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

[2021] AATA 2443

VDND and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2443 (22 July 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2020/4382

Re:VDND

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member P J Clauson AM

Date:22 July 2021

Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.

........................[SGD].......................

Senior Member P J Clauson AM

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – Australian Citizenship by Conferral – Where Applicant has been rejected for previous visas – Where Applicant has a protection visa – Good character – Unauthorised Arrival – Sponsored Family Visa – false or misleading information – decision affirmed

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Cases

Irving and The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1966) 68 FCR 422

Secondary Materials

Citizenship Procedural Instruction (Cth)

Citizenship Policy Statement

(Cth)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member P J Clauson AM

22 July 2021

1. On 29 November 2017, VDND (the “Applicant”) submitted an Application for Australian Citizenship by Conferral under section 21 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (“the Act”)

2. The Applicant was born in Pakistan on 16 February 1987 and was 34 years of age at the date of hearing. Upon arrival in Australia on 9 June 2013 as an unauthorised arrival, he sought and was granted a Protection (Class XA) Permanent (Subclass 866) Visa on 1 November 2011.[1]

   [1] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15, 429-430.

3. The Applicant provided a ‘Personal Particulars for Assessment including Character Assessment’ form (Form 80) on 28 February 2020 to support his citizenship claim, in which he claimed that he had never been refused a visa to any country.[2]

   [2] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T8, 196-214.

4. On 26 June 2020, a delegate of the Minister (the “Delegate”) refused the Applicant’s Application for Australian Citizenship on the basis that the Delegate could not be satisfied pursuant to sub-section 21(2)(h) of the Act of the Applicant’s good character. The relevant sub-section provides (inter alia):

   “(2) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:

   …

   (h) is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application”.[3]  

   [3] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, 28-40.

   ISSUES FOR THE TRIBUNAL

5. The sole issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied of the Applicant’s good character for the purposes of sub-section 21(2)(h) of the Act.  It should be noted that there are other steps which are still required of the Applicant before he can obtain citizenship, even if the Tribunal were to find that he is of good character.  For this reason, if the Tribunal were to find in the Applicant’s favour, it would be appropriate to remit the matter back to the Respondent with a direction that the Applicant is of good character.

   BACKGROUND

6. The Applicant was sent correspondence on 13 May 2020 by the Department inviting him to make comment on adverse information which it had received.  The correspondence noted that the Applicant appeared to have provided false or misleading information to the Department on a number of occasions and that this apparently had been done for the purpose of facilitating an immigration outcome to his advantage.[4] 

   [4] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T9, 222 – 229.

7. The Applicant responded to the Department’s invitation to make comment by providing submissions, police check information, statements from the Applicant’s employer, friends, sister and brother-in-law together with copies of his sister’s and brother-in-law’s passports.[5] The Delegate subsequently refused the Applicant’s application for Australian Citizenship by way of its refusal decision dated 26 June 2020.

   [5] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 20-254.

   THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS 

8. The Applicant’s representative on the 25 September 2020 filed with the Tribunal the Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) in which he contended that:

   a.He was not responsible for the wrong information being provided in his visa applications or the Form 80 which he submitted in support of his citizenship application

   b.He acknowledged that ‘controversial’ information had been included in in his visa applications but that he was not capable of dealing with the applications on his own  and the agent who he had engaged to complete his visa applications changed his information, ignored he had family in Australia and failed to share information with him

   c.He characterises as ‘immoral and unacceptable’ the changes to his employment history information, the ignoring the fact of his family being in Australia in his tourist visa application, and his arriving in Australia without a passport or a visa. All of these matters were beyond his control due to his ignorance and lack of knowledge in dealing with immigration matters

9. The Respondent contends, in summary, that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of the Applicant’s good character for the purposes of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act because of the manner in which he treated with the Australian Government by his deliberately providing false information to the Department. In particular, the Respondent relied upon a number of occasions since 2011 when the Applicant had sought to obtain a visa to enter Australia and had, on each occasion, supplied the Department with untrue information. The particular events and circumstances upon which the Minister relies are summarised as follows.

   The 30 November 2011 Visa Application

10.  On 30 November 2011, the Applicant applied for a visa to visit Australia as a sponsored family member.[6] He stated in that application that his family consisted of:

a.His father (born 1947);

b.His mother (born 1950);

c.His brother (born 1974);

d.His sister (born 1977); and

e.His sister (born 1981).[7]

[6] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, 383-422.

[7] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, 368.

11.  The application was sponsored by his brother and the Applicant stated that he had not received any assistance in the preparation of that application.[8] He stated on that the purpose of his proposed visit to Australia was to “visit my brother and his family, also planned to visit theme parks, interesting places in Brisbane and Gold Coast”.[9] As part of support for his application the Applicant provided a letter from the Ishfaq Sanatary Store which stated that the Applicant  was a plumber and had worked for them since 2011.[10]

[8] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, 387, 392.

[9] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14. 388.

[10] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, 421.

12.  His brother provided a sponsor’s application in support of the Applicant dated 1 December 2011, and stated that:

a.He was an Australian citizen;[11]

[11] Exhibit 1, T Document, T14, 397.

b.He had never been married or lived in a de facto relationship;[12] and

[12] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, 394.

c.He had not received any assistance in completing the sponsorship form.[13].

[13] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, 398.

1. That application as a sponsored family visitor was refused. The decision reflected a view that the Applicant did not intend a genuine sponsored family visit to Australia and that there was a likelihood of him overstaying his visa and then seeking to remain in Australia or applying for another temporary or permanent visa after his arrival in Australia.[14]

   [14] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, 376-382.

2. The Applicant next applied for a tourist (offshore) (subclass 676) visa on 22 March 2013.[15] In his application the Applicant stated that he was employed by a company called Benzee International and had been for a period of 4 years and 3 months.[16] The Applicant included with this application a letter purporting to be from Benzee International.[17] It later became apparent that invalid registration numbers were listed together with a telephone number that did not in fact, belong to the company, but instead to a residential address, the occupant of which did not know of the Applicant.[18]

   [15] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 348-358.

   [16] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 353.

   [17] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 371.

   [18] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 373.

3. In that application, the Applicant stated that he did not have friends or contacts in Australia, nor did he declare that he had any relatives in Australia.[19] In addition to this information he also stated that he had not had an Application for entry or further stay in Australia refused, and that he had not received any assistance in completing the form.[20] He also included a copy of his Pakistani passport.[21]

   [19] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 350.

   [20] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 354.

   [21] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 370.

4. The Applicant’s application for a tourist visa was refused on the basis that the Applicant’s intention to only visit Australia was not accepted as genuine.[22]

   [22] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 343-347.

5. On 9 June 2013, the Applicant arrived in Australia as an unauthorised arrival by plane.  He sought consideration by engaging Australia’s protection obligations. The Department’s pre-screening records state that the Applicant appeared to have travelled to Australia on a Pakistani passport on an overseas flight. The flight number was before the Tribunal but has been removed to protect the privacy of the Applicant. He held a baggage tag in the name of Haider Qambar (born in 1993). [23]

   [23] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15, 456.

6. The Applicant was interviewed at the airport and during the interview stated that:[24]

   [24] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15, 456-463.

   a.He did not know what flight he was on from Pakistan;

   b.He worked for the office of ‘MDM Ahmediya’ handing out letters;

   c.He had an older brother living in Brisbane whose date of birth was unknown;

   d.His father and his two older sisters all of whose dates of birth he did not know, still lived in Pakistan;

   e.He wanted to leave Pakistan because ‘the muslims tried to kill me’ as they were ‘khatme mavuwat’ opponents of his particular sect of his Ahmadi religion;

   f.A man whose identity he did not know (and who he did not pay) organized everything for his departure and escorted him onto the aircraft;

   g.He had no passport and the unidentified man gave him nothing;

7. The Applicant then made an application for a protection (subclass 866) visa on the 24 June 2013 in which he stated that:[25]

   a.He had departed from Pakistan illegally and boarded an aircraft with the assistance of an agent;

   b.He had lost his Pakistani passport which had been given to his agent who had organized his travel, but that he had a copy of it which he attached to his application;

   c.He had ceased school after Year 10;

   d.That he had been unemployed for two years after secondary school and had subsequently worked at the Ahmadi Organisation’s office from 2008 to 2013 delivering official letters;

   e.His family consisted of his father (born 1947), his mother (born 1950, deceased), his brother (born 1974), sister (born 1977) and his youngest sister (born 1989);

   f.people had threatened to kill him if he did not stop working for the Ahmadi organisation and if he did not stop attending the mosque;

   g.his friends talked to someone who arranged for him to leave Pakistan and told him he would not need his passport; he was driven to Islamabad Airport where the man his friends had spoken to and who had helped him get organised then helped him through the airport and onto the aircraft;

   h.he had never been denied or refused a visa.

   [25] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15, 464-531.

20.  The Applicant was granted a Protection Visa on the 29 August 2013.[26]

[26] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15, 429-430.

21.  On the 29 November 2017 the Applicant applied for Australian Citizenship by Conferral.[27]

[27] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T5, 137 – 138.

22.  The Applicant on the 28 February 2020 submitted a ‘Personal Particulars for assessment including character assessment’ form (Form 80)[28] to support his application for citizenship in which he stated that he had never been refused a visa to any country.

[28] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T8, 196 – 284.

23.  The Department on the 13 May 2020 wrote to the Applicant inviting him to comment upon adverse information and noted that the Applicant had appeared to have provided false or misleading information to the Department on multiple occasions and that, he appeared to have done so in order to facilitate an immigration outcome for himself.[29]

[29] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T9, 222 – 229.

24.  The Applicant responded to the department on the 12 June 2020[30] and provided submissions, police check certificates, employer statements, and statements from friends, sister and brother-in-law, and copies of his sister’s and brother-in–law’s passports.

[30] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 230 – 254.

25.  The Delegate on the 26 June 2020 made the Reviewable Decision refusing the Applicant’s application for Australian Citizenship by conferral.[31]

[31] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, 28 – 40.

26.  The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the reviewable decision on the 16 July 2020[32] contending that:

a.he had only been educated to year 8 and that because of his poor level of education he was unable to deal with his visa application by himself

b.the tourist visa he had applied for previously was lodged by an agent in Pakistan and the Applicant did not know what information the agent had included in the document to the Australian Government

c.the incorrect information that he provided regarding his sister was provided inadvertently because he did not realise that she had not changed her name as was the general custom in Pakistan upon marriage and as he had expected and that, the year of her birth may have been ‘misprinted’

d.he left Pakistan for Australia without a passport or a visa because he was desperate to come to Australia and leave Pakistan

[32] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T1, 7 – 27.

THE HEARING AND EVIDENCE

27.  A Review Hearing was convened in Brisbane on 19 February 2021 and utilised MS Teams.

28.  The Applicant gave evidence on his own behalf and was represented by his Agent Mr Nurul Huq (shown in the transcript incorrectly spelt as Haak) who had provided additional  written submissions upon which the Applicant relied at the hearing, dated 11 February 2021.[33] The Applicant was afforded the services of an interpreter fluent in his native tongue. His brother and his Brother-in-Law both gave evidence to the Tribunal.

[33] Exhibit 4, Applicant’s Submissions dated 10 February 2021

29.  The respondent was represented by Ms Irwin.

30.  The Applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that he had attended Primary School up to the fifth grade. He stated that he was born in 1987 and he started at primary school in 1993 or 1994. When questioned about the accuracy of this statement he said that he finished at the school in 1997 and moved to a Madrassa in 1998. The Applicant also told the Tribunal under cross-examination that, when questioned by Ms Irwin about the inconsistency of the dates shown in his protection visa application, namely, that he studied at the madrassa from 1999 until 2002, and the dates shown in his citizenship application being 1992 until 1997, he stated that someone else filled out the application form and that the discrepancy could have occurred then. He then however, admitted that he had given them the information but that he didn’t have any papers with him at the time and was guessing the dates.[34]

[34] Transcript of Proceedings, VDND and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, (19 February 2021, Senior Member P J Clauson AM), page 9, line 18 – 22.

31.  When questioned by Ms Irwin regarding the completion of his citizenship application the Applicant stated that he only had with him at that time a copy of his passport and identity document but he did not have any documents related to his schooling history. He stated that he still had no documentation and if he had he would have filled out the forms with the correct dates.

32.  The Applicant’s evidence in relation to the dates of his schooling which he put into his application was effectively that he told the person filling out the form when he was born and he guessed the various other dates from that time. However, he also stated that the person who filled out the form was the person who made up the dates and put them into the form. The Applicant responded to a question from Ms Irwin as to whether the person helping him to complete the form had explained to him that the Government form required him to explain which schools he had attended and when by saying that the person only asked him when he went to school and when he left. However, he then stated that all he told the person filling out the form was when he was born and which school he went to; “So, it was like a story and then he told me that, okay, I will manage it. Based on your story , I will count  - I’ll make a calculation and then I will come up with a date.”.[35]

[35] Ibid, lines 41 – 43.

33.  The Applicant was also questioned about the circumstances attaching to the application submitted by him in 2011 for a family sponsored visitor visa. He told the Tribunal in response to questioning by Ms Irwin that he agreed he had employed a migration agent by the name of Nasir to assist him to complete the form necessary to obtain the sponsored family visitor visa and that this person had been referred to him by others as a person who could fill out the necessary forms.

34.  The Applicant’s evidence was that he, Nasir, didn’t explain any of the questions on the form to him and that they conversed over the telephone, that sometimes Nasir would contact him and tell him; ‘this is not something that needs to be done by you, so we will do it by ourself’. The Applicant was asked what information he gave to Nasir and he responded that; ‘I gave his phone number to my brother, so I gave him his information and my information’. Ms Irwin asked the Applicant for clarification on this point in the following terms; ‘Did you just say that your brother gave him the information about you?’ to which the Applicant replied through his interpreter, ‘Yes, my brother’s information’.[36]

[36] Ibid, page 12, 24 – 32.

35.  The Applicant said that he signed the form in the required places as instructed by Nasir and said that he didn’t get a copy of the form from Nasir and even if he had he would not have understood what was in it as he didn’t understand English and what was written in the form. Ms Irwin asked the Applicant if he asked Nasir what was written in the form to which the Applicant answered; ‘I did not ask him what was written in the form because they told me it’s not my job to know what’s in the form, I just need to sign – where I need to sign.’

36.  Ms Irwin asked the Applicant if he knew that the form was to be sent to the Australian Government and the Applicant replied; ‘He told me that sign this form and send it to your brother.’ He was then asked what did he expect his brother to do with the form and he then replied; ‘I just knew that my brother was helping me with this form. He was helping me to come there and (indistinct) it.’ He was also asked if he knew the purpose of the form was to get him permission to go to Australia and after the question was re-put to him he replied; ‘ So, all I – I was told that all I needed to do is to get the form from that person and send it, so I did that and I sent that form.’ Ms Irwin then asked the Applicant what did he expect would happen to the form once his brother had received it and he replied; ‘I didn’t know what was going to happen, what was the practice. All I knew is that I was (indistinct) the form and send it to him and I got the form and sent it to them and what else was going to happen, I didn’t know what was (indistinct) this sort of thing.’

37.  The Applicant also provided the Tribunal with evidence relating to his application in 2013 for a tourist visa to come to Australia. He agreed that he had made an application for this visa through the same migration agent who had been employed by him for the sponsored family visitor visa and that he told the Applicant; ‘........I will get you a visa, the situation that you are in right now, I will definitely be able to get you out of here, so don’t you worry. I will – I guarantee that I will get you the visa.’[37] Under questioning from Ms Irwin the Applicant the Applicant told the Tribunal that the agent didn’t ask for any family information because he already had all his information having helped him with the previous application. He told the Tribunal that he did not ask the agent about the form and nor did the agent tell him any information that the was including in the form. Also, the Applicant when asked whether he knew that the form had a question asking the Applicant for details of family members, stated that; ‘ No, he didn’t ask me the question that they tell what they are doing or what information is needed for that, they don’t tell you.’[38]

[37] Transcript of Proceedings, VDND and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, (19 February 2021, Senior Member P J Clauson AM), page 14, lines 10 – 12.

[38] Ibid, page 15, lines 13 – 14.

38.  Ms Irwin drew the Applicant’s attention to the Application for the tourist visa in the hearing T documents[39] and the Applicant replied when asked if he knew that the Application form stated that he didn’t have any relatives in Australia, that; ‘No, I didn’t know about any question, questions that were asked in that application, so I didn’t know about these questions. None of the questions.’ The Applicant, when it was put to him by Ms Irwin that he had told the Tribunal  that he had told the agent who his family was and that he had a brother in Australia the agent had chosen to not include any of those details on the form, stated that;  ‘Yes, so he knew actually that I have a brother here because he already helped me with a form (indistinct) as well and he has spoken to my brother as well, so he knew that I have a brother here but I don’t know why he did mention in the form that I do not have any brother here. I don’t know why he did that.’ [40] 

[39] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 348 – 375.

[40] Transcript of Proceedings, VDND and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, (19 February 2021, Senior Member P J Clauson AM), page 15, 39 – 44.

39.  The Applicant’s evidence relating to his preparations and his trip to Australia was that he was given the name of a person who could help people who wished to move to Australia or any other country. He met this person and told him that his life was at risk and asked if he could get him to another country. The Applicant said that the other person stated that; “Okay, you can pay me this much money and then I will take you to Australia.”[41] He told the Tribunal that this person’s name was Jafar Iqbal and that it was this person who chose Australia for him as a destination for him when he got out of Pakistan. The Applicant claimed that he had no other choice as he had to get out of Pakistan ‘...because those people were after me, I had to leave there, so I agreed I had no other option.’[42]  

[41] Transcript of Proceedings, VDND and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, (19 February 2021, Senior Member P J Clauson AM), page 16, lines 13 – 14.

[42] Ibid, lines 40 – 41.

40.  The Applicant when asked why, at his interview on arrival he told the interviewer that he didn’t know he was coming to Australia, said that ‘they’ didn’t tell you where they were taking you , or the city to which they were taking you.

41.  When Ms Irwin pointed out to the Applicant that he had earlier in his testimony before the Tribunal stated that he had chosen to come to Australia when he was given the choice by the agent in Pakistan and that when he arrived had been in possession of that knowledge but however, responded in the negative when asked the question by the Australian official at the interview. The Applicant’s response was somewhat nuanced to that of his earlier response at the hearing on this point as he replied; ‘When they are deciding where they will take you first they will get the names of the country Australia, Canada, they will confirm with you whether you would be happy to go to any of these countries, so they will name the countries to you and then you will say yes. And then when you are ready to go when you are departing at that time you don’t know which country you are going to.’[43] The Applicant said that they asked him for US $30,000.00 and that he paid the money before leaving Pakistan; ‘So, yes, they make sure that the money is under their control upfront because later on whether they will be able to meet you or not, so they make sure that the money is under their control upfront.’[44] This evidence was contradictory to the evidence in the Applicant’s record of interview upon his arrival in Australia where he declared that he had not paid anyone ‘at all’ to arrange his entry to Australia.[45]

[43] Ibid, page 17, lines 15 – 20.

[44] Ibid, lines 30 – 33.

[45] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15, page 462.

42.  When Ms Irwin put it to the Applicant that he had not told the truth at his interview about having paid the man who organised his trip the Applicant answered in the following terms; ‘Well, as I mentioned that, yes, I said that they make sure the money is under their control. What happens that I did not actually give him the money. If this money with a third person so when – I kept  the money with a third person and when I arrived here when I landed here that third person would give the money to him. So when I (indistinct) I hadn’t given him any money but he was going to get it (indistinct).[46]

[46] Transcript of Proceedings, VDND and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, (19 February 2021, Senior Member P J Clauson AM), page 17, lines 38 – 42.

43.  The Applicant was asked about the answer he had given to the interviewing officer regarding whether there had been a financial arrangement in place with his trip organiser wherein he had stated that no arrangement was in place contrary to the evidence given to the Tribunal and outlined above.

1. The response of the Applicant to that proposition that it was untrue was in the following terms:[47]

   ‘My father’s made that but when I arrived at the airport I didn’t know what to do, I was very tense. The person who was accompanying me he just left me here and then I didn’t know what to do, what to say. Where I was in very tense, so I didn’t know what to say in that interview.’

   When asked by Ms Irwin why he didn’t tell the truth the Applicant replied that:[48]

   ‘At that time I had no idea of what is happening. I didn’t know where I had arrived and I didn’t know where the money has been transferred to this person or no. I don’t know whom he has contacted, so I have no idea at that time.’

   [47] Transcript of Proceedings, VDND and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, (19 February 2021, Senior Member P J Clauson AM), page 18, lines 20 – 24.

   [48] Ibid, lines 28 – 31.

45.  Ms Irwin put the following question to the Applicant: ‘But the person who interviewed you explained to you, didn’t they, that you had arrived in Sydney Airport and that you were expected to give true and correct answers to their questions?’ and the Applicant’s reply was in the following terms: ‘When I arrived at the airport the person who was accompanying me he was supposed to take charge and do all the talking and lead me but he left me there and I was by myself and I don’t- I didn’t know what to say and I was feeling a bit ashamed too, so wasn’t really able to say what I was supposed to say.’ Ms Irwin then asked; ‘But you accept that the person who interviewed you explained that you needed to tell them the truth, don’t you?’ The Applicant then responded; ‘Yes, I knew but I was pressured a lot, I was told that, you know, you need to be careful what you are going to say otherwise they will send you back. So I was feeling so much pressure and I didn’t know what to do at that time.’[49]

[49] Ibid, page 18 lines 33 – 48; page 19, lines 1 – 2.

46.  The Applicant’s evidence in relation to the passport which he used to undertake his departure from Pakistan and his entry into Australia was that he didn’t use his own passport but clearly used a passport that he was supplied with by the organiser of the trip. He told the Tribunal that when a passport was required for such purposes the person who was accompanying him would produce a passport give it to him and then retrieve it from him and then retain it after use. The Applicant told the Tribunal that the person Jafar had this passport which was not his own passport. And that; ‘Jafar had all my details, so he told me that they I just have to give me this much money and then it’s not your job, we’ll just make you ready to go.’  The Applicant when asked by Ms Irwin what passport he had used, given that that he said he didn’t use his personal passport, the Applicant replied; ‘He was always staying very close to me, he would – and he was very strict. Soon as I would show the passport to someone after that he would take it back from me right away and I never had – I never get an opportunity to read what type of passport was it or what was in it’ and then continued; ‘I didn’t know what or whose passport was that what details were in it, he would just give it to me when I needed to show it on the counter and soon as I was done with the counter he would take it back from me right away. He was treating me like how they treat children like, you know, he was telling me to not – you don’t have to read the passport because it would not be good for you, you just do what I tell you to do.’[50]

[50] Ibid, 19, lines 10 – 43.

47.  The Applicant’s evidence in relation to the fate of his own passport was that he had lost it but that he had a copy of that document in his email, and that the only passport he used when he came to Australia was that supplied to him by Jafar.

48.  When questioned about a discrepancy about the name he had given as his sister’s name in his airport interview and on his application form for a protection visa the Applicant stated that he thought his sister had changed her name upon marriage. He explained that he later discovered in discussions with her that she had not done so. He also told the Tribunal that he had given his sister’s date of birth as a date in 1989 (which was incorrect), because at the airport he had no documents with him and didn’t know the exact date of his sister’s birth, but that when he found out the correct date he used that.

49.  The Applicant stated in the Tribunal that he thought his sister had formally changed her name to that of her husband but then discovered that she had not and that she still was known by her maiden name. He agreed that his late mother didn’t change her name to that of her husband’s either and stated, in an attempt to explain his thoughts on the matter, that: ‘ Yes, but then they change when they get married they change – Arab people refer to them with their different names, so I thought her name would be changed now but then she did not change her name basically.’[51] Ms Irwin then asked the Applicant that not all women changed their name when they married and the Applicant provided the following reply; ‘ There is this office called the Nada Office , so people would go there and they change their name legally.  And normally people who are more educated they would go there and change their name officially but other people they would (indistinct) with their new names by their associates but not – but they wouldn’t change it officially in that office.’[52]

[51] Ibid, page 21, lines 9 – 12.

[52] Ibid, lines 21 – 25.

50.  The Applicant told the Tribunal that his brother-in-law had helped him to fill out his citizenship application as he had filled the same forms out for his father and other family members. He agreed with Ms Irwin that he had told his brother-in-law his story and that from that information he filled out the form. He also responded that he had not told his brother-in-law about the previous visas he had applied for and that he had just filled out the form for him; ‘No, he actually whatever questions what were there he filled them. I just told him about my school and my job.’[53]

[53] Ibid, lines 45 – 46.

51.  The Applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that he had his brother-in-law help to fill out the form because his own English and that of his brother was poor as a result of his lack of ‘upper education.’  He stated that his brother-in-law filled out the form and he signed it. He said that when asked if he had asked his brother-in-law what information was in the form, that; ‘I just ask him if he can be assured that everything that has been written on this form is all correct, so he said, “Yes, I have checked it again and everything is correct.”[54]

[54] Ibid, page 22, lines 20 – 23.

52.   The Applicant’s representative called the Applicant’s brother as a witness in relation to his role in applying for the Applicant’s sponsored family visitor visa in 2011. His brother conformed to the Tribunal that he did want to sponsor his brother for such a visa and that he used an agent in Lahore, Pakistan to whom he gave his brother’s information and he, the agent, filled out the forms. The Applicant signed the declaration for the Sponsored family visit visa on the 10 November 2011 and his brother signed his declaration for that visa as sponsor on the 30 November 2011. The brother’s evidence was that he knew nothing of the letter from the Ishfaq Sanatry Store (dated the 10 November 2011) in which his brother was confirmed as being employed as a plumber  with that firm since 7 January 2007. He stated that; ‘I did not know about that. The Agent - he added this information, and because I didn’t have much study, education, so I didn’t know what has been written in it. So I just signed it.[55]’  Later, in his response to questions from the Applicant’s representative regarding the Substantive visa application form the witness told the Tribunal that he knew nothing about the question relating to the Applicant’s employment being left empty and that the agent had filled out the question in the negative asking if assistance had been used to fill out the form. His position was that he had simply signed the form. He also told the Tribunal that he did not notice that the form also indicated that his brother had not put down that he had any family members in Australia and that the agent had attended to that; ‘Agent did it all......’[56]

[55] Ibid, page 29, lines 28 – 30.

[56] Ibid, page 30, line 35.

53.  He also confirmed to the Tribunal that he had filed the form with the Department of Immigration and paid the filing fee by way of a money order. He told the Tribunal that he knew the name of the agent Nasir who prepared the first visa application (family sponsored visit visa, presumably), but did not know the name of the agent responsible for preparing the second application for the tourist visa and nor did he speak to him.

54.  The brother’s evidence regarding the history of the application for the family sponsored visa was that he spoke to the agent in Pakistan and gave him his personal details to be included in the application form. That his brother, the Applicant, then spoke to the agent and provided his own details for inclusion in the application and that he did not give any information to the agent about his brother in Pakistan. He told the Tribunal that when the form had been completed he received the form from Pakistan in the mail and that he had received it from his brother, signed the form and submitted it.

55.  When asked by Ms Irwin had he told his brother that he would be submitting the form he replied that he had; “Did you tell your brother that you were going to submit the form to the Australian government?” “Yes.”[57]

[57] Ibid, page 32, lines 44 – 47.

56.  The Applicant also called as a witness his Brother-in-Law (Mr I)  who was the party who confirmed to the Tribunal that he assisted the Applicant to fill out his citizenship application. Mr I confirmed that he had completed high school in Pakistan to year 12 and when he came to Australia he then completed Levels 3 and 4 in written and spoken English.

57.  Under questioning by Mr Huq, Mr I agreed that he had filled out Question 19 regarding the Applicant’s employment on the Application Form 80, Part F, question 54[58] for citizenship correctly, insofar as he stated that the Applicant had worked from June 2007 until June 2013 as an office boy for the Sadar Anjuman which entailed delivering letters and other office related duties. He also told the Tribunal in his evidence that he was responsible for filling out Part T Additional Information, Question 54 of that document[59]wherein he referred to the Applicant, in the first person, as having never worked since birth on 16 of February 1987 until June 2013. This comment also referred back to Question 19 in the side column of this question. He stated that this was a mistake and that because he had filled out his own form that he was: ‘a bit confident I will do correctly’ and that; ‘On the additional page, I’m sorry. I don’t know what happened to me. And I wrote down the wrong thing, which was clearly the mistake because my intentions was (sic) not that. Because I correctly answered on the question number 19. So by mistake, on the question – like on the additional page, I wrote it down that he never worked until 2013. So that was really a big mistake and trouble for him.’[60]

[58] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T8, 197 – 214.

[59] Ibid, 254.

[60] Transcript of Proceedings, VDND and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, (19 February 2021, Senior Member P J Clauson AM), page 37, lines 42 – 47; page 38, lines 1 – 3.

58.  Mr I then told the Tribunal that he was very sorry for the trouble he had caused and that he was unlikely to do this job of assisting people again.

59.  Mr I was cross examined by Ms Irwin in relation to his role in assisting the Applicant to complete his citizenship form. In response to a question from Ms Irwin regarding that event Mr I stated; ‘Yes, I was with him, sitting with him, when I was filling out the form. And I fill out the form and he check the detail. But what happened – and when I fill out the form he checked everything with me. But at the last page, I put the extra comment – which I shouldn’t be (sic) do that, but I like I (sic)put in the comment -  that comment. And because he’s not really good in understanding – so reading – so I don’t know. He didn’t get what I wrote.’[61]

[61] Ibid, page 38, lines 24 – 30.

60.  Mr I was asked by Ms Irwin whether he had asked the Applicant when they were together filling out the form if, during that process, he had ever been refused a visa to Australia and what the answer to that question should have been. Mr I replied; ‘....No, I don’t – I really don’t remember that question.’ Mr I later in cross examination then stated;

‘....Yes, he was sitting with me, and he checked the detail. But where – I already told you – like where – when it’s a written thing or reading thing, he’s not really good. That’s why he asked me to help him, because he already looked too worried to me. And he asked me like, he fill it out the form, and got he help from someone else, and the mistake happen. And because he got a little bit confidence on me that because I filled a few forms for my self and my family. So he thought like I’m the correct person to help him. But I fill it out, and the same mistake happened from me. So I’m really sorry about that.’[62]

[62] Ibid, page 38, lines 45 – 47; page 39, lines 1 – 6.

Consideration

61.  The fundamental contention made on behalf of the Applicant is that the litany of incorrect information provided by him on every visa application he submitted to the Australian authorities and his application for citizenship are all the result of relying upon other third parties to populate the applications on his behalf as he was possessed of a poor educational standard and a low level of understanding written and spoken English. The consequences flowing from this circumstance have thus painted his character in a poor light and this has resulted in his inability to have his application for citizenship approved by the Minister pursuant to subsection 21(2)(h) of the Act.

62.  The contentions raised on his behalf both in his Statement of Facts, Issues and Circumstances and deposed to by him in his evidence to the Tribunal is that he should be considered to be of good character notwithstanding the inaccuracies in his documentation because he has relied upon these other parties both paid and volunteers to his detriment and he, therefore, should not bear fault for the actions of others.[63]

[63] Exhibit 2, Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 25 September 2020.

Good Character and Assessing it

63.  The Act is silent on what constitutes ‘Good Character’ and thus it is necessary to look to the common meaning of the term and the way in which in matters such as this that it is defined by courts, tribunals and stipulated policy.

64.  Guidance as to what constitutes ‘good character’ may be found in the matter of Irving and The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1966) 68 FCR 422 at [431] – [432] Where, in that matter the term ‘Good Character’ was described as meaning:

‘ 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 to 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 whist 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 has 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.’

65.  Further useful instruction for the purposes of the Act and relevant to the Applicant’s particular circumstances in this matter can be found in the Citizenship Policy Statement Chapter 11 where it opines that a person of good character would:[64]

‘be truthful and not practice deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments and organisations, for example: providing false information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications’;

And

Not have evaded immigration control or assisted others to do so, or been involved in the illegal movement of people.’

[64] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T3, 97.

66.  The Citizenship Procedural Instruction (CPI 15) also provides guidance as to how character is to be assessed for the purposes of the Act, as follows:

‘knowing provision of incorrect information may reflect on a person’s character, but if the       applicant presents the incorrect information unknowingly, there would be no ground for character concern; and

If an applicant accepts responsibility and shows remorse for their conduct, this can be a mitigating factor.’[65]

[65] Ibid, 129.

67.  Chapter 11 of the Citizenship Policy Statement also provides guidance as to how referee reports should be assessed where they are provided in support of an Applicant’s character status particularly where the Applicant may have committed offences or other types of serious breaches of statutory requirements. They stipulate that where such circumstances exist the referee should acknowledge such tainted behaviours and explain why, in their opinion the Applicant should nonetheless be considered to be of good character. The referee should also be cognizant of the inherent bias in any reference submitted by an Applicant in support of their citizenship application. References which are identical or couched in very similar terms should be given little weight.

68.  In considering whether the Applicant is of good character, the Tribunal has viewed the evidence provided both in documentary and oral form by the Applicant in support of his contention that he is indeed of good character, through the lens of the foregoing guidelines.

69.   The Applicant’s evidence relating to his educational history as supplied to the Australian authorities in both his application for a protection visa and later for citizenship contain a number of significant inaccuracies as to the dates of his educational milestones. These are outlined above in paragraphs 28 to 30 inclusive. The Applicant explained these as having been caused in the case of his protection visa by his not having the necessary documents with him at the time and simply guessing the dates and, in the case of his citizenship application he had someone else fill out the form for him and on that occasion had only a copy of his own passport and an identity document and no other documents. His assertion was that he told the person helping him fill out the citizenship application only his date of birth and his estimated schooling history and the other party filled out the form from that information estimating dates to put in the document. He confirmed to the Tribunal that the other party didn’t ask him questions regarding any information to be entered into the form when he was completing it.

70.  The Applicant asserts that the other party effectively made up the material to put into the citizenship application and that he was prepared to rely upon that form not knowing the veracity of the information provided in it. The Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that even with the Applicant’s alleged educational deficiency that he and the other party did not at least go through the form in a conversational manner in Urdu their mutual first language, so as to ensure that the form would be completed with as much accuracy as could be achieved. In any event the Tribunal considers that not to have at least made a meaningful attempt to do so indicates a reckless if not contemptuous approach to the legal requirements of the immigration legislation of Australia and such a casual attitude to compulsory compliance stipulations reflects a serious character deficiency in the Applicant.

71.   Further evidence of a less than serious attitude on behalf of the Applicant to the need for truth and accuracy in filling out important forms relating to his citizenship is provided by Mr I the Applicant’s Brother-in-Law who claimed to have assisted the Applicant to complete his citizenship form. Mr I’s evidence was that although he was sitting with the Applicant when the form was being completed and that the Applicant checked the details in the form he, Mr I, didn’t remember the question on the form, which had been answered in the negative,  relating to whether the Applicant had ever previously been refused a visa into Australia but admitted to placing the additional but incorrect and conflicting information into the form regarding the Applicant’s employment. It is the view of the Tribunal in light of Mr I’s evidence, that no detailed checks and accuracy proofing of the citizenship application form were conducted by either the Applicant or Mr I prior to it being signed and submitted to the Department. Given that Mr I is reasonably proficient in written and spoken English having completed a Level 4 course in the subject, and is a bus driver who would presumably hold a Queensland driver’s licence to that standard of vehicle, having passed the requisite written and oral tests therefore, it would be the reasonable expectation that he would have been capable of providing a competent and accurate read over and checking of the details of the form with the Applicant. The Tribunal has difficulty in accepting that in relation to the citizenship form the Applicant would have had no input into the answers even though he asserts that his Brother-in-Law filled it out on his behalf. The Tribunal finds that the contention of the Applicant in this regard is lacking in credibility.

72.  Although the Applicant in his citizenship application denied having been refused a visa to enter Australia on any previous occasion he had in fact attempted to obtain visas for that purpose on two occasions and both had been refused. The Applicant, on the 30 November 2011 had applied for a sponsored family visit visa[66] and had included with that application a letter of support from “Ishfaq Sanatary Store” which claimed that the Applicant was an employee of theirs since 7 January 2007 and that his role with them was as a plumber. The Applicant’s sponsor was his brother and the application stated that the Applicant had received no assistance with completing the form. He later claimed that in relation to this form it had been completed by an agent on his behalf and the employer’s letter of support was a document he was unaware of as the agent known as Nasir had completed the form sent it to his brother in Australia and his brother had submitted it to the Australian immigration authorities. Both he and his brother had signed the relevant sections of that form. His brother confirmed to the Tribunal that he had spoken to the agent in Pakistan and provided his necessary details for the purpose of applying for the visa. The Tribunal also notes the Applicant’s signature on the attached letter from the purported employer “Ishfaq Sanatary Store” written in English. The Applicant’s evidence in relation to the contents of this form was that he didn’t discuss the contents of it with the agent Nasir, but signed it as requested. He claimed that the agent said he didn’t need to know what the contents of the form were.

[66] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T14, 421.

73.  The Applicant was evasive when asked by Ms Irwin what he thought his brother was going to do with the form and whether he knew that the form was to be sent to the Australian Government. His response to the question regarding if he knew the form was to be sent to the Australian Government was; ‘I didn’t know what was going to happen, what was the practice. All I knew is that I was (indistinct) the form and send it to him and I got the form and sent it to them and what else was going to happen, I didn’t know what was (indistinct) this sort of thing.’[67]        

[67] Transcript of Proceedings, VDND and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, (19 February 2021, Senior Member P J Clauson AM), page 13, lines 39 – 42.

74.  The Applicant, on the 13 March 2013, applied for a tourist (offshore) (subclass 676) visa.[68] The Application form on this occasion also contained much information that was not true. A letter which accompanied this application[69] purported to be from his employer Benzee International and confirmed that the Applicant had, as stated in the application, been an employee for 4 years and 3 months. This period was in conflict with the period of employment he had quoted in the previous application for a family sponsored visitor visa as it indicated he would have been working for the two companies at the same time for at least part of the intervening period. It also stood in conflict with his claim that he was working for Ahmadi Organization between the years 2008 and 2013 as stated in his protection visa application and the section for additional information at question 54 contained in his citizenship application Form 80[70] where it was stated that he hadn’t worked since leaving school which was, of course, in conflict with the employment information contained at Question 19[71] of that document where he stated that from June 2007 until June 2013 he had worked for the Sadar Anjuman Organization as an office boy. Further going to the question of credibility is the fact that when checks were carried out as to the bona fides of Benzee International, it was revealed to have invalid registration numbers, had a telephone number registered to a residential address and the occupant of which had no knowledge of the Company.   

[68] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 348 – 358.

[69] Ibid, 353.

[70] Ibid, T8, 197.

[71] Ibid, 201.

75.  The application for the tourist visa also stated that the Applicant had no friends or contacts in Australia contrary to the Applicant’s application for the sponsored family visitor’s visa made earlier, and the fact that he still had a brother living in Australia, that he had never had a visa application for entry or further stay in Australia refused and that he had not received assistance in completing the form. The application also included a copy of the Applicant’s own passport. The Applicant told the Tribunal that contrary to the information in the form regarding assistance not being sought or given, he had engaged the services of the same agent Nasir who had assisted him with the previous visa application to complete this application. He told the Tribunal that, as in the case of his previous visa application he did not ask what was in the form, the agent and he didn’t discuss the contents of the form and the agent filled out the form with the information he had previously received from the Applicant. The Applicant stated to the Tribunal that he didn’t know that the agent had not listed his family members as required and couldn’t understand why that was so given that the information was already held by the agent and the agent knew that he had a brother in Australia. The Tribunal views this evidence from the Applicant as a further indication that the gravity of truth and accuracy required in official documents from an Applicant is not considered by the Applicant in this matter to be regarded as an imperative for an application requiring such aspects above all else to govern the construction of his documents. He has shown in this application once more that he failed to check the accuracy of the information he has relied upon in an important official migration document upon which in turn the Australian Government has to rely in making serious decisions based around policy. It is the view of the Tribunal that blind unchecked reliance on a third party to create documents for another is a grave, reckless and lackadaisical approach to a very serious requirement. Irrespective of who may prepare the document, the document is nonetheless the Applicant’s document and it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy and truthfulness of the document’s contents.

76.   The Tribunal has examined the evidence relating to the Applicant’s preparations, journey to and arrival in Australia and the evidence provided in support of the Applicant’s application for a protection (subclass 866) visa. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant was granted a protection visa and is living in Australia pursuant to the terms of that visa. The Tribunal also notes that the considerations for the granting of the protection visa to the Applicant may not necessarily be the same as those to be made concerning his application for citizenship and nor does a refusal to grant citizenship by conferral mean that the Applicant is under any risk of deportation as a consequence of that decision.

77.  The Applicant told the Tribunal that his life was under threat in Pakistan from a rival Islamic group called ‘khatme mavuwat’ who opposed his own Islamic Sect and that he was in fear that unless he escaped from Pakistan he may be killed. He said that he had spoken to a group of his friends who told about a person who could help him to leave the country a person by the name of Jafar Iqbal and so he met Jafar Iqbal to arrange his departure. The Applicant told the Tribunal in relation to this meeting that; ‘I told him that I – I told him about my situation and I told him that my life is not secure here, that it’s at risk, so I asked if he could take me anywhere and then he told “Okay, you can pay me this much money and then I will take you to Australia”.[72]

[72] Transcript of Proceedings, VDND and Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, (19 February 2021, Senior Member P J Clauson AM), page 16, lines 11 – 14.

78.  The Applicant later said in his evidence that Iqbal chose Australia for him however, the Tribunal considers that is unlikely given the fact that the Applicant had a support base in Australia, namely his brother and he had made two attempts before, albeit unsuccessful, to obtain different types of visas to gain entry into Australia. His evidence in reply when asked by Ms Irwin about his statement in his interview upon arrival at Sydney Airport, that he didn’t know he was coming to Australia, was not true, he stated that; ‘They don’t tell you exactly where they will take you. They don’t tell you which city. They don’t tell you where you need to go or where you will be going or where they’re taking you, they don’t tell you that’.[73] The Applicant continued to imply in his evidence that the choice of destination was not really his as he claimed that the organisers gave him a list of countries and asked if he would be happy to go to any of them. His evidence was that you named the country you preferred and then when you departed you didn’t know which country you were going to. He stated in his entry interview that he did not know which flight he was on but the Australian Department’s pre-screening records show that he took an overseas flight and had travelled on a Pakistani passport possibly in the name of a Haider Qambar as the Applicant had baggage bearing a tag with the name Haider Qambar. The Tribunal considers that, given the level of organization surrounding his trip to Australia it would be highly unlikely that he would not have been carefully briefed on what the arrangements were on route and upon arrival. The Tribunal considers that it is not credible that he had no idea as to where he would be going and did not know the flight he was on to get to Australia. 

[73] Ibid, page 17, lines 5 – 7.

79.  His airport interview also raises further issues of credibility insofar as he stated that he did not know the identity of the man who organised everything and whom he did not pay, escorted him onto the plane, that the Applicant didn’t have a passport and the man didn’t give him anything. All of these assertions are contradicted at some point by the Applicant himself in evidence. He told the Tribunal that the arrangement with Jafar Iqbal cost US$30,000 and the money was paid up front and it was stated by the Applicant in his evidence that his father made the financial arrangements for him. Irrespective as to how the transaction was arranged the Applicant initially denied that it was in place and ultimately admitted it did take place. Also, the evidence given by the Applicant that he did not know the identity of his travelling companion on the trip to Australia is suspect in its veracity as he kept stating in his evidence that the passport that was used was held by Jafar Iqbal both at the point of departure from Islamabad Airport and it appears from the evidence of the Applicant that Iqbal held onto the passport and would, according to the Applicant, produce it and give it to the Applicant when required and then retrieve it from him immediately it had been used for that purpose. He told the Tribunal that he did not know what sort of passport it was as he never got to examine it. It is clear from the Applicant’s evidence that his own passport was not the passport used in the journey but that he did admit to having had a Pakistani passport in his name but had lost it, however, did have a copy of it which he attached to his application for his protection visa. The Tribunal also noted that the Applicant in his protection visa application stated that his own Pakistani passport had been lost, ‘given to the agent who organised his travel...’. This is in conflict with the Applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal about the fate of his personal passport wherein he stated: ‘I did not give him that passport. That passport I did not give it to him, I didn’t have it’[74]  and then stated further; ‘I don’t have that passport with me now, I lost it, but I have a copy of it in my email.’[75]

[74] Ibid, page 20, line 1.

[75] Ibid, line 6 – 7.

80.  The Tribunal has noted also the Respondent’s contention relating to the Applicant’s misnaming of his married sister and his providing conflicting dates of birth for her in the material before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal accepts that when considering the Applicant’s responses to these it seems that he had made errors by way of mistake of fact in regard to both these matters and the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s explanations regarding these.

81.  The Tribunal’s role in this review is to look at the evidence afresh and establish whether the Applicant is a person of good character as defined earlier. The evidence in this matter is such that it brings one to the conclusion that the Applicant is a person who in his home country felt so threatened that he considered his life to be in danger. His actions over time indicate that his mindset was to escape and he had resolved to achieve that. How he chose to do that was redolent of his desperation. He chose to use agents in Pakistan to construct applications for two visas both of which foundered on the rocks of false, misleading and at times conflicting information and on parts of his own evidence to this Tribunal. He has stated that these actions were prompted by his lack of education and understanding of the English language having reached only years 8 or 10 standard. The Tribunal is not concerned with what standard he in fact reached, as it is evident that the Applicant had the worldliness and understanding to seek out parties to help him extract himself from Pakistan and to prepare the necessary documentation albeit inadequate and unsatisfactory in nature. He was twenty-six years of age at the time he decided to embark on his mission and the Tribunal does not consider this to be an age of tender years when viewed in the context of his actions. 

82.  Fundamentally, the Applicant doesn’t dispute the fact that the material in all of this matter under review is incorrect, in fact, he is stating that it is incorrect as  result of the actions of others namely, agents and his brother-in-law over whom he had no control as to what they placed in the materials and have now left him in the untenable situation in which he now finds himself. This of course, ignores those matters in which the Applicant was himself involved in the provision of false information to the immigration authorities, in particular, the material he deposed in his airport entry interview. These material answers were provided by the Applicant in person and are totally attributable to him and him alone.

83.  The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant has provided three statutory declarations by friends and work colleagues[76]  all of which attest to the Applicant’s good character but all are in similar vein and none makes any reference to the issues arising from the Applicant’s providing false information to the Australian Government authorities associated with his immigration matters. Whilst these people may hold a view as to the Applicant’s character relating to the context in which they know him it is not in the expansive context of how the Applicant’s dealings with the Australian Government have been conducted. The Tribunal considers that these references therefore carry little weight in the present matter where the Applicant’s good character is under consideration.

[76] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 245 – 248.

84.  This Tribunal views truth as the cornerstone when providing required information to the Australian Government when applying for significant privileges such as visas (of all types), and citizenship applications such as is sought herein by the Applicant. In fact, it is a fundamental requirement that when an application is made and signed that the Applicant swears to the truth of the contents of that application. It is a non-negotiable condition of granting any request associated with the application. Here, the Applicant has been prepared to sign his applications without any consideration for the truth of the contents therein. The documents are always the documents of the Applicant and they are inescapably, the absolute responsibility of the Applicant. Here, the Applicant has acted with a reckless disregard and contempt for the statutory requirements of the Act insofar as he clearly didn’t take the responsibility seriously to have the documents checked by an independent, English speaking third party to ensure that his applications were in fact truthful and not fraudulent. In fact, in this matter the actions of the Applicant can almost be construed as preferring not to seek an outcome based on true and accurate material but on material he has paid an agent to confect in order to provide the sought outcome.

85.  The Tribunal considers that based on the assessment of the evidence both documentary and oral provided to it in this matter, the Applicant has not acted as a person of good character should in dealing with the serious matter of seeking the privilege of having Australian citizenship bestowed upon him by conferral. He has refused to accept the responsibility associated with the process of immigration law and has demonstrated a degree of contempt for the parties who have to decide his suitability to receive the privilege of citizenship by depriving them of the true and accurate basis so to do. This is not the action of a person of good character for the purpose of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act. The Tribunal affirms therefore the decision under review pursuant to paragraph 42(1)(a) of the AAT Act.

Decision

86.  The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 86 (eighty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member P J Clauson AM

.........................[SGD]................................

Associate

Dated: 22 July 2021

Date(s) of hearing:	19 February 2021
Advocate for the Applicant:	Nurul Huq, Eastwest Immigration Services
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Kate Ervin, Clayton Utz7