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

[2020] AATA 396

Singh and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 396 (5 March 2020)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL                  )

)No: 2019/1085

GENERAL DIVISION  )

Re: Dalbir Singh Singh
Applicant

And: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
Respondent

TRIBUNAL:              Ms Anna Burke, AO Member

DATE:   5 March 2020

PLACE:                    Melbourne

CORRIGENDUM TO DECISION

The Tribunal amends its decision of 4 March 2020 to replace any mention of Ms Kylie Crawford with Ms Lauren Hargrave.

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

Member

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2019/1085

Re:Mr Dalbir Singh

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Ms Anna Burke, AO Member

Date:4 March 2020

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

Ms Anna Burke AO Member

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – refusal of approval for Australian citizenship by conferral – whether the applicant is not of good character – whether the application for citizenship made by the applicant should be approved – decision under review affirmed.

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

Cases

Re Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Re Mana v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2016] AATA 639
Re Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94
RE Safar and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2015] AATA 503

Secondary Materials

Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Citizenship Policy (1 June 2016)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms Anna Burke, AO Member

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1. On 10 October 2004, Mr Singh, then aged 18 arrived with his parents and younger siblings in Australia on a UC-457 visa. Mr Singh is a UK citizen of Indian descent who was born in Denmark. On 1 April 2015 Mr Singh was granted a permanent resident return (subclass BB-155) Visa.

2. On 22 April 2017, Mr Singh lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral.

3. On 1 February 2019, a delegate of the Minister, under section 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act), refused Mr Singh’s application for citizenship. In the decision the delegate states:

   I find that you have been convicted of significant offences on 28 January 2015, for which your obligations to the court in the form of a community correction order only ceased on 28 January 2017. I acknowledge that you have no other offences in Australia, and that you have completed an anger management course and shown regret for your actions. However, I give greater weight to the significance of the offences, and findings by the court in the form of a lengthy correction order issued, and conviction finding. I also give significant weight to the amount of time that has passed since committing these offences, which is not enough to establish a pattern of good behaviour or determined that you are of good character.

   In light of the above assessment I am not satisfied that you are of good character.

4. On 26 February 2019, Mr Singh applied to this Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision. In his application he claims that the decision is wrong for the following reasons:

   hi Sir how are you i will briefly tell you the reason why i am requesting for review. my citizenship application has been rejected because of a small fight I had with somebody in 2013 September

   this matter went to court and i got convicted of 3 charges. taxi service commission and working with children check unit knows about this still they have accepted and approved my applications. also my doctor knows about my offences and have still supported my application for australian citizenship except for citizenship department who I believe have discriminated by saying I am not of god character. I can provide more details and evidence to support my application. I hope aat will make a fair decision and give me opportunity to explain everythink in details. also citizenship department have incorrectly stated that i arrived in australia in 1993 which is wrong. i already include in my application that i arrived in Australia in 2004. thanx

5. At the hearing, Mr Singh was self-represented and Ms Kylie Crawford, of Clayton Utz, appeared on behalf of the respondent Minister.  Mr Singh gave evidence under oath.

   ISSUE FOR THE TRIBUNAL

6. The issue for the Tribunal is whether the applicant is of good character.

   
   
   

   LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY BACKGROUND

7. Section 21(2) of the Act sets out the general eligibility criteria for a person to become an Australian citizen.

   General eligibility

   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.

8. Section 24 of the Act provides, in part:

   24 Minister's decision

   (1) If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

   (1A) 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).
   
   ....

9. Section 25 of the Act provides, in part:

   (1) The Minister may, by writing, cancel an approval given to a person under section 24 if:

   (a) the person has not become an Australian citizen under section 28; and

   (b) either of the following 2 situations apply.

   Eligibility criteria not met

   (2) The first situation applies if:

   (a) the person is covered by subsection 21(2), (3) or (4); and

   (b) the Minister is satisfied that, at the time the Minister proposes to cancel the approval, the person is:

   (i) not a permanent resident; or

   (ii) not likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia; or

     (iii) not of good character.

10. The term “good character” is not defined by the Act. However, guidance is provided by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Citizenship Policy issued by the Minister in 2016 (the Policy). The stated role of the Policy is to provide guidance on the interpretation of, and the exercise of powers under, the Act and the Australian Citizenship Regulations 2007.

11. Chapter 11 of the Policy deals with “good character”. Importantly, it is expressly stated at the outset that it is not Departmental policy for decision-makers to be bound by a checklist. Rather, decision-makers are to look at the merits of each case and turn their minds to the issues of character until they are satisfied, on a reasoned basis, whether the applicant is, or is not, of good character.

12. Reference is made to the definition of “good character” given by Lee J in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 (at 431-432):

    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 to 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 whilst 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.

13. The Policy also refers to Re Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, where Deputy President Breen discussed the role of the character requirement in a citizenship application (at para 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 the 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 year’s time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.

14. To assist decision-makers, the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of the characteristics of good behaviour, which is set out below:

    an applicant of good character would:

    ·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries

    ·be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay their taxes, and not be in dishonest receipt of public funds)

    ·be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments, for example:

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

    oinvolvement in a bogus marriage

    oconcealment of convictions that could lead to the cancellation or refusal of a visa or citizenship

    oinvolvement in Centrelink or Australian Tax Office fraud

    ogiving false names and/or addresses to police

    ·not to be violent, involved in drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without licence or insurance)

    ·not to be associated with others who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour, or others who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia

    ·not to have evaded immigration control or assisted others to do so, or been involved in the illegal movement of people

    ·not to have committed, been involved with or associated with war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide

    ·not to be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant

    ·not to be involved in or providing assistance to, or reasonably suspected of being involved in or providing assistance to, terrorist organisations or acts of terrorism overseas or in Australia and

    ·not to be the subject of any verifiable information causing character doubts.

15. The Policy also provides guidance on weighing up the character decision. It points out that the assessment of whether an applicant is of “good character” requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. More weight is to be given to serious offences.

16. The Policy further states:

    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 a person of good character have behaved 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.

17. The Policy makes reference to Deputy President Forgie decision in Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 55 AAR 94, to demonstrate this point:

    In the context of the Act, loyalty to Australia, a belief in a democratic form of government, a respect for the rights and liberties of all Australians and obedience to and observance of the law are values that are regarded as significant. An assessment of a person’s character will need to have regard to them. They are not values that can be assessed in the abstract. Instead, they are measured in part by what a person says, in part by what a person does and in part by what a person is heard to say and seen to do.

    EVIDENCE

18. The evidence before the Tribunal includes two sets of documents provided pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, referred to as the “T documents” and the “Supplementary T documents”. Mr Singh provided several character references as well as letters from the Victorian Department of Justice and Regulation and the Taxi Services Commission.

19. The following table has been derived from Mr Singh’s records as outlined in a Crimtrac report dated 8 January 2018:

Court	Date	Nature of Offence	Sentence
Melbourne County Court	28 Jan 2015	Aggravated Burglary – Person Present Intentionally Cause Injury Reckless Cause Injury	Convicted Community Corrections Order for 2 years to perform 150 hours unpaid community work

1. The Director of Public Prosecutions, in its plea opening dated 3 October 2014, outlined the acts, facts, matters and circumstances being relied upon by the prosecution for plea purposes. The document outlines the prosecution’s version of the background to Mr Singh’s offences, it states:

   …At the time of the offending Singh was managing a BP petrol station in Clayton

   The victims X (female) and Y (male) were in a relationship at the time of the offences. They were living… a shared house.

   Also at the address was Z (male).

   Singh and the victims were known to each other for approximately 3 - 4 months as both X and Y attended the BP petrol station to purchase petrol. X had also made enquiries with Singh as to the possibility of employment there and provided him with her phone number as a part of those enquiries. Y have provided is phone number to Singh as he worked as a courier driver.

   Following Singh taking X’s phone number he had started calling her and ‘flirting with her’ using a blocked number. X responded to the text initially ‘humbly’ asking Singh to leave her alone on the 8^th September 2013. Singh did not leave her alone and ultimately on the 21^st day of September 2013 she sent him a text telling him to leave her alone and that if he didn’t she would go to the police and take a restraining order out on him. X then got a new phone number.

   On Saturday the 28^th day of September 2013 Singh had sent Y a text message asking whether he and X were enjoying ‘having sex’. This upset X and she told Y to call Singh. When Y phoned Singh to ask him to stop sending such messages X grabbed the phone and angrily asked Singh ‘what the hell are you doing texting my boyfriend like that’.

2. The prosecution plea outlines Mr Singh’s its version of offences in the following manner, it states:

   On Monday the 30^th day of September 2013 at approximately 8:45 PM X and Y were at… X was in the kitchen, Y was taking a bath and Z was in his bedroom.

   While X washed the dishes Singh kicked the front door open and yelled at X “I will fuck you, you fucking bitch’. His brother.. followed him into the premises.

   On hearing this X pushed past Singh and ran to the bathroom where Y was while Singh continued calling her a bitch.

   Z heard Y yelling for him and put some shorts on and went out of the bathroom. As he came out of the bathroom he saw Singh and asked him what he wanted.

   Singh grabbed Y by the head and pushed him to the ground. While Y was on the ground Singh repeatedly punched and kicked him. Y sustained a cut to his lip, a bruise to the top right hand side of his forehead and scratches to his back.

   X went to Z’s bedroom and banged on the door saying ‘come out and save my boyfriend.’ Z came out of his room told Singh and his brother that they ‘needed to leave’. He then grabbed Singh by the hair and Singh’s brother punched him twice. Z suffered bruising, a small cut beneath his left eye and a sore hand.

   X then started to call the police. When Singh saw her doing this he ran out of the house with his brother. Y chased them but they got into a car drove away….

3. On 2 October 2014, Mr Patrick Newton, forensic and clinical psychologist, undertook a psychological assessment of Mr Singh in relation to his forthcoming plea to charges of armed robbery, intentionally causing injury and recklessly causing injury. In his report Mr Newton states:

   Mr Singh said that he is pleading guilty to the charges he is facing. Despite this he provided a version of events that was consistent with his statement in his Record of Interview. That is, he maintained that the complainants were in fact his friends and that he been invited to attend the house in order to resolve a conflict between them. He was adamant that he had not been the aggressor and that the offending and only taken place because the complainants had “been rude to [him]”.

   …

   Mr Singh was robustly challenged regarding his version of events. He could not demonstrate any understanding of the divergence between what he maintained and his plea of guilty. More seriously, he was unclear about the roles of the various protagonists within the legal process and of his rights and responsibilities within it. He seemed frankly baffled by his situation and the conceptual framework underpinning legal matters seemed beyond his understanding.

   …

   Mr Singh presented as an unsophisticated and immature man. His approach to the assessment was concrete and naïve and his ability to discuss his experiences in detail was lacking.

   …

   Moreover, his style of interacting with others is affable, naïve and unsophisticated. Mr Singh is naïvely optimistic about the orientation of others towards him. He tends to believe that virtually anyone he meets is his friend and with repeat contact (of even trivial proportions) he quickly contributes an exaggerated significance to the interaction he has had with others… Thus, he lacks the cognitive capacities to critique his inferences regarding the level of intimacy that exist between him and those whom he meets. Moreover, Mr Singh’s limited verbal skills mean that he lacks the basic ‘building blocks’ for effective communication. He is easily confused by any complexity and hence is prone to misinterpret many of the subtleties and nuances of personal and interpersonal interaction. Thus, he not only communicates in a childlike and mildly eccentric fashion, but he is regularly confused by what others say to him.

   More generally, Mr Singh is a dependent person man. He has learnt that others are generally better placed to understand matters than he is. He therefore tends to turn readily to others for advice and guidance. Most important of the groups to whom he turns are his family, but Mr Singh is prone to follow the directions and guidance of any who appear more confident and knowledgeable than he.

4. On 28 January 2015 Mr Singh, following his guilty plea, was convicted in the County Court of Victoria on the charges of aggravated burglary, intentionally cause injury and recklessly cause injury and placed on a community corrections order for a period of two years. Her Honour Judge Quinn in her sentencing remarks stated:

   The objective seriousness of this offending was high. In respect of the aggravated burglary this occurred at night at the victim’s unit. People are entitled to feel safe in their homes and your unexpected entry accompanied by your brother would have caused alarm and fear to the residents. The maximum penalty of 25 years reflects the seriousness that Parliament attaches to this type offending, particularly when it involves an invasion in a home.

   In respect of the injury charges this was an unprovoked assault on both Y and Z. It was fortunate their injuries were not more serious. I do, however, accept the submission of your counsel that your actions this night were irrational and emotionally driven, that there was little or no pre-planning in this offending and it could be described as unsophisticated. You did not use a disguise, you had no weapon and entry to the unit was by kicking the front door.

   There are a number of features that are taken into account in mitigation. You indicated you would plead to these matters prior to the committal commencing on 13 June 2014. You have pleaded at an early opportunity and this is reflective of your remorse. Your plea of guilty has saved time and expense to the community and is of considerable utilitarian value.

   I was informed that you now accept the factual basis of the plea, albeit your denials expressed in the record of interview and to Patrick Newton on 8 August 2014. This attitude is most likely to be reflected of your mild intellectual disability and the way that it manifests itself in social situations with people in authority.

1. When asked to describe his offending to the Tribunal, Mr Singh stated that it was all in the reports before the Tribunal. He stated that he and a friend had an argument on the phone and he wanted to clarify the situation so he had gone to his friend’s house. He said his friend (Y) thought he had said something wrong to his girlfriend (X) but he advised the Tribunal he had not said anything wrong to X. He described the incident as a small fight and said the victims had sustained minor injuries; advising the Tribunal that “yes it was a small fight I was there so I know.” He disputed he had sworn at X or kicked the door open.

2. Mr Singh advised the Tribunal that he had not asked his brother to accompany him to X and Y’s home but his brother had overheard the phone conversation and had gone to assist him in resolving the dispute.

3. Mr Singh agreed that in his initial interview with police he had lied about the incident and not accepted responsibility but stated that he had made a mistake and has now completed his sentence.

   CONSIDERATION

4. Mr Singh argued before the Tribunal that: “we are all humans. Every human can make a mistake. Because of a criminal conviction I am considered not of good character. But that doesn’t mean I am a bad character for my whole life. I have completed my sentence. If [the citizenship application] not approved I feel that I’m being punished again.”

5. Mr Singh contended that a long time had passed since his offending some six years ago, that it was five years since his sentence and two years since he had completed his community corrections order. Mr Singh contended that this was a significant amount of time during which he had undertaken an anger management course, completed his community corrections order and had not re-offended.

6. Mr Singh advised that Tribunal that during this period he had been issued with a working with children check by the Victorian Department of Justice and Regulation, issued with a driver accreditation by the Taxi Service Commission and employed as a bus driver. He strenuously argued that all these organisations were fully aware of his criminal history and had still granted him various permits and employment. He argued that this indicated that he was considered to be of good character and he should not be prohibited from becoming an Australian citizen.

7. Ms Crawford, for the respondent, contended that the Tribunal did not need to form a view that Mr Singh was of bad character but had to be positively persuaded that he was of good character. She argued that Mr Singh’s offending was objectively serious, as demonstrated by the circumstances of his offending, the sentence provided by Her Honour Judge Quinn and her remarks at sentencing.

8. Ms Crawford argued that Mr Singh had continued to minimise his offending by describing the incident as a small fight and this displayed his inability to demonstrate that he had taken responsibility for his actions.

9. Ms Crawford argued that any mitigating factors considered by the Tribunal to demonstrate Mr Singh was of good character were outweighed by the abject seriousness of Mr Singh’s offending. She contended that a sufficient amount of time had not passed since Mr Singh had completed his community corrections order for the Tribunal to accept a holistic view that he could be considered of good character for the purposes of citizenship by conferral.

10. Ms Crawford contended that limited weight should be given to Mr Singh’s character references as they provided little insight into his history of offending and added little value to Mr Singh’s contention that he was of good character.

11. Ms Crawford contended that Mr Singh had not displayed enduring moral qualities over a long time or the ability to distinguish right from wrong for the Tribunal to be satisfied of his good character.

12. Mr Singh reiterated to the Tribunal that the decision made by the delegate to refuse his application for citizenship was wrong and that they were continuing to judge him for something that had occurred six years ago.

13. The Tribunal considered the issue of Mr Singh’s good character in light of the Policy, as the Act is silent on the definition of good character. The Tribunal finds that Mr Singh would not be considered of good character given the objective seriousness of his action, that of an unprovoked violent action against victims in their own home where they have every right to feel safe and secure. The Tribunal notes that this is reflected in Her Honour Judge Quinn’s sentencing remarks: “The objective seriousness of this offending was high”.

14. The Australian community expects that people will be given a chance to redeem themselves and whilst Mr Singh has completed an anger management course, his 150 hours of unpaid community work and his community correction order he still does not seem to appreciate the seriousness of his offending, the impact of his actions on his victims or the community.

15. Mr Singh sought to argue that the community is aware of his offending and has no concerns with it as demonstrated by his being granted a working with children’s check, accreditation as a taxi driver and employ with a bus company. Whilst this is commendable and reflects well on Mr Singh’s determination to rebuild his life, the standard applied in granting an individual citizenship is different and requires a demonstration of enduring moral qualities which Mr Singh has not done at this point in time.

16. The Australian community has a low tolerance for individuals who show no respect for our laws and values, especially those who commit serious and violent offences, particularly against women and individuals in their own home. The community also expects that individuals will gain insight into their actions and behaviours, demonstrate genuine contrition and remorse for their actions which Mr Singh has failed to do.

17. At the conclusion of the hearing the Tribunal provided Mr Singh with additional time to submit any additional material including character references. Mr Singh provided several character references which all attest to him being a good person, who is very nice and friendly. They attest to being aware of his criminal charges and a belief he will not offend again.

18. The respondent argued that the Tribunal should give little weight to these references as they are all from individuals with the surname Singh and therefore they may be related to the applicant and contain very similar statements.

19. The Tribunal having considered the various references provided by Mr Singh, inclusive of his General Practitioner, finds that they do not shed any additional light on Mr Singh’s character, offending, demonstration of remorse for his actions or respect for Australian laws and values. The Tribunal does not discount the references believing they were from relatives of Mr Singh; as the Tribunal notes that a vast number of people of Indian descent from the Punjab region have the surname Singh.

20. The Tribunal believes the Australian community would not feel enough time has lapsed since Mr Singh’s offending, especially in light of his continual down playing of the significance of his action. There was a contention between Mr Singh and the respondent in respect of when the clock starts ticking to assess a picture of Mr Singh’s behaviour over a period of time to demonstrate he is compliant and respectful of Australian laws and values. Mr Singh contented he had demonstrated six years of good behaviour since his once off offence took place. Ms Crawford contended Mr Singh had only demonstrated two years of good behaviour as his obligation to the court ended in 2018. The Tribunal refers to Re Mana and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2016] AATA 639 (26 August 2016) which stated that:

    However, the guidelines implicitly, and properly, reject the notion that "intrinsic character" is fixed in time. The question to be determined is whether the person has satisfied the Minister of their "good character" at the time of the relevant decision - (in the present circumstances the date of this Tribunal's decision): see ACA 2007 s 21(2)(h) & Dandan and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AATA 539 at [3]-[10]. Consequently the length of time that has passed since the last instance of an applicant's impugned conduct is, as the delegate's reasoning in the June 2015 refusal decision indicated, a relevant consideration. I remarked earlier on the suggestion in the guidelines that good character involves characteristics that "have been demonstrated over a very long period of time":….

    The guidelines suggest that in most cases the required period "will go back prior to any visa application": Australian Citizenship Instructions Chapter 10.5.4; Citizenship Policy Chapter 11, page 150. This suggestion appears to allude to the various "residence" requirements in ACA 2007 ss 22 - 22B. The typical "general residence requirement" is a period of 4 years. …..

    Finally, although a finding of satisfaction about character is ultimately the result of an impressionistic evaluation of a range of considerations, it is not a matter of merely subjective preference in the weighing of those considerations. This point is inherent in the guidelines' emphasis on the applicant's lawful conduct, and the obligations of citizenship. But the guidelines attempt to add some degree of emphasis exhorting the citizenship decision maker to apply "community standards" rather than "their own personal standards". Both the Australian Citizenship Instructions (at Chapter 10.5.4) and the Citizenship Policy (at Chapter 11, page 149) suggest that in applying this instruction decision makers should be enquiring (i) whether a person of good character would have engaged in the applicant's conduct, (ii) about the extent of the applicant's lawful conduct, (iii) about the extent of the applicant's compliance with Australian community standards, and (iv) about the extent that the applicant shares and respects Australian democratic beliefs.

    The Tribunal finds that insufficient time has passed since Mr Singh’s offending took place to consider him of good character.

21. The Tribunal is aware that this decision will cause considerable distress to Mr Singh but notes the decision should not be read as implying that Mr Singh is a bad person. The Tribunal would encourage Mr Singh to reapply for citizenship in the future and refers to Re Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [2000] AATA 931, where Deputy President Breen stated:

    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 year’s time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal having considered the applicant’s statements, character references and all the evidence placed before the hearing affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 45 (forty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Ms Anna Burke AO, Member.

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

Associate

Dated:   4 March 2020               

Date of hearing:	29 November 2019
Date of final submissions:	7 February 2020
Applicant:	Self-Represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Ms Kylie Crawford
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Clayton Utz Lawyers