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

This matter concerned an appeal by Tlang Lian against a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to refuse her application for Australian citizenship. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's identity, with the Department of Home Affairs and subsequently the Tribunal finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish her identity to the required standard.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it could be satisfied of the applicant's identity, as required by section 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth), and consequently, whether the delegate's decision to refuse citizenship should be affirmed. This required the Tribunal to consider the standard of proof for establishing identity in the context of a citizenship application, particularly when faced with inconsistencies in the applicant's provided information.

The Tribunal's reasoning was guided by the principles established in *Briginshaw v Briginshaw* and subsequent cases, which stipulate that a tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of the truth of a fact before it can be found. This "reasonable satisfaction" is not a mechanical calculation of probabilities but requires a degree of certainty that is influenced by the seriousness of the allegation and the consequences of the finding. In this instance, the Tribunal noted significant inconsistencies in the applicant's account of her life story, including multiple dates of birth and differing names for her mother, as well as conflicting information regarding her father's whereabouts and marital status. Despite the applicant's explanations for these discrepancies, the Tribunal found them unsatisfactory and concluded that the provided evidence, including statutory declarations and oral testimony, did not produce the necessary degree of reasonable satisfaction regarding her identity.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse citizenship, as section 24(3) of the Act prohibits the Minister from approving an application unless satisfied of the applicant's identity. The Tribunal indicated that further documentation, such as official identity documents from Myanmar or corroborating statements from individuals who knew her there, would be necessary for a future application to succeed.