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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by Mr Singh, which was refused by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with reviewing this decision, with the central issue being whether Mr Singh was of good character at the time of the Minister's decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr Singh met the eligibility criterion of being of good character, as stipulated by section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). This involved interpreting the undefined term "good character" in accordance with departmental policy and relevant case law, and assessing whether Mr Singh's past conduct demonstrated the necessary qualities of loyalty, respect for democratic government, and obedience to the law.

The Tribunal considered the guidance provided in the Citizenship Policy, which emphasises that good character is not assessed by a checklist but on the merits of each case. It noted that an assessment of character involves considering what a person says and does, and whether they demonstrate values such as loyalty to Australia and respect for its laws and democratic principles. While Mr Singh's representative argued that a single incident of assault, committed under the influence of alcohol during a difficult personal period, should not preclude him from citizenship, and highlighted his subsequent remorse and completion of court-ordered obligations, the Tribunal found that Mr Singh had not demonstrated sufficient time had elapsed since his offending to prove enduring moral qualities. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Singh appreciated the seriousness of his actions or their impact on his victims and the community, noting his continued minimisation of his conduct.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse Mr Singh's application for citizenship by conferral, concluding that he had not satisfied the requirement of being of good character at the time of the decision.