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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by TKQS, who was seeking to challenge a decision of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The central issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was of good character for the purposes of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth), particularly in light of a prior conviction for an act of indecency.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the good character requirement at the time of the Tribunal's decision. This involved considering the applicant's prior conviction for an act of indecency with a person 16 years or over, for which he received an 18-month Community Correction Order. The applicant had not disclosed the full details of this conviction in his initial citizenship application, although he later provided a response acknowledging the conviction and expressing shame, embarrassment, and remorse. The Tribunal also considered evidence relating to a separate speeding offence and a false nomination, which the applicant had also been convicted of.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had sought counselling and acknowledged the seriousness of his offending and its impact on the victim. However, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's assertion that he was not responsible for the speeding offence. The Tribunal applied the principle that it cannot "look behind" a conviction made by a criminal court, citing *HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, which affirmed that it is inconsistent with the separation of powers for an administrative decision-maker to reach a factual conclusion contrary to that of a court. The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding the speeding offence was contrary to his submissions made to the District Court, where he had unequivocally accepted responsibility.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant was advised that he could make another application for Australian citizenship in the future.