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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by SRFX (the Applicant) and the refusal of that application by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (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) and whether the Applicant's identity could be satisfactorily ascertained under section 24(3) of the Act. The core of the dispute revolved around the Applicant's past dealings with the Department of Home Affairs, particularly in relation to previous visa applications, and the veracity of documents and information provided.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the Applicant's character and identity in light of findings made in a previous review of a partner visa application. In that prior proceeding, the Tribunal had made a firm finding of fact that the Applicant and Ms K had provided a bogus document and false and misleading information to the Department. Specifically, the Tribunal had concluded that a Mr L, who was presented as Ms K's former husband, did not exist and was invented to conceal an earlier marriage between the Applicant and Ms K, which would have rendered the Applicant ineligible for an Orphan Relative visa granted in 2011. The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the Applicant's life story, his truthfulness, and whether any misleading conduct could be reasonably explained to mitigate character concerns.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not satisfied the good character requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the Act. This conclusion was based on the Applicant's history of providing false and misleading information and submitting bogus documents to the Department in support of his partner visa application. The Tribunal noted that while the partner visa application had been remitted on humanitarian grounds, this did not negate the findings regarding the Applicant's character. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied of the Applicant's identity under section 24(3) of the Act, as the history of deception cast doubt on the reliability of the identity documents presented. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the application for citizenship.