Verma and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

[2018] AATA 2280

Verma and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 2280 (5 June 2018)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2017/6932

Re:Ishaan Verma

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

Date:5 June 2018

Date of written reasons:        17 July 2018

Place:Sydney

For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review

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

Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – refusal – whether applicant of good character – criminal record - domestic violence - Tribunal not satisfied in the circumstances that sufficient time had passed – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

17 July 2018

Written reasons for oral decision

1. On 5 June 2018, the reasons for the decision made in this matter were given orally. Shortly after the hearing, the Tribunal served both parties with a copy of the order setting out the decision that was made. On 29 June 2018, the Applicant requested the Tribunal provide written reasons for its decision pursuant to s 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The written reasons are set out below.

2. Mr Verma has sought Australian citizenship and the application was refused.

3. The issue is whether the tribunal is satisfied that he is a person of good character pursuant to sections 21(2A) and 24(1A) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) and with reference to chapter 11 of the Citizenship Policy which came into effect on 1 June 2016 and chapter 10 of the Australian Citizenship Instructions. 

4. It is not in dispute that Mr Verma has been found guilty, without a conviction being recorded, of two offences of stalk, intimidate, intend fear, physical et cetera harm (domestic) committed on 5 July 2016 and was directed to enter into a good behaviour bond for 12 months by the Local Court of NSW at Blacktown on 21 October 2016.

5. Mr Verma sought to explain why he pleaded guilty to those offences.  The tribunal finds that he was seeking to minimise his decision making on that occasion to plead guilty. 

6. The tribunal accepts the respondent's submission that domestic violence is inconsistent with the standards of the Australian community, and the tribunal would observe that domestic violence is of a particularly insidious nature because it is often unknown to people outside the home, and to other people the offender presents as an amiable and reasonable person.  It is for that reason that the tribunal gives little weight to the references that the applicant has provided because, while such conduct may seem at odds with the person the referees know, the reality is that Mr Verma, has pleaded guilty to two domestic violence offences. 

7. It is only about 19 months since those offences were committed and only seven months since the good behaviour bond ended.  It is of concern to the tribunal that Mr Verma appears to have only recently expressed remorse for that conduct. In Mr Verma’s statement of 23 November 2017, he was still seeking to blame somebody else for what happened in July 2016.  He has sought to attribute responsibility for the offences of July 2016 to his father-in-law, his wife's mental illness, and to his own mental condition. 

8. The tribunal has taken into account the report from the psychologist dated 14 January 2018, and the referral to that psychologist dated 8 May 2017.  The tribunal does not accept that the report supports the finding that the applicant was suffering from a mental illness in July of 2016, or that explains the incident that occurred at that time.  The tribunal does accept that he was very depressed after that event because he was denied access to his daughter for some period. 

9. The tribunal is concerned that it has only been of recent times that the applicant has expressed his remorse, and it seems to the tribunal that a longer period of time would be necessary for the applicant to demonstrate to the Australian community that he was a person of good character.  At this point in time the tribunal is not satisfied that he is of good character as required by the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

10. For those reasons the tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.

I certify that the preceding 10 (ten) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

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

Associate

Dated: 17 July 2018

Date(s) of hearing:	5 June 2018
Applicant:	By phone
Solicitors for the Respondent:	R Grivas- Clayton Utz