is whether the Applicant meets the good character requirements under s 21(2)(h) of the Act.

    ASSESSMENT OF GOOD CHARACTER

14. The phrase ‘good character’ is not defined in the Act. The term is intended to be read broadly and in considering whether a person meets that criterion the decision-maker may consider a range of events and conduct connected with the applicant.[6]

    [6] Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 231 FCR 128 at [60]; VFWQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 230 at [32].

15. Satisfaction of good character under s 21(2)(h) requires the decision maker …

    to form a judgment as to whether he or she is satisfied that the applicant for citizenship is of good character. The word “satisfied” in that context is not amenable to the application of an evidentiary burden of proof, such as balance of probabilities … satisfaction requires that the decision-maker reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character. It is not sufficient for the decision-maker to believe that there is a chance that the applicant is a person of good character; equally it is not necessary for the decision-maker to have a high degree of confidence that the applicant is a person of good character. [7]

    [7] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 at [54]-[55].

16. Guidance on the meaning of good character under the Act may be found in the Citizenship Procedural Instructions – CPI 15 Assessing Character under the Citizenship Act, an approved policy of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (‘CPI 15’).

17. CPI 15 provides that good character refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person. An applicant of good character would respect and abide by the law in Australia, be honest, be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, not be violent, involved in drugs or cause harm to others through their conduct.  

18. CPI 15 also notes that a decision maker should consider whether the applicant’s offence was a ‘one off’ or part of a pattern of demonstrated criminal behaviour and may take into account any other relevant information such as whether the applicant is responsibly employed, paying taxes, genuinely remorseful for past wrong-doing, the time that has elapsed since any wrong doing, information about family life or community work and any other relevant matter.

19. Whilst the CPI 15 is a policy and not strictly binding, it is appropriate to apply it generally unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[8]

    EVIDENCE

    [8] Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 640 (per Brennan J).

    Criminal conduct

20. The Applicant’s Criminal Record is set out in a Check Results Report of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission dated 5 April 2023.[9] It relevantly records that:

    a.On 22 June 2012, the Applicant was found guilty without conviction, in the Magistrates Court at Sunshine Victoria of fail to state name and address, learner driver drive vehicle without experienced driver, drive without front “L” plate displayed, non-probation driver drive with “P” plates, use unregistered motor vehicle– highway (2 charges), resist police, possess controlled weapon without excuse, state false name when requested, fail to answer bail, and learner – fail to have qualified driver for which the Applicant was placed on an adjourned undertaking for 12 months with a condition to pay $100 to the Court fund.

    b.On 13 August 2014, the Applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Sunshine Victoria of enter intersection-red traffic arrow, fail to answer bail, use veh [sic] display NR plate other than issued, drive whilst authorisation suspended (3 charges) and drive whilst disqualified for which he was placed on a Community Correction Order for nine-months with a condition to complete 80 hours of unpaid community work and his driver license was suspended for three months.

    c.On 18 December 2015, the Applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Sunshine Victoria of aggravated assault of female, criminal damage (intent damage/destroy) and contra-fam [sic] violence final intervention order for which he was fined $1,000.

    d.On 29 April 2016, the Applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Melbourne, Victoria for breach of a community corrections order for which he was fined $500.

    e.On 4 October 2016, the Applicant was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Melbourne, Victoria of assault with weapon, contravene fam violence intervention order, intentionally damage property and unlawful assault for which he was fined $1,500 plus $119.90 statutory costs.

    [9] ST1, 1-31.

21. The Applicant was questioned about his convictions in giving his oral evidence to the Tribunal.

    18 December 2015 - Convictions for aggravated assault of female, criminal damage (intent damage/destroy) and contravene family violence final intervention order

22. The Applicant accepted that these convictions related to incidents on 2 October 2014 which were described in a police brief that included allegations that: [10]

    a.the female involved was Ms N, the Applicant’s former partner;

    b.at the time of the incident Ms N was 13 weeks pregnant and had been living with the Applicant;

    c.Ms N and the Applicant became involved in a verbal argument and Ms N left to go to her mother’s house, but along the way she fell onto her stomach causing her pain;

    d.the Applicant entered Ms N’s mother’s house and abused Ms N for leaving;

    e.the Applicant refused to leave the mother’s house when asked by Ms N and when she tried to escort him out of the house he twisted her wrist and struck her to the throat causing her to fall to the ground.

    f.Ms N asked her sister to call an ambulance but the Applicant told her not to because he would go to gaol for hitting someone who was pregnant and grabbed the phone and threw it to the floor breaking the screen;

    g.the Applicant continued to scream and shout at Ms N while she lay on the ground. 

    h.Later Ms N’s mother arrived and Ms N called an ambulance and the police. 

    [10] ST2, 39-50.

23. The Applicant acknowledged in his oral evidence that the description of the incident in the police brief was ‘90% accurate’.  He said he went to Ms N’s mother’s house to take Ms N to hospital and she started to hit him. He said this made him angry and he admitted hitting Ms N but denied striking her to the throat.  He said he hit her on the arm.  He denied screaming at her.  He said that Ms N was trying to get him into trouble.

    29 April 2016 - conviction for breach of a community corrections order (COO)

24. The Applicant admitted in his oral evidence to the Tribunal that this was a deliberate breach of the COO which resulted in his arrest and him being held on remand for a month.  The COO was imposed on 13 August 2014 in relation to various driving offences and required 80 hours of unpaid community service.[11]   The Applicant said he started to do the community work but when he obtained paid employment, he stopped doing it because he ‘felt weak and didn’t want to do it’.

    4 October 2016 - convictions for assault with weapon, contravene family violence intervention order, intentionally damage property and unlawful assault

    [11] ST1, 1 - 31.

25. The Applicant was questioned about the police LEAP records of an incident on 1 June 2015,[12] which allegedly formed the basis on his convictions on 4 October 2016.  The LEAP record includes the allegations that:

    a.the Applicant forced his way into a house where Ms N was residing by pushing her to both shoulders causing her to fall to the ground with force.

    b.he then struck Ms N six or seven times with a bamboo cane while she was on the ground;

    c.when Ms N phoned the police the Applicant threatened to kill her and took her phone and threw it on the floor;

    d.the Applicant then went to the kitchen and got a 20 cm knife and approached Ms N saying ‘I’ll kill you! I’ll kill you!’;

    e.Ms N’s mother then arrived and pushed the Applicant outside and when police arrived he fled over the back fence.

    [12] ST3, 0126-127.

26. The Applicant gave confusing evidence regarding the allegations in the LEAP records and did not concede that they were the basis of his convictions on 4 October 2016.  He specifically denied that:

    a.he struck Ms N with a bamboo cane;

    b.he broke her phone;

    c.he got a knife from the kitchen; or that;

    d.he hit Ms N.

27. Nevertheless, the Applicant acknowledged that there was an incident on 1 June 2015.  He had previously responded to the seven charges made against him arising out of the incident in statutory declaration provided to the Respondent on 25 July 2023.[13] In his response he said he was invited to meet with Ms N at her mother’s house by her mother and was attacked by Ms N, a friend and Ms N’s mother.  He said Ms N took a kitchen knife with the intention to harm him but he managed to take it from her.  He said that while he held the knife he was photographed on Ms N’s phone which was subsequently damaged when he tried to stop Ms N from photographing him.  He denied that he made threats to kill or that he went to the house with the intention to cause any commotion.  He acknowledged that his presence at the house was a breach of an IVO but said he did not appreciate the severity of a contravention at the time.

    [13] T12, 69-71.

28. The Applicant specifically confirmed in his oral evidence what he had said in his statutory declaration. He conceded that he had breached the IVO but alleged that he had gone to the house on the invitation of Ms N’s mother.  He also denied having plead guilty at trial to offences related to breaking the phone, verbally assaulting Ms N or assaulting her with a weapon. The ST Documents do not disclose the conduct of the criminal proceedings but it seems more likely that the Applicant plead guilty to the charges against him rather than guilt having been established in a trial.

    Findings

29. The Tribunal has given careful consideration to the Applicant’s evidence in relation to these three sets of convictions.  The Tribunal is mindful that police briefs and LEAP records are essentially untested allegations.  In this case the information in the briefs is based almost entirely on the statements made by Ms N and or her mother each of whom may have been motivated by animosity towards the Applicant. The Tribunal is therefore cautious about drawing conclusions about the factual circumstances giving rise to each of the Applicant’s convictions.  However, the Tribunal is able to make some factual findings.

    a.On the basis of the Applicant’s convictions for various offences on 18 December 2015 and his substantial confirmation of the police briefs in relation to those offences the Tribunal finds that on 2 October 2014 the Applicant committed an aggravated assault of his ex-partner Ms N at a time when he knew she was 13 weeks pregnant in contravention of a family violence final intervention order.

    b.On 4 October 2016, convictions were entered for assault with weapon, contravene family violence intervention order, intentionally damage property and unlawful assault.These convictions, whether the result of the Applicant’s guilty pleas (which is most likely) or as a result of a contested trial (which is unlikely), do not square with the Applicant’s denials.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant assaulted Ms N. The Tribunal is not able to make specific findings regarding the weapon used in the assault with weapon conviction.  Both a bamboo cane and a kitchen knife were referred to in the police brief.  Nevertheless, the Tribunal is able to conclude that on 1 June 2015, the Applicant committed an assault on his ex-partner Ms N in which an unspecified weapon was used and this was in direct contravention of an IVO in place to protect Ms N.

    c.On the basis of the Applicant’s conviction on 29 April 2016, and his own admissions the Tribunal finds that the Applicant wilfully refused to comply with a court ordered Community Corrections Order in 2016.

30. In addition to these convictions, a Victoria Police brief was prepared following 000 calls by Ms N regarding obscene and offensive text messages,[14] sent by the Applicant to her on 16 and 17 December 2014.  The brief states that the Applicant admitted sending the texts and breaching an IVO in place at the time.  The Applicant confirmed in his oral evidence to the Tribunal that he had sent the text messages as alleged.  There is no evidence that charges were laid against the Applicant in relation to this conduct. Notwithstanding, the Tribunal finds, based on the police brief and the Applicant’s own admissions, that the Applicant sent numerous, highly offensive, demeaning, and threatening text messages to Ms N in December 2014 in breach of an IVO taken out for her protection.

    [14] ST1, 7.

31. Further, a Victoria Police incident summary report notes that as recently as 24 June 2020, Ms N had called 000 claiming that the Applicant had attended her house in breach of an IVO and that he had been calling her, harassing her, and continually asking her to remove an existing IVO. [15]   The report notes that this was causing Ms N to feel a significant amount of stress and anxiety. The Incident Report further indicates that Victoria Police held the belief that an IVO was necessary in order to ensure the safety of Ms N, and to prevent future incidents of family violence.

    [15] ST3, 123-124.

    Employment

32. The Applicant stated in his evidence that upon his arrival in Australia he worked for approximately five years as a kitchen hand and then for two or three years as a construction worker before taking a position with Citywide, initially as a contract worker and then as an employee.  He said that in 2021 he undertook a six month course which included driving skills and now holds an endorsed drivers licence and works for Citywide as a truck driver. [16]

    [16] See T4, 40.

1. In written statements provided to the Tribunal,[17] Allyce Reid the Applicant’s supervisor with Citywide, stated that the Applicant has been employed for around six years in the service team for the City of Melbourne and he was described by her as: [18] 

   … a dedicated, detail-oriented, and hardworking individual. He has earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues through his tireless efforts and friendly demeanor [sic]. I have personally witnessed his exceptional work ethic and his ability to work well under pressure.

   [17] Evidence supporting this statement was tendered to the Tribunal as Exhibit A3.

   [18] Ibid.

2. Ms Reid gave oral evidence to the Tribunal via telephone and confirmed that she was the Applicant’s supervisor and had known him for around six years.  She confirmed that she was generally aware of the nature of his criminal offending and had seen his police record, although she could not recall the exact details.  She affirmed her statement.

   Relationships

3. The Applicant stated in his oral evidence that his father and his four brothers and a sister all live in Australia and that he is close to his father and speaks to him every day.  He said that he sees his siblings, who all live in Victoria, ‘every now and then’.

4. The Applicant described a troubled relationship he had with Ms N prior to 2016.  He said that they were in a romantic relationship but they had problems of a cultural nature.  Ms N is Sudanese and she told the Applicant that before they could marry he had to pay a substantial dowry (around $50,000) to her family.  The Applicant said this was a cause of argument between himself and Ms N as he could not afford to pay such a dowry and it was not part of his Liberian culture.  In addition, when Ms N became pregnant she told the Applicant that he was obliged to pay damages to her family which was the cause of further friction between them.  The Applicant insisted in his oral evidence that this cultural issue was the cause of the arguments between himself and Ms N and at the root of the incidents that resulted in his convictions.

5. The Applicant said that his relationship with Ms N ended in 2015 but they had a daughter together, Miss R.  Miss R is now 10 years old. He said that he has had nothing to do with Miss R since she was born because of conflict with Ms N. He said he had a ‘cold heart’ toward Ms R and explained that he did not want a connection with her because ‘what is the point of fighting for a child if it leads to trouble’.

6. He confirmed that he has never paid child support for Miss R because Ms N does not want him to do so, but he would be prepared to if she asked.  He confirmed that he was contacted as the biological father of Miss R by the Department of Human Services approximately two months prior to the Hearing regarding child protection services for Miss R as the result of Ms N’s alleged drug use.  He said he had participated in a court proceeding by videoconference in which the Judge had concluded that it was not appropriate for the Applicant to be involved in supporting Miss R because he had had no contact with her for over 9 years.

7. The Applicant said he is currently married to Ms D and has two children with her, a boy aged four and a girl aged two.  He said that he and Ms D had been together for almost ten years and had purchased land and were waiting to commence building a house.

8. The Applicant acknowledged in cross-examination that Ms D had taken out an IVO against him on more than one occasion in 2020 or 2019 and that the last IVO had expired on 28 June 2021.  He stated that Ms D had taken out IVOs against him because he became angry, and they fought a lot, and she was afraid of him.  He also confirmed that Ms D’s family and Child Protection had been involved because of the fighting.

9. In a written statement provided to the Tribunal, the Applicant’s brother, Gbeadeh Tougbay Sangar, confirmed that the Applicant is married with two children and stated that he has been working very hard to stay out of trouble and pay attention to providing for his family since he got out of prison in 2015.  He described the Applicant as a loving and caring husband to his wife, kids, family and friends. [19]

   [19] Evidence supporting this statement was tendered to the Tribunal as Exhibit A5.

10. Mr Sangar confirmed in his oral evidence to the Tribunal that he was aware of the Applicant’s offending and had attended court on 4 October 2016 to ‘apologise to the Court on his behalf’.  However, Mr Sangar had a very incomplete understanding of the actual conduct for which the Applicant was convicted.  He also stated that he was not aware of the IVOs taken out by Ms D and confirmed that the Applicant had not told him about them.

    Community Involvement

11. In a written statement date 1 May 2023 provided in support of the Applicant’s application for citizenship,[20]Pastor Thompson Toles, Senior Pastor of the Glory of God Tabernacle, stated that the Applicant had been an active member of his church community for two years during which time he was actively involved in church activities and had shown exceptional moral character.

    [20] T10, 67.  

12. When asked about Pastor Toles the Applicant said in his oral evidence that Paster Toles is married to his sister.  The Applicant said he once attended church casually, but he no longer attends.

13. In a written statement provided to the Tribunal,[21] Wonnah Sahn, Chairperson of the Nimba Citizens Union of Australia, stated that the Applicant has been heavily involved with the Nimba community in Victoria, using his experience to mentor youths in the community.  He stated further that the community is proud of the exemplary character, integrity, and dedication the Applicant has shown since his release from prison.

    [21] Exhibit A2.

14. Mr Sahn affirmed his statement in oral evidence to the Tribunal via telephone.  He was not cross-examined about it.

    CONSIDERATION OF ISSUES

15. The nature of the Applicant’s proven offending prior to 1 June 2015 raises significant character concerns.  First, there is a pattern of repeated proven offending over an extended period from 2012 to 2015.  Of particular concern is the Applicant’s convictions for crimes of violence and especially domestic violence, including aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. He was also convicted in 2012 of possession of a controlled weapon without excuse.  A prevalent aspect of his offending throughout that period was a failure to comply with reasonable community standards of responsible behaviour.  This is evidenced by the Applicant’s repeated disregard for traffic laws and the road rules, multiple breaches of intervention orders, a failure to answer bail, a refusal to perform community work as required by a community correction order and includes a conviction for resisting police and stating a false name. 

16. A person of good character would not be violent or cause harm to others and would abide by the law.

17. In his closing submission to the Tribunal, the Applicant asserted that he has changed in recent years and wants to be a good citizen and a model for his children.  He said that he regrets what he has done in the past.  He said that he was young when he offended and everyone makes mistakes.  His plea to the Tribunal was to be given another chance.

18. The Guide notes that the Tribunal must be mindful that the requirement to be of good character does not mean that a person must be of perfect character and a person who has not been of good character can become a person of good character.  The time at which to assess the issue is the time of the Tribunal’s decision.

19. In the Applicant’s favour the Tribunal notes that the Applicant has not been convicted of any offences since 4 October 2016, some eight years.  He has in that time demonstrated that he is a reliable and hard-working employee and has established a family. He has also demonstrated a clean driving record over the last seven years.[22]  These are positive indicators that the Applicant has made some progress in relation to his character.

    [22] Exhibit A1.

20. Nevertheless, there are indications of ongoing issues of concern about the Applicant’s character as assessed currently.

21. The issue of domestic violence is an important social matter.  Community expectations are that citizens will respect women and not engage in violent or demeaning conduct toward vulnerable individuals.  The fact that Ms N has raised concerns about the Applicant’s harassing conduct with Victoria Police as recently as 2020 and especially that the Applicant’s current spouse has been fearful of the Applicant and needed the protection of an IVO as recently as 28 June 2021 suggest that the Applicant may have a continuing propensity to engage in domestic violence.  There is no evidence that he has sought any professional assistance to address his past conduct in this regard.

22. Of further concern is the limited extent to which the Applicant has demonstrated genuine remorse for his prior conduct.  In his letter of apology tendered in the proceedings[23] the Applicant stated that he takes full responsibility for his actions and that he was sorry.  He qualified this by stating that: ‘during the time of these offences, I was younger and did not fully understand the consequences of my actions’.

    [23] Ibid.

23. The Tribunal does not give any substantial weight to the Applicant’s claim that he was young at the time of offending.  During the period of his convictions, he was 24 to 27 years old.  The fact that he was a repeat offender suggests that he well knew the consequences of offending.  The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant experienced hardships as a refugee in Liberia prior to coming to Australia but there is no evidence before the Tribunal that those circumstances offer an excuse for the Applicant’s offending.  The Applicant stated in his oral evidence that his other family members are all law-abiding citizens.

24. The Applicant’s claim that he has accepted responsibility for his actions is diminished by his attempts to down-play his own responsibility during his oral evidence to the Tribunal and in his written statements.  In his statutory declaration of 21 July 2023,[24]  he claimed, in relation to an incident in which he was convicted of assault with weapon, contravene family violence intervention order, intentionally damage property and unlawful assault that:

    a.his presence at the house at the time was at the invitation of Ms N’s mother;

    b.he was attacked by Ms N, a friend and the mother and was just defending himself;

    c.Ms N produced a kitchen knife to harm him and he managed to get it away from her; and

    d.he was unaware of the severity of an IVO contravention.

    These assertions are inconsistent with police incident reports and with the actual convictions recorded.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the claims have been made by the Applicant in an attempt to diminish his responsibility for his actions and they do not represent an accurate account of what occurred in the incidents.

    [24] T12, 69-71.

25. The Applicant has accepted that he made limited disclosure of his past offending on his citizenship application form in October 2022.[25]  When confronted with this the Applicant said he only disclosed what he thought was important and said that he didn’t want the Department to know more.  He acknowledged that he had told his brother he had lied on the form.[26]  He said he didn’t really understand the consequences of not fully disclosing his criminal history and didn’t think it would come up.  The Tribunal accepts this as an indication that the Applicant has recently been prepared to down-play his offending rather than honestly owning up to and taking full responsibility for his conduct.

    [25] T3, 35.

    [26] His brother acknowledged that the Applicant lied in his statutory declaration of 3 June 2024 which was tendered as Exhibit A5.

26. The Tribunal gives substantial weight to the evidence of Ms Reid as to the Applicant’s character as an employee and accepts that he has been a reliable and hard-working employee.  However, the Tribunal otherwise notes the limited indications of support for the Applicant produced to the Tribunal.  The Tribunal gives some weight to the reference from Mr Sahnwhich was made on behalf of the Nimba community. [27]   However, the Tribunal gives limited weight to the character reference of his brother[28] who lacks independence, had a poor understanding of the Applicant’s offending and was unaware that Ms D had taken out IVOs against the Applicant.  Similarly, little weight is given to the written reference of Pastor Toles,[29]the Applicant’s brother-in-law, as his claim that the Applicant is an active member of the church was contradicted by the Applicant who said that he had limited involvement with the church and no contact in recent times.  The Tribunal finds it notable that the Applicant did not call on support from other independent sources or from his father, with whom he claimed to be very close, and his current spouse Ms D.

    [27] Exhibit A2.

    [28] Ibid.5

    [29] T10, 67.

27. Finally, the Applicant confirmed that he continues to be estranged from his daughter Ms R and that he has no desire to assert his role as a father for her even in recent circumstances where the child was before the courts due to child protection concerns.  It is not for the Tribunal to pass judgement on the Applicant in these circumstances, but in an overall assessment of his character, some limited weight can be attributed to the absence of any positive endeavour by the Applicant to assume some parental responsibility and to the Applicant’s limited expression of remorse for the estrangement.

    CONCLUSION

28. Weighing up all of these factors the Tribunal finds that it is not able to reach an affirmative belief that the Applicant is now a person of good character.  Accordingly, the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review.

    DECISION

29. The decision under review is affirmed.

1.      I certify that the preceding 61 (sixty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member R West

................................[SGD].......................................

Associate

Dated: 23 September 2024

Date of hearing:	10 September 2024
Advocate for the Applicant	Self-represented
Advocate for the Respondent	Mr Christopher Orchard
Solicitors for the Respondent	Sparke Helmore

APPENDIX A - LIST OF EXHIBITS

List of exhibits
A1	Undated Letter of Apology of the Applicant
A2	Statement of Wonnah Sahn (Chairperson of the Nimba Citizens Union of Australia) dated 15 April 2024
A3	Statutory Declaration of Ms Allyce Reid dated 28 May 2024
A4	Letter of Ms Allyce Reid dated 23 April 2024
A5	Statutory Declaration of Gbeadeh Tougbay dated 3 June 2024