Velychko and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Velychko to review a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to revoke his Australian citizenship. The applicant had been granted citizenship by conferral in July 2011. The Minister's decision to revoke citizenship was based on the applicant's conviction in July 2016 for furnishing a false or misleading document under the *Migration Act 1958* and for making false or misleading statements in relation to his citizenship application under the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007*. The core of the dispute was whether the Minister's discretion to revoke citizenship, under section 34(2)(c) of the *Australian Citizenship Act*, was correctly exercised, specifically whether it was contrary to the public interest for the applicant to remain an Australian citizen.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for revocation of citizenship under section 34(2) of the *Australian Citizenship Act*. This involved assessing whether the applicant was an Australian citizen, whether he had been convicted of a relevant offence or obtained approval for citizenship as a result of fraud, and crucially, whether the Minister was satisfied that it would be contrary to the public interest for the applicant to remain an Australian citizen. The Tribunal also had to consider the definition of "migration-related fraud" as set out in section 34(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was indeed an Australian citizen and that his convictions for offences under the *Migration Act* and the *Australian Citizenship Act* satisfied the requirements of section 34(2)(b). In considering the public interest under section 34(2)(c), the Tribunal acknowledged that hardship might be caused to the applicant and his family. However, it weighed this against the serious nature of the offences, the duration of the offending conduct, and the importance of protecting the integrity of the immigration system and the Australian community from fraud and deception. The Tribunal concluded that these factors warranted the exercise of discretion to revoke the applicant's citizenship, finding that it was contrary to the public interest for him to remain a citizen. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Minister's decision to revoke the applicant's citizenship.