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

The applicant sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse his application for Australian citizenship by conferral. The refusal was based on the delegate's dissatisfaction with the applicant's identity and good character, as required by sections 24(3) and 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth) respectively. The applicant, born in Ethiopia, had arrived in Australia in 2007 and applied for citizenship in 2016.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it was satisfied of the applicant's identity and good character. This involved assessing the authenticity of a "National Regional Government of Tigray Residence ID" provided by the applicant, and the applicant's conduct and truthfulness in response to adverse information regarding this document. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had met the statutory requirements for citizenship, particularly concerning the veracity of the documents submitted and the applicant's overall honesty.

The Tribunal found that the Residence ID provided by the applicant was not genuine, a fact confirmed by the issuing authority. While the applicant initially claimed to believe the document was genuine, his assertions were found to be not credible when contrasted with the evidence. The applicant's explanation for obtaining the document shifted from claiming it was issued by a regional authority to admitting he received it from an unknown individual in a hotel to avoid higher accommodation charges. Furthermore, the applicant had previously accused the Department of acting illegally and immorally when informed the document was not genuine, and continued to assert its validity even after being advised otherwise. The Tribunal applied the principle that applicants seeking citizenship must be absolutely truthful regarding their identity and the documents they submit, referencing *Fang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2018] AATA 3686.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the application. It was not satisfied of the applicant's identity due to the submission of a counterfeit document and the applicant's subsequent inconsistent and untruthful explanations. This lack of satisfaction regarding identity, coupled with the applicant's conduct in responding to adverse information, led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant had not demonstrated the good character required for citizenship.