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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by Mr Vanaki, with the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs as the respondent. The dispute centred on whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) could be satisfied that the applicant was of good character, as required by the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The decision was made by Senior Member A Poljak of the AAT.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant had demonstrated he was of good character, notwithstanding his past offending as a minor. This involved considering the weight to be given to his juvenile offences, the mitigating circumstances surrounding that offending, and whether he had subsequently demonstrated sufficient maturity and respect for the law. The Tribunal also had to consider the application of Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 in assessing the applicant's character.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had committed criminal offences as a minor, these were given less weight due to his age at the time. The Tribunal accepted that various factors, including domestic violence, loss of a father figure, refugee experience, adjustment to Australia, poor school engagement, and substance use, may have contributed to his adolescent offending. However, it noted these did not entirely alleviate the seriousness of the repeated offending. The Tribunal was persuaded by the applicant's expressed remorse, his claims of a transformed life, his engagement with employment and education services (MTC), his prosocial support network, and his current role in caring for his ill mother. Crucially, the Tribunal relied on the evidence of Dr Yoxall, a psychologist, who stated that juvenile offending is not a predictor of adult offending due to ongoing development and cognitive function. Dr Yoxall noted the applicant displayed insight and maturity, and that three years since his offending conduct was a substantial period for a young person.

The Tribunal concluded that the evidence demonstrated the applicant had made significant strides in recognising his past mistakes and taking responsibility. It was convinced that sufficient time had passed since his offending conduct to be positively satisfied that the applicant was of good character, thereby satisfying subsection 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007*. Consequently, the decision under review was set aside and remitted with a direction that the applicant was of good character.