TGFY and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

[2018] AATA 523

TGFY and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 523 (16 March 2018)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:           2017/1904

Re:TGFY

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member L M Gallagher
Member C Edwardes

Date:16 March 2018

Place:Perth

The decision under review is affirmed.

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

Member L M Gallagher

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – criminal offences – whether applicant of good character – meaning of good character – lack of culpability at relevant time – applicant found not to be of good character at time of application for citizenship – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – s 21(2) – s 21(2)(h)

CASES

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422

Kakar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 132

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 5 ALD 135

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Gungor (1982) 4 ALD 575

Saffron v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) (1991) 30 FCR 578; 102 ALR 19

SECONDARY MATERIALS

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member L M Gallagher

Member C Edwardes

16 March 2018

INTRODUCTION

1. TGFY is a 41 year old citizen of Zimbabwe who arrived in Australia on 6 April 2008 as the holder of a UC 457 temporary visa (T11, p 71).

2. On 21 January 2010, TGFY was granted a permanent BW 856 visa (employer nominated) (T11, p 71).

3. On 24 May 2013 (one month before TGFY was charged with his offences, refer to paragraph 4 below), TGFY presented to the Emergency Department at Royal Perth Hospital with neurological symptoms including a slight right facial droop, complete right sided facial paralysis, a two day history of left sided facial weakness and an inability to close his eye or drink water without spilling (T9, p 64).  TGFY was discharged with an eye shield and a ten day supply of prednisone.  The hospital notes also state “GP follow up in 3 days, assess response and need for further investigation and neurology referral” (T9, p 64).

4. WA Police Records note that at 2.20 am on 23 June 2013, TGFY was stopped by police for a preliminary breath test “due to his manner of driving” (R2, Annexure A).  The related Statement of Material Facts states (R2, Annexure A):

   The accused failed to comply with the requirement of the Preliminary Breath Test resulting in him being required to accompany Police to the Gosnells Police Station for a Breath Analysis Test.

   At this time it was noted the accused was heavily affected by alcohol, with his speech being slurred, his motor function slowed and a strong odour of intoxicating liquor detected from his person.

   At the Gosnells Police Station, the accused was introduced to First Class Constable MacKay, a qualified Breath Operator and [sic] required to provide a sample of his breath for analysis.

   The process was fully explained to the accused however he failed on four separate occasions to provide a sample of his breath for analysis.

   The accused when questioned stated on three occasions there was no medical reasons [sic] why he could not comply with the requirements of the Breath Analysis Test.

   The accused was informed he would be charged with failure to comply with a requirement to provide a sample of breath for analysis.

   The accused stated he was unable to perform the required task because he was suffering from facial paralysis.

   During the process no facial paralysis was noted and in the opinion of the qualified Breath Operator, there was no medical or other reason, why the accused could not comply with the requirement of the Breath Analysis Test.

   The accused was subsequently served with a Disqualification Notice,…

5. On 24 June 2013, TGFY consulted with Dr Stoltze, General Practitioner, at Carousel Medical Centre, who recorded that TGFY was “… recovering slowly.  He is still unable to whistle, Blow [sic] hard through pursed lips, or drink through a straw because of persistent weakness around his lips.  Consequently, he is unable to perform a Breathalyser Test” (T9, p65).

6. WA Police Records note that at 7.23 pm on 4 August 2013, TGFY was stopped by police while driving and it was ascertained that he was not authorised to drive that class of vehicle (being a Nissan Navara utility).  The related Statement of Material Facts states (R2, Annexure A):

   …Inquiries revealed that police had issued the accused a Disqualification Notice on the 23/06/2013 until 22/08/2013 for a drink driving offence.

   Vehicle impounded.

7. On 29 June 2016, TGFY applied for Australian citizenship by conferral pursuant to section 21 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (“the Citizenship Act”) (T4). 

8. On 21 November 2016, a delegate of the Minister wrote to TGFY, inviting him to comment on adverse information before it that TGFY had a criminal record, noting that TGFY had been convicted in the Armadale Magistrates Court of the following offences (T8):

   (a)Failure to Comply with a Requirement to provide a Breath Analysis (occurred on 23 June 2013, convicted on 19 June 2014, fined $1,250.00 and disqualified from driving for 10 months) (“the first offence”); and

   (b)No Authority to Drive – Disqualified/Suspended (occurred on 4 August 2013, convicted on 3 October 2013, fined $400.00 and disqualified from driving for 9 months, cumulatively) (“the second offence”).

9. On 21 November 2016, TGFY responded to the Minister’s letter referred to at paragraph 8 above, explaining his convictions as follows (relevantly and in part) (T9):

   On the 24^th of May 2013 early in the morning I got a problem that affected [sic] right hand side of my face, therefore I immediately went to Royal Perth Hospital scared I might have been developing something serious like a stroke.  There at Royal Perth I was diagnosed with a facial paralyses [sic] disorder called Bells [sic] Palsy.  Which means half of my face was partially paralysed, no feeling, taste and muscle weakness which made me take some time off work.

   A month latter [sic], on the 23th [sic] of June I came across a random breath testing station and I tried blowing into the instrument but could not do it to the officer’s expectation.  I tried explaining my situation to the police officer but he did not believe me therefore I got suspended from driving immediately as he thought I was just trying to avoiding [sic] being breath tested.  The following Monday I went to Carousel Medical centre, got accessed [sic] and I was given a written report explaining my condition.  When I went to court I plead [sic] not guilty because I had all the written evidence with me to support my case.  I went to court about 4 times (different days) and the case kept on being postponed due to various reasons.  on [sic] the last day I had to plead with the magistrate [sic] to face the courts and go for the trial because I could not carry on asking from my employer to excuse myself from work to attend the court sessions…

   … I was found guilty of the offense [sic] of failing to give a breath sample even though I know I was innocent…

   … On the second offence I was guilty of driving under suspension which was as a result of the first misunderstanding.  And the driving was work related.  After that I applied and got an extra ordinary driver’s licence with the help of my employer…

10. On 29 March 2017, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (“the Minister”) refused TGFY’s citizenship application on the basis that TGFY was not of good character (T11).  This was determined primarily on the basis that TGFY had a criminal record and the circumstances relevant to that criminal history.

11. On 1 April 2017, TGFY applied to this Tribunal seeking review of the decision dated 29 March 2017 that he is not eligible for Australian citizenship because he is not of good character (T2).  In his application for review, TGFY claimed the decision dated 29 March 2017 is wrong because (T2):

    Apparently the verdict was given on the basis that I did not respond to their request of [sic] more information to support my application but I did responded [sic] in email and mail (post) straight away.  Unfortunately I don’t have a copy of the posted stuff but I do have a copy of the email I send [sic] to the department [sic] Andrew J.

    LEGISLATION

12. A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that he or she meets the requirements in subsection 21(2) of the Citizenship Act. These requirements include the requirement in subsection 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act that a person be of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application for citizenship.

13. Whether TGFY is of “good character” is the only eligibility criterion in issue in these proceedings.

14. The Citizenship Act does not define “good character”. Guidance is contained in the Citizenship Policy (“the Policy”)[1].  The Policy is government policy and hence should be applied unless there are compelling reasons against its application (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634). The Policy is discussed further below.

    [1] The Tribunal notes that the Policy replaces the policy guidance previously provided in the form of the Australian Citizenship Instructions, which were last published on 26 February 2015.  From 1 June 2016, the Australian Citizenship Instructions detail the citizenship operational instructions and supplement the policy guidance provided in the Policy.

    THE MEANING OF GOOD CHARACTER

15. Chapter 11 of the Policy provides guidance for assessing an applicant under the “good character” test prescribed by subsection 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act. Chapter 11 of the Policy cites Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 at 431-432, in which the Full Federal Court noted:

    Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning be applied, 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 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 while 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 is 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.

16. Chapter 11 of the Policy goes on to state that “enduring moral qualities” means the demonstration of characteristics over a long period, namely distinguishing right from wrong, behaving in an ethical manner, and conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.  Chapter 11 of the Policy states this broad definition of “good character” means that (the Policy at pages 145-146):

    … a decision maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident [sic] before their visa application and throughout their migration and citizenship processes.

17. Chapter 11 of the Policy further provides that an applicant of good character would, among other things (the Policy at page 147):

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

    ·…

    ·be truthful and not practise [sic] deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments and organisations, for example, … concealment of convictions that could lead to the cancellation or refusal of a visa or citizenship

    ·… 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)

18. The Policy also provides that in weighing up the character decision, decision makers are required to apply community standards, not their own personal standards and essentially the question of whether any mitigating circumstances and/or explanation provided outweigh the behaviour in question, including (the Policy at pages 149-150):

    ·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.

19. In asking the question posed at paragraph 18 above, the Policy states that “[a] decision maker needs to look holistically at an applicant’s behaviour over a lasting and enduring period of time.  The amount of time considered to be ‘lasting’ or ‘enduring’ depends on the merits of each case, but in most cases will go back prior to any visa application.” (The Policy at page 150).

20. As to referee reports, the Policy states that “… [they] can shed light upon an applicant’s character and should acknowledge, where applicable, any offence or other incident and explain why the applicant is nonetheless considered to be of good character.  Decision makers should give very little weight to references which do not acknowledge the offence or incident.  However, decision makers should note the inherent bias in any reference which is submitted by an applicant in support of their citizenship application.” (The Policy at page 155).

21. Criminal convictions are relevant in determining good character.  In Kakar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 132 at [14], Deputy President Wright said:

    When criminal offences have been committed by an applicant they will obviously be taken into account.  The extent to which the existence of criminal conduct will weigh in the scales against a finding of good character will depend upon many things including the seriousness of the crime, the length of time since its commission and the degree of rehabilitation of the offender.

    ISSUE

22. The issue for review by this Tribunal is whether TGFY was, as at 29 June 2016, of good character for the purpose of satisfying the relevant eligibility criteria to become an Australian citizen.

    EVIDENCE

23. The matter was heard in Perth on 19 February 2018.  TGFY appeared in person and was self-represented.  The Minister was represented by Ms Leith Helsdon from Sparke Helmore Lawyers.

24. The Tribunal received the following evidence:

    ·the Applicant’s evidence, including the Applicant’s written statement dated 8 July 2017 and a statement by the Applicant’s friend, dated 4 July 2017, received by the Tribunal on 10 July 2017, (A1);

    ·the Applicant’s written submissions in reply to the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, received by the Tribunal on 9 October 2017 (A2);

    ·a 91 page set of T-Documents (T1 – T12) (R1); and

    ·the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 15 September 2017, with Annexures A and B (R2).

25. The Tribunal has reviewed all of the material before it.  The Tribunal is satisfied that all relevant evidence was before it and that both parties were provided an opportunity to address the evidence, either orally or in writing.  Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the Tribunal will be analysed and referred to below.

26. TGFY gave the following evidence at hearing, including during cross-examination by Ms Helsdon:

    (a)on discharge from the Royal Perth Hospital Emergency Department on 24 May 2013 (T9, page 64, referred to at paragraph 3 above), he was provided with a ten day supply of steroids and advised to attend a “GP follow up in 3 days, assess response and need for further investigation and neurology referral.”;

    (b)he did not attend his GP for follow up within that three day period as he “thought he would just take medication” and his “condition improved on its own,” because he understood that the medication would treat the inflamed nerve and the condition would therefore “heal itself.”;

    (c)in relation to the first offence, TGFY disagrees that he was, at that time, “heavily affected by alcohol.[2]”  TGFY said that on the morning he was pulled over by police, he had tried to provide a sample breath for testing but had failed to blow into the machine;

    [2] As stated in the WA Police Statement of Material Facts at R2, Annexure A, extracted at paragraph 4 above.

    (d)following his failure to provide a sample of his breath to police, he did not ask for (as he did not know at the time that he could do so) and was not offered a blood test;

    (e)as to this failure (referred to in subparagraph 26(d) above), he did not think that his Bell’s Palsy would have “given him any issues” or “prevent him blowing” as he “wasn’t taking any medication (for Bell’s Palsy) by then.”;

    (f)in relation to the reference in the Statement of Material Facts to his “speech being slurred[3]” and the police having detected “a strong odour of intoxicating liquor from his [TGFY’s] person[4]”, TGFY said that he “was talking not normally,” his right eye was “closed a little bit” however he was “not sure why they said that [there was a strong odour].”;

    [3] Refer to footnote 2.

    [4] Refer to footnote 2.

    (g)as to the comment made by his friend, in his statement dated 4 July 2017 (A1) that:

    He has given up drinking alcohol and is now an active member of City Life Church in Canning vale [sic].

    TGFY said that he was an occasional drinker, that he had not been drinking on the night of the first offence and he now doesn’t drink at all due to family commitments;

    (h)as he was approximately 120 metres from his house when he was pulled over on the first occasion, he parked his car on the verge and walked to the police station.  At the police station, he was issued a “suspension notice” and his wife picked him up and took him home;

    (i)he was “very angry” when he left the police station, and “phoned a help line” as he “felt he was unfairly treated” (by police).  The help line operator advised him to see a doctor and then go back to the police.  As his doctor’s surgery was closed on a Sunday, he had to visit his doctor the next day, on Monday morning.  On the help line’s advice, he then took the doctor’s letter to the police and handed it over the counter;

    (j)despite having been served with the (disqualification) notice, he started driving again “on the Tuesday after” and continued to drive as he “had to go to work” and “work involved driving every day.”;

    (k)as to TGFY’s statement that (A1):

    Due to desperation I designed a very stupid plan that at that moment I thought was very clever, leaving home a bit earlier for work and drive using the back roads.  The plan didn’t work for long.

    TGFY said that following his disqualification from driving in June 2013, he drove for six weeks until he was caught in August 2014.  TGFY said that at that time, he had “not really learned” that his licence had been “suspended” and while he “knew it was wrong to drive”, he “thought it was a clever, good idea” and did not feel the effect or the impact of driving whilst under suspension until he was charged for a second time and given a “big fine.”; 

    (l)TGFY said that he “stopped driving then” (after the second offence) and that “he wouldn’t do it again” because of the “inconveniences of not having a licence” in having to pick up his children from day care on the bus and the “density of the thing.”;

    (m)TGFY said that he had learned his lesson and by that he means that he regrets the money he lost (in payment of fines, his car being impounded and lost work tools), being approximately “$3,000.00 or more.”  TGFY added that due to his offences he had experienced “hardships” of “not having a car,” having to take the bus to collect his children from day care (his wife being unable to assist due to their respective work shifts), hardships which he said drew him back “big time.”;

    (n)TGFY said that if he “wasn’t caught” (by police) he would say “you can get away with it (driving)” and that if he hadn’t been caught a second time he “probably, maybe wouldn’t have kept driving,” but would give “no guarantees.”;

    (o)TGFY said that after the second offence, he approached his boss for an “extraordinary licence,” something that he did not do after the first offence, as he “thought he could make it work,” he thought that it (his offending conduct, until he was caught the second time) “was minor,” he was “scared about losing his job” and worried that he “would get no other jobs.”  TGFY said that he “felt like he had run out of options” by the time he told his boss (about his offences); 

    (p)TGFY said that he was “more scared of losing his job” than he was concerned for his boss having an employee driving around without a licence and that he “had to pretend everything was normal at the time.”; and

    (q)TGFY said that when he did tell his boss about his offence, while his boss “wasn’t happy” about it, he was very cooperative with TGFY, he helped TGFY obtain his extraordinary licence and arranged for TGFY to work more suitable shifts.

1. As to further matters addressed in TGFY’s written statements (which are in essence TGFY’s version of events relating to his offending conduct) (A1 and A2), TGFY stated that:

   (a)he has changed his life, he knows he is of good character, his friends know of him as a good person, what he did was “very wrong” and besides his two offences his “record have been super clean” (A1);

   (b)he joined the City Life Church in 2010 or 2011, which he attends every Sunday and volunteers every second Sunday, although his increased involvement in the church “is not really related to his offences.”;

   (c)while he does not contest what is written in the police records, he believes it is “a bit harsh to focus on the past.”; and

   (d)the main thing that he had learned is that “it’s not right” (to break the law), a view which has come from the “evolution of the whole experience”.

   CONSIDERATION

2. The issue for review is whether TGFY was of good character at the time of his application for citizenship.

3. The Minister contends that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that TGFY is of good character and that, therefore, the Delegate’s decision to refuse TGFY’s application for citizenship is the correct and preferable decision (R2, paragraph 4).  At hearing, Ms Helsdon elaborated further contending that the following points suggested TGFY is not of good character:

   (a)in relation to the first offence, TGFY’s version of events ought to be given limited weight due to the inconsistencies between the police record and TGFY’s version of events (refer to subparagraphs 26(c) and 26(f) above) and his oral evidence at hearing shows that he has not accepted culpability for this offence; and

   (b)in relation to the second offence, TGFY knowingly disobeyed the law, continued to drive for some time (approximately 6 weeks) and actively sought to change his behaviour to avoid being caught again by police (refer to sub paragraphs 26(j) and 26(k) above).

4. TGFY maintains that he is of good character and the Tribunal notes his evidence at paragraph 27 in this regard.

   Offences

5. TGFY has two criminal convictions arising out of two incidents, to which TGFY pleaded guilty and gave evidence that he paid the related fines.  However, the Tribunal notes that TGFY continued to drive following his first conviction, almost immediately and for reasons of his own personal circumstances and inconvenience (refer to subparagraphs 26(j) to 26(m) inclusive).

6. Although TGFY’s offences did not involve violence, the Tribunal regards TGFY’s criminal record as being sufficiently serious to weigh against TGFY being of good character.  The Tribunal notes that the laws pertaining to TGFY’s criminal offences are in place to prevent harm to other road users and his offending conduct, particularly in relation to the second offence in continuing to drive, demonstrates a lack of insight weighing against TGFY in this regard (refer to points 1 and 3 in paragraph 17 above). 

7. The Tribunal also finds on the evidence that the outcome in paragraph 32 above is not put in any more favourable light to TGFY having regard to considerations of length of time since commission and degree of rehabilitation (refer to paragraph 21 and sub paragraph 26(n) above).

   TGFY’s evidence

8. TGFY gave evidence that he was unable to provide a breath sample to police on the morning of the first offence because of his facial paralysis condition.  The Tribunal attributes little weight to TGFY’s explanation in light of the evidence that:

   (a)when he was stopped by police on 23 June 2013, it was due to his manner of driving and he was noted to be heavily intoxicated by alcohol, with his speech being slurred, his motor function slowed and a strong odour of intoxicating liquor detected from his person[5] (refer to paragraph 4 above);

   (b)at the time of the first offence, TGFY advised police that there was no medical reason why he could not comply with the requirements of the Breath Analysis Test (refer to paragraph 4 above);

   (c)it was only after being charged with the first offence that TGFY advised police that his facial paralysis condition had rendered him unable to perform the task (refer to paragraph 4 above);

   (d)no facial paralysis was noted at the time and in the opinion of the qualified Breath Operator, there was no medical or other reason, why the accused could not comply with the requirements of the breath analysis test (refer to paragraph 4 above); and

   (e)TGFY, by his own evidence (refer to sub paragraph 26(b) above) and from his GP’s records, did not present for treatment as recommended by Royal Perth hospital on discharge from its emergency department one month prior (refer to paragraph 3 above).  Rather, TGFY gave evidence that on advice from the help line operator, TGFY first presented to his GP the day after he was charged with the first offence to obtain a letter about his medical condition (refer to sub paragraph 26(i) above).

   [5] The Tribunal notes that while TGFY disagrees with some aspects of the facts as recorded by the WA Police in its Statement of Material Facts (refer to subparagraph 26(c) of this decision), for reasons stated at paragraph 36 of this decision, the Tribunal refers to and relies upon those facts as recorded by the WA Police.

9. TGFY has attempted to explain his offences (by reason of his claimed medical condition, in relation to the first offence, and by reasons of his “very stupid plan” to keep driving in order to continue working and collecting his children from day care, in relation to the second offence) (refer to paragraph 26 above). 

10. Notwithstanding TGFY’s explanations in paragraph 35 above, he was found guilty and convicted of the two offences, convictions which are not open for the Tribunal to go behind and examine the facts on which they are based.[6] 

    [6] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Gungor (1982) 4 ALD 575; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 5 ALD 135; Saffron v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) (1991) 30 FCR 578; 102 ALR 19.

11. The Tribunal also considers that TGFY’s explanations for his conduct as well as the conduct itself demonstrates his disregard for laws aimed at protecting road users and the community at large and his failure to accept full responsibility for his offending conduct, in particular:

    (a)TGFY knew his licence had been suspended and continued to drive anyway, for a period of 6 weeks (refer to subparagraph 26(k) above);

    (b)it was only when he was caught by police for a second time that TGFY approached his employer regarding obtaining an extraordinary licence (refer to sub paragraph 26(o) above);

    (c)TGFY thought it was a good idea to drive while suspended using the back roads (refer to sub paragraph 26(k) above); and

    (d)regarding his “punishment”, it appears from TGFY’s oral evidence at hearing that it is only now that he realises what he did was wrong, beyond the sense of financial loss and personal inconvenience and in the broader sense of his behaviour being inconsistent of what the Australian community might expect of a person of “good character” (refer to paragraph 18 above).

12. The Tribunal therefore finds that holistically, over “a lasting and enduring period of time,” which indeed encompasses TGFY’s offending conduct prior to his visa application (refer to paragraphs 18 and 19 above), TGFY’s behaviour cannot be said to be demonstrative of a person of good character.

    Character references

13. As to the letter provided by TGFY’s friend (refer to sub paragraph 26(g) above), while the Tribunal has been presented with no evidence to suggest TGFY has an ongoing issue with alcohol, and while his friend’s letter does acknowledge TGFY’s offences, the Tribunal notes the inherent bias in the reference provided by his friend regarding knowing TGFY “to be a good man” (refer to A1 and the Policy as extracted in paragraph 20 above).

    CONCLUSION

14. The Tribunal accepts that TGFY has a genuine desire for Australian citizenship and a commitment to Australia and to his wife and children, who are Australian citizens. 

15. However, having considered all the evidence and for the reasons given at paragraphs 28 to 39 above, the Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that TGFY is of good character for the purposes of subsection 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act.

16. Nothing about the Tribunal’s conclusion at paragraph 41 above or its decision at paragraph 43 below prevents TGFY from making a further application for Australian citizenship in the future.

    DECISION

17. The decision of the delegate of the Minister, dated 29 March 2017, to refuse TGFY’s citizenship application, is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 43 (forty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member L M Gallagher,  and Member C Edwardes

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

Administrative Assistant - Legal

Dated: 16 March 2018

Date of hearing:	19 February 2018
Applicant:	In person
Representative for the Respondent:	Ms Leith Helsdon
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers