TPYX and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

[2023] AATA 141

TPYX and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 141 (14 February 2023)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2021/10304

Re:TPYX  

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

Decision

Tribunal:Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

Date:14 February 2023

Place:Sydney

The reviewable decision is affirmed.

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

Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – citizenship application refused – whether the identity of the applicant is satisfied – provision of false documents and information by the applicant – whether the applicant is of good character – reviewable decision affirmed

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Cases

BOY19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 574

Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Nguyen v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2018] AATA 1082

Secondary Materials

Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 ’Assessing character under the Citizenship Act’

Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 ‘Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act’

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

14 February 2023

Introduction

1. The Applicant, TPYX, applied for citizenship on 27 March 2015. The application was refused on 7 December 2021.  I am reviewing that decision. 

2. I have to decide whether I am satisfied:  

   (a)of the Applicant’s identity pursuant to section 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act); and

   (b)that the Applicant is of good character as specified in section 21(2)(h) of the Act.

3. The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement and the Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs) provide guidance to decision makers assessing a person’s identity and deciding whether someone is of good character. These are policy documents which the Tribunal will generally apply unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[1]

   [1] Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 640. (per Brennan J).

4. CPI 16 gives guidance about assessing identity under the Act. Decision-makers should consider three pillars of identity – biometrics (such as fingerprints, facial images or a signature), documents (that are reliable and issued in accordance with robust identity proofing processes), and the person’s life story.

5. CPI 15 provides guidance about assessing whether a person is of good character.

   Background

6. The Applicant arrived in Australia for the first time on 28 November 2000 holding a Tourist (subclass 676) visa using a Pakistani passport and the identity X who was born in Peshawar in January 1966. 

7. On 28 December 2000 he applied for a Protection (Class XA) (subclass 866) visa using the identity X. The application was refused on 16 August 2002. He sought review unsuccessfully in the Refugee Review Tribunal (RTT), the Federal Magistrates Court and on appeal, in the Federal Court.

8. He became an unlawful non-citizen on 26 May 2005 when his Bridging A (subclass 010) visa ceased.

9. On 7 October 2009, he made another application for a Protection (Class XA) visa under his presently claimed identity. He did not disclose in that application that he had previously made an application under a different identity. The visa was granted on 20 August 2010.

10. On 30 November 2011 the Applicant proposed his spouse and four children on a Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa, the youngest son’s birth date being 9 July 2001.

11. On 28 December 2012 he sponsored his spouse and children on a Partner (subclass 100) visa application. In 2018 his second son withdrew his application and by the time of the hearing, his first son’s application was not being pursued. Both had moved to the United Kingdom. The application in respect of his spouse, youngest son and daughter is ‘ongoing’.

12. On 5 September 2013, a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) was sent to the Applicant because of his two protection visa applications made under two different identities which contained conflicting information, a fingerprint comparison between his thumb print on his Pakistani passport and the impression held by the Minister’s Department (the Department), and the images from his Pakistani passport and a Visa Evidence Card for his claimed identity.

13. On 25 October 2013 his spouse and children’s Global Special Humanitarian visas were refused.

14. On 28 October 2013, the Applicant responded to the NOICC, providing essentially the same life story as he relies upon in these proceedings. On 12 March 2015, the Department decided not to cancel his Protection visa. The delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant was a citizen of Pakistan, although he had not complied with section 101 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

15. The Applicant disclosed in his citizenship application made on 27 March 2015 that he had been known by the X identity and his occupation was interpreter. He indicated that he was providing a birth certificate. He did not nominate a representative.  

16. The Department sent the Applicant a letter dated 6 April 2017 inviting him to provide further documents relating to his identity. He responded on 18 April 2017. The form included an Afghan ID number which corresponds to the tazkera he has provided. The tazkera is the principal identification document issued by Afghan authorities.

17. On 10 March 2021, the Applicant’s legal representative emailed the Department attaching a form confirming representation, requesting a copy of the citizenship application and an update.

18. On 17 September 2021, the Department sent him an invitation to comment on adverse information before it which indicated that it was not satisfied of his identity and that he might not be of good character.

19. The Applicant sought and was granted an extension of time. He advised that he wished to instruct a new solicitor. His new solicitor responded to the Department on 9 November 2021.

20. There was a considerable number of documents in evidence, including statements, letters of support, and statutory declarations in support of the Applicant from his employers and members of the Sydney Afghan community. Four members of that community also gave oral evidence. A resident of Afghanistan who had provided written support for the Applicant could not be contacted to give oral evidence.

21. The parties provided written submissions after the hearing.

22. The Applicant’s representative submitted that the Applicant had been credible and truthful and had acknowledged inconsistencies in his history. The Applicant’s evidence was that he did not intentionally mislead the Department. He was misguided because he feared returning to his country. When he first arrived in Australia he wanted to work to survive and acted upon advice he received in order to get a tax file number and maintained his Pakistan passport. It has been shown that he had renewed the passport a number of times and it was genuine. His father had obtained a registration document for the Applicant in the identity of X from the Pakistani authorities. That National Identity Card was in evidence. It was issued on 3 September 1985.

    The Applicant’s identity

    His life story

23. Following is a summary of the Applicant’s claimed life story as it appeared at the end of the hearing.

24. He was born in Nengarhar Province, Afghanistan, in November 1968. His family fled Afghanistan when he was 13 years old because of the Taliban takeover of that country and his father’s involvement in politics. The family settled near Peshawar in Pakistan. His father paid the authorities to obtain Pakistani documentation in other names to conceal his family’s identity because he was a communist and the area where they lived was occupied by Mujahidin, Islamic extremist militants. The document identified the Applicant as X. Later, the Applicant obtained a Pakistani passport. He first travelled to Malaysia in 1986 when he was 17 years old with a group of Afghans to “test” the passport. He obtained a tourist visa.  He worked sometimes and remained there for about 10 months before returning to Pakistan because his father was arranging a resident visa in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The Applicant used the money he earned in Malaysia to pay for the resident visa. He travelled to the UAE to work, using a Pakistani passport. He renewed his Pakistan passport a number of times. He worked in the UAE there from 1988 until 2000 when he came to Australia, returning to Pakistan to visit his family from time to time. He visited them in 2000 for four weeks before he departed for Australia and again in 2012.   

25. In 2001, after September 11 and the fall of the Taliban, his family returned to Afghanistan where his father was killed towards the end of December in a road-side mine blast. Before he was killed, his father had applied for the Applicant’s tazkera.

26. His family returned to Pakistan in early 2002 following his father’s death.

27. He had married in 1987 and has four children who are citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan:

    ·A son born in 1989 who now resides in the United Kingdom (UK). 

    ·A daughter born in 1992 who resides in Pakistan. 

    ·A son born in 1994 or 1996 who resides in the UK.  

    ·A son born in 2001 who resides in Pakistan.

    His documentation

28. I infer that the first document the Applicant provided with his citizenship application to support his claimed identity was a document he described as a ‘birth certificate’ in his citizenship application. It was a letter dated 12 August 2013 from the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in Canberra (the Embassy) stating that he had been born in a place in Nangarhar Province on the date in November 1968 which he maintains is his date of birth.

29. Later, he provided a copy of a tazkera that, on its face, was issued by the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan on 31 May 2005. The Respondent challenged its authenticity.

30. He provided a driver’s licence from the UAE that was issued on 2 September 1998 and a second Pakistani passport in the name of X.

31. The Department undertook a ‘Stream 2 – Integrity Check’ of the Applicant’s CNIC (computerised national identity card) number found in his Pakistani passport. The check was completed on 16 September 2021. According to the National Database and Registration Authority of Pakistan (NADRA) the CNIC number belongs to X.

32. During the hearing, the Applicant said that his father obtained the CNIC and the passport while he was studying. At that time Afghanis were going overseas for a better life.

33. Numerous documents evidencing his claimed identity have been issued in Australia after he was granted a protection visa in 2010.

34. The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – Canberra provided letters dated 19 June 2013 certifying that each of the children was the son or daughter of the Applicant and was an Afghan citizen and provided the date of birth as set out by the Applicant in the Form 80. The letters stated the place of birth. The youngest was stated to have been born in Nengarhar, Afghanistan on 9 July 2001, and the older three were stated to have been born in a location in Pakistan.

35. The Applicant provided tazkeras for the children. The Department submitted the tazkeras to the Afghanistan Central Civil Registration Authority (ACCRA). Each document ACCRA provided was in English and another language. The dates were according to the Afghan calendar. Each had a cross placed in the box ‘Rejected’ and stated that ‘the information of The Tazkira is not Corresponding to the PRD Records’.    

36. The Applicant explained during the hearing that he wanted some documents from the authorities for his children. A family friend approached the Afghan consulate in Peshawar to obtain them. The Applicant and his family were told they were genuine and paid some money, for which he used a term in another language and interpreted as ‘to make them happy’. He was stunned when he learned of the results of the Department’s inquiry but accepts that they are not genuine.

37. The Applicant said that his two older sons had Pakistani documents because they were born there. They married family members and were sponsored to the UK in the last few years. His wife, youngest son and daughter have not come to Australia because they need to do a health check. 

    Biometrics

38. The documentation associated with the X identity includes photographs of the Applicant, for example his Pakistani passports and UAE licence. 

39. The only document that appears to have been provided by Afghan authorities which includes biometric information is the tazkera which includes a thumb print. I give no weight to the photograph on the Visa Evidence Card issued in Australia in his claimed identity.

    Consideration

    Identity  

40. The Applicant explained that he used his X identity for all applications to the Department until he lodged his second protection visa application because of his inability to obtain legal assistance to clarify which identity to use and he acted on the advice of others because of his lack of knowledge and experience and the urgency of the situation.

41. Using the identity X for his arrival into Australia and first protection visa application is understandable. He had a genuine Pakistani passport that was issued in Dubai by the Consulate General of Pakistan. His registered identity in Pakistan is X. He had used a Pakistan passport to travel to Malaysia and to travel to and work in the UAE over a period of about 12 years. When that identity did not achieve the outcome he sought, and after being an unlawful non-citizen, he decided to use an Afghan identity which I infer by that time he was aware was likely to achieve the result he was seeking.

42. While the Applicant claims never to have been a citizen of Pakistan, the fact that he is registered in the X identity in Pakistan and has held Pakistani passports leads me to conclude that Pakistan regards X as a citizen.    

43. He said that he had been embraced by the Afghani community in New South Wales from the very beginning. There is an Afghani association. There were people from his area, from his tribe. They were aware because of his dialect. He said that he went to work on farms and when he returned to Sydney he got involved in activities in the Afghani community.  When asked why he had not made a claim as an Afghani if he was mixing in that community, he said that they told him that he had to stay with his claims and follow the process because Australia has laws and he cannot change. 

44. When asked why he applied in 2009 after being unlawful, he said that a community member saw some information in a paper to the effect that he can still apply with his genuine name if he can produce some evidence. He said that he only had his tazkera. He had worked on farms in New South Wales and Victoria while he was unlawful.

45. The certified translation of the Applicant’s tazkera is dated 13 August 2009, I infer that it was provided when he applied for his second protection visa in October 2009, which is consistent with his evidence that his then representative had it. The Respondent questioned the veracity of that tazkera for a few reasons: how could he obtain the document when he was in Australia, and why was the box containing the fingerprint labelled ‘Signature/Fingerprint of Husband’ (as translated by an Afghan staff member “at Post” on 3 April 2013)? I did not allow the Applicant to translate the original document because I considered that would be self-serving. A certified translation of some sections of the tazkera was provided but it did not include the part in dispute.

46. The Applicant maintained that his father had applied for the tazkera when he returned to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001, before his younger son was born, in October 2001 or before that. His father was concerned he might need Afghani documents in Australia. The Applicant acknowledged that there were some obstacles if he was not present but his father would arrange for someone to pay for the paperwork and send it to him so he could sign it or put his thumb impression, verify the other documents, and send it back to Afghanistan. His father filed the application and was then killed in a roadside accident in mid-December 2001.

47. The Applicant’s explanation of what happened next was confusing. He said that the forms were sent to him in Australia and he was told to put his thumb impression and signature. It was not clear whether the Applicant claimed to have sent the forms back to his father before he died or whether he sent the forms to Pakistan by a courier system at the end of 2004. In any event, nothing happened. In 2004 he asked his family to see about the tazkera. They were in Pakistan but it was not too hard to find someone in Afghanistan to pay to go and find out about it, to say that he was not there, and ask that it be sent to his family. They did not want to mention that he was in Australia. His family then sent it to him.  

48. The Applicant conceded that it may be a false document and that he had told the Department the same thing in 2013. 

49. His family’s return to Afghanistan from Pakistan in 2001 after September 11, 2001 and the fall of the Taliban, and his father’s death in December of that year, have been central to the Applicant’s life story and how he obtained the tazkera. I do not find it credible for the following reasons. Until the hearing, the Applicant’s evidence, including in a number of documents, was that his youngest son was born in Afghanistan in July 2001. At the hearing, he said that the child was born in Afghanistan in September and October of that year when his family went back.

50. His son being born in Afghanistan in July 2001 before the fall of the Taliban is inconsistent with his claim that his father and family returned to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. His evidence that the child was born in September and October does not assist his case.  The Applicant last saw his wife before he left Pakistan at the end of November 2000. A July 2001 birth date is consistent with that fact.  

51. The Applicant said in response to my questioning, that his family could have gone back before the Taliban left, which contradicts the link to the fall of the Taliban and the family’s return to Afghanistan, and the reason for his father’s departure in 1981 or 1982.

52. In his completed Form 80 that accompanied his citizenship application, the Applicant claimed that each of his children was a citizen of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The letters from ACCRA state that the information in the children’s tazkeras does not correspond with its records which is persuasive evidence that the children are not recognised as citizens of Afghanistan, including the youngest whom the Applicant claimed was born in Afghanistan.

53. I give no weight to the letters from the Embassy of Afghanistan in Canberra in respect of the children or the Applicant because the letter in respect of the children is inconsistent with the information from ACCRA. It seems that they were issued after an interview with the Applicant.

54. Further, the Applicant’s wife and three of his children provided Pakistani passports during the course of the Partner visa application. They were verified by NADRA on 8 and 15 November 2018 as being Pakistani citizens and the wife and children of the Applicant.

55. NADRA confirmed that a second daughter was listed as a Pakistani citizen in the Applicant’s family registration records. The Applicant denied she was his daughter.  

56. There are many documents that have been issued by Australian authorities since the Applicant was granted his protection visa that show the Applicant’s claimed identity. I give these no weight. None of them is a ‘feeder document’ as defined in the CPIs. They do not link to a primary official identity document but arise from the fact that he was granted a protection visa based on his claimed identity.

1. Four witnesses gave oral evidence, in addition to written evidence. One of them, whom I will refer to as the language expert, declared in the citizenship application that he had known the Applicant for 15 years, which would be from the time of the Applicant’s arrival in 2000.  He confirmed in his statutory declaration that the Applicant uses ‘certain distinctive vocabularies in the Pashto language which is purely spoken by the Afghans in Afghanistan’, but not in the tribal area of Pakistan. The Applicant also uses phrases of Dari which is spoken in Afghanistan. He confirmed that the Applicant was a native of Afghanistan born in a location in Nangarhar province on the date the Applicant claims.  

2. The witness did not claim to know the Applicant before he arrived in Australia. He was aware of the Applicant’s work as an interpreter since 2010. During cross-examination he conceded that the details of the Applicant’s date and location of birth were what the Applicant had told him.

3. Accepting for the purpose of the decision the witness’s analysis of the Applicant’s use of language, that analysis does not enable him to ‘confirm’ that the Applicant was born in a specific location in Afghanistan on a particular day or that he is whom he claimed to be. At highest, the evidence supports the claim that the Applicant was born in Afghanistan.

4. A person I will refer to as H, could not be contacted by the Tribunal when he was to give evidence. The Respondent did not press requiring him for cross-examination. H had provided a statutory declaration dated 1 October 2021. He was born in 1952, in a location about 80 kilometres from where he knew the Applicant’s father resided and the Applicant was born. He knew the Applicant’s father very well. The Applicant’s father was an active member of a political party in Afghanistan (of which H is a member) and was forced to go to Pakistan in 1981 by the political situation and civil war. He confirmed that the Applicant was born in 1968 in the location in Nangarhar province. He provided supporting documents as to his identity and political affiliation.

5. How H knows the place and date of the Applicant’s birth is not apparent.

6. A businessman gave oral and written evidence that his father and the Applicant’s father had studied together at Nangarhar high school, were close friends, and that both families remained close and in contact over the years. He set out information about the Applicant’s father, including his political affiliation, studies overseas and that he left Afghanistan in June 1981 because of the civil war. This gentleman arrived in Australia in 1992 and lost contact with the Applicant’s father ‘until I met his son’ in 2000 in Sydney at an Afghan community gathering. He travelled to Afghanistan in December 2019 and took medication to the older sister of the Applicant’s father whom he met in a location in Nangahar province (the Applicant’s aunt). He confirmed that he has known the Applicant as an Afghan national born in a location in Nangahar province. He did not claim to have known the Applicant while he was in Afghanistan or Pakistan.  

7. The source of the businessman’s knowledge of the Applicant’s nationality and place of birth is not apparent. There was no evidence from the Applicant’s aunt who would be expected to know details of her brother’s life and to know the Applicant or to know of him. There was no evidence of any communication between them.

8. A former Afghan politician provided written and oral evidence. The witness had spoken to the Applicant at length and had contacted a person in Afghanistan and requested that person to contact the Office of Civil Registration in the district where the Applicant claims to come from and to provide information about his father. The witness was told over the telephone that the Applicant’s father left Afghanistan in mid-1982 with his family due to the civil war and was killed in a traffic accident. She confirmed the Applicant’s place of birth, based on his description of his family tree and tribal affiliation and his use of language.

9. The witness had experience investigating the problems and issues of migrants from Nangarhar Province who had been refugees in Pakistan and other parts of the world during the last four decades. Those problems include issues relating to passports and tazkeras (birth certificates).  

10. An Australian legal practitioner who is a member of the Afghan community in Sydney, provided written and oral evidence. He knew the Applicant as a member of the Afghan community in Australia for over two decades. He judged that the Applicant was an Afghan based on his use of language and understanding of Afghan culture. He had heard over the years on many occasions from members of a political party that the Applicant’s father was a senior member of a particular faction of that party. He confirmed that the Applicant was born in a particular location in Nangarhar province.

11. The basis on which the witness confirmed the Applicant’s place of birth was not clear. 

12. There were other letters supporting the Applicant, including from a counsellor to the Afghan community dated 3 December 2013. From the content of the documents, I infer that the individuals have known the Applicant only since he has been in Australia. The source of the information provided seems to be from the Applicant or unidentified sources who were consulted.  

13. There may have been a person with the identity and political affiliation claimed by the Applicant and various witnesses to be his father. However, the connection between that person and the Applicant seems to be the Applicant’s claim and not reliable evidence. While some witnesses referred to his father being killed, there was no evidence corroborating that it occurred in Afghanistan or that the family returned to Afghanistan. The evidence of the counsellor suggested that the death occurred in a refugee camp in Pakistan.

14. In addition to the inconsistencies discussed above, the Applicant has provided to the government numerous inconsistent dates and places of birth of various relatives and the number of siblings and daughters he has. He claimed at the hearing to be an only child.

15. I am not satisfied of the Applicant’s claimed identity because his evidence is replete with inconsistencies and there is no credible Afghan identity document or biometric with respect to himself or his children. I have taken into account the country information in the documentation, particularly about obtaining tazkeras and the information contained in them.  In addition to fraud, various levels of government and leadership can issue them and the reliability of information provided is variable. The difficulties, which were also referred to by the former politician, include determining their validity and the utility and accuracy of the information they include.

    Of good character

16. I must affirmatively believe that the Applicant is a person of good character.[2]

    [2] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 574, [54]-[55].

17. The Applicant claimed that he made the first protection visa application in the following circumstances. After spending a month in Australia on his tourist visa, he wanted to stay and obtain a tax file number so he could work. He was short of time and was worried about being detained or deported. He approached and paid $200 to an unidentified member of the Pakistani community in Sydney who had been recommended to him, to prepare the application which was based on his X identity documents. It was ‘pre-filled’. He just signed it. He ticked the box indicating that he did not receive help with the form.

18. His protection claims include information not included in his Pakistani documents at that time. The form mentioned that he had two brothers, one of whom was deceased. The answers indicated that he speaks, reads, and writes Pashto and Urdu.  He said that he did not understand English at that time. He conceded during cross-examination that the Pakistani had asked him questions. Contrary to his claim, he did provide information for that application.

19. The Applicant said that he did not tell that person about his spouse. He was thinking about a future application using his real name. His answers to questions about this were difficult to understand. He seemed to suggest that he did not disclose his family members because they did not have Pakistani documents. However, there is evidence that indeed, his wife and four children are Pakistani citizens. He has claimed that his children are citizens of both Afghanistan and Pakistan and said his older sons had Pakistani documents because they were born there. It seems he did have a ‘back up’ plan if his application as a Pakistani did not succeed.  

20. When the Applicant was asked about the declarations above his signature about giving false and misleading information, he said that he came from a country where the law was disregarded and knew nothing about Australian law. His evidence about whether that information had been translated to him was unclear. His evidence was sufficiently clear to conclude that he did what was required to remain in Australia.

21. In any event, over a period of about five years, the Applicant maintained his claims set out in that application to be a Pakistani citizen who was born in Peshawar province and targeted for campaigning against drug trafficking after his brother had been killed by drug traffickers and feared returning to Pakistan. He said that in fact he is an only child. He maintained those claims before the Department and then in a hearing before the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT), where he said a solicitor prepared the application for review but did not appear for him, and in proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  

22. He told the Tribunal that he thought he would follow the process. He could not change the details.  He seemed to say that no-one asked him whether his claims were true. They were claims that the person who prepared the application had made. He was evasive about knowing the claims so he could answer questions during the RRT hearing. He said that solicitors prepared the documents for the Federal Magistrates Court but did not represent him. He ‘tried his luck, to stay in Australia’.

23. It is clear that the claims were false.

24. After his application failed, he lived and worked in Australia as an unlawful non-resident for about 1600 days from 2005 when his bridging visa ended until he lodged his second protection visa application in 2009. He said that he wanted to stay in Australia and not have to return to Afghanistan or enter detention. As he conceded in cross-examination, at that stage he would have been removed to Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

25. The Applicant did not disclose his first application in his second protection visa application or to his then representative, as discussed above. He also told that person untruths about how and when he arrived in Australia and where he had lived.

26. In his second application, the Applicant claimed that he lived in Afghanistan from January 2000 until January 2002 and then in a refugee camp near Peshawar, Pakistan, until he departed on 1 January 2005. He had left his passport ‘on the ship’.  He maintained his claims during the interview with the delegate.

27. Those claims contradict his claimed life story and the fact that he arrived in Australia in November 2000 using a Pakistani passport.  However, he achieved his objective, securing permanent residence in Australia.

28. In his citizenship application lodged on 14 April 2015, the Applicant disclosed his former name, his X identity, and gave the reason for his name change as ‘travel docs name’. He did disclose the date of grant of his visa in 2000 and that he arrived in Australia on 28 November 2000. He claimed that he was a citizen of Afghanistan and Pakistan was a previous country of residence. 

29. He indicated that his father had not been known by any other name, left the date of birth section blank, stated his place of birth was Nengarhar, Afghanistan, and provided the Afghan version of his father’s name.

30. In the Form 80 dated 19 April 2017, the Applicant answered a question to the effect that he had never overstayed a visa in Australia, which was false. He spent 1600 days unlawfully in Australia after his bridging visa lapsed.

31. In his statutory declaration dated 5 November 2021, the Applicant explained that the X identity was created ‘to suppress the details of our family’, a different explanation from that given in his citizenship application.

32. As discussed above, the Applicant has provided documents to the Department about which there are serious integrity concerns:  his and his children’s tazkeras.

33. The Applicant has intentionally made false claims and provided false or misleading personal information in his visa and citizenship applications and spent several years living and working in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen after his first protection visa application was unsuccessful.

34. I do not accept his explanations that he never set out intentionally to deceive Australian authorities and that other people provided the information or that there were other reasons which were not attributable to him.  

35. The Applicant has worked as an interpreter since 2010 for the Department of Human Services and a private interpreting firm. He said that he interprets Pashto and Urdu. He has obtained a number of qualifications since he was granted his protection visa that relate to the security industry.

36. I take into account the obvious high regard in which the Applicant is held by the various witnesses and others who provided letters of support, including from employers. He has no criminal record, and has apparently supported his family since about 1988 by working overseas, including in Australia, while his family has remained in Pakistan, which I infer has caused him and his family hardship, and is admirable.

37. However, the test of ‘good character’ in the Act requires the following.

38. In Boy19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574, O’Bryan J wrote at [88]:

    … respect for the Australian Government and the laws of Australia, and respect for the institutions of government including governmental departments, is consistent with being of good character in the statutory sense. Such respect can be characterised as a moral quality that is relevant to citizenship. Conversely, disrespect for the Australian Government, the laws of Australia and governmental departments reflects adversely on a person’s character in the statutory sense.

39. The observations of SM Puplick in Nguyen v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2018] AATA 1082 are pertinent:

    82.Citizenship of Australia is regarded as a special privilege when extended to those not automatically qualified. Earning it requires adherence not only to statutory requirements but also to the set of moral values and qualities related to honesty in dealings with the Government. These values and qualities are themselves a hallmark of good citizenship.

    83.Citizenship cannot be awarded on the basis of false statements. There are no excuses for making false statements in this regard.

40. The Applicant has not taken responsibility for providing false information and documentation to the government over many years and I find that he has not been candid in giving evidence to the Tribunal. For example, his inconsistent evidence about his family returning to Afghanistan in 2001 and the circumstances of that return cause me to doubt that they did return at all or that his youngest son was born in Afghanistan. I infer that he made that claim to support the fact that he had obtained a tazkera and perhaps to reinforce his claim to fear harm, his father having been killed apparently because of his political affiliation. He has not been honest with or respectful to the government or the Tribunal. He has been intent on achieving a particular outcome.

41. While ignorance or disregard of Australian institutions and laws may be overlooked or be understandable during the first few years a person is in Australia, consistent, enduring behaviour such as that of the Applicant cannot be.

    Conclusion

42. For the above reasons I am not satisfied:

    (a)of the Applicant’s identity pursuant to section 24(3) of the Act; or

    (b)that the Applicant is of good character as specified in section 21(2)(h) of the Act.

    Decision

43. The reviewable decision is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 99 (ninety-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

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

Associate

Dated: 14 February 2023

Dates of hearing:	23-24 August 2022
Date final submissions received:	12 September 2022
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr R Selliah, Rasan T. Selliah & Associates
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr A Taverniti, Sparke Helmore