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

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant Australian citizenship by conferral. The refusal was based on the delegate's dissatisfaction that the applicant met the good character requirements under section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The applicant, born in Liberia in 1988, arrived in Australia in 2008 as a refugee. Between 2012 and 2016, the applicant was found guilty of various offences under Victorian law, including resisting police, possession of a controlled weapon, aggravated assault of a female, criminal damage, and contravening a family violence intervention order. The applicant lodged an application for citizenship by conferral in October 2022, which was refused in December 2023. The applicant subsequently applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of this decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was a person of good character for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth) at the time of the Tribunal's decision. This involved considering the applicant's criminal history, including convictions for violent offences and domestic violence, as well as his failure to comply with court orders and intervention orders. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's assertions of change and remorse, his employment history, and his establishment of a family, as well as any ongoing concerns regarding his character.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged that the good character requirement does not necessitate perfect character and that a person can reform over time. It noted the applicant's lack of convictions since October 2016, his positive employment record, and his clean driving history as indicators of progress. However, the Tribunal found significant ongoing concerns, particularly regarding the applicant's history of domestic violence. The Tribunal highlighted that the applicant's former partner had raised concerns with police as recently as 2020, and his current spouse had sought an intervention order against him in 2021, suggesting a continuing propensity for domestic violence. The absence of evidence that the applicant had sought professional assistance to address his past conduct weighed against him.

Weighing all the factors, the Tribunal concluded that it was unable to form an affirmative belief that the applicant was a person of good character at the time of the decision. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the application for citizenship by conferral.