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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by Mr Tannenbaum, who was seeking to become an Australian citizen. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs opposed the application, arguing that Mr Tannenbaum did not meet the character requirements for citizenship. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Mr Tannenbaum was of good character for the purposes of his citizenship application.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether Mr Tannenbaum was of good character, a crucial element for approval of an Australian citizenship application under the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). This involved assessing his past conduct, including allegations of fraud, forgery, and other serious offences, as well as his co-operation with insolvency trustees and the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant in South Africa. The Tribunal also considered whether Mr Tannenbaum had made false or misleading statements in his application and whether his employment history and tax compliance in Australia were relevant to the character assessment.

The Tribunal found that Mr Tannenbaum was not of good character. It noted that findings by a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, which were not contradicted by cogent evidence from the applicant, indicated his involvement in the transfer of significant funds into an Australian account, with a substantial portion being used for personal transactions, including gambling. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Tannenbaum had co-operated with the trustees of his insolvent estate in South Africa, and he had failed to provide evidence to support his claims of co-operation. The existence of a criminal case and an arrest warrant issued against him in South Africa, as indicated by the South African Police Service, also weighed heavily against his character assessment. The Tribunal concluded that it could not be satisfied of his good character based on his conduct in Australia alone, particularly given his failure to provide evidence or make himself available for questioning regarding these serious matters.