VKLN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)
[2021] AATA 3088
•27 August 2021
VKLN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 3088 (27 August 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/5941
Re:VKLN
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member
Date:27 August 2021
Place:Sydney
The reviewable decision is affirmed, with the qualification that the Applicant is not a person of good character.
.............................[sgd]...........................................
Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – by conferral – identity requirement satisfied – good character requirement not satisfied – the use of an alias to be granted a protection visa – decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) ss 21, 24, 50
Statutory Declarations Act 1959 (Cth) s 11
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 91WA, 101, 234
CASES
Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1877
AIB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 163
Al-Hussaini and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 1267
Al Temimi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 97
Assad v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 921
Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256
BGM16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 72
Confidential and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 144
Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310
Ghumaan and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 200
GJURA and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 4222
Koker and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 118
Muggeridge v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 200
Nazari and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2000
PBMH and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1619
Qasimi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 378
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634
Sinnathamby and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] [2018] AATA 2579
SYLN and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2018] AATA 4408
SYLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1986.
Valle and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship [2020] AATA 549
Waraich and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 4524
XJDS and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 4912
YMPL and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1458
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement]
National Identity Proofing Guidelines 2014
Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs) – CPI 16: Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act’
REASONS FOR DECISION
Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member
27 August 2021
INTRODUCTION
Due to the sensitive nature of the material discussed, the Applicant has been assigned a pseudonym to protect his identity. He will be referred throughout this decision as the Applicant or ‘VKLN’. Similarly, pseudonyms have been given to protect the identity of his family.
The Applicant arrived in Australia in 2010 as an unauthorised maritime arrival. In 2015, he applied for Australian citizenship by conferral. His application for citizenship was refused, the Minister’s delegate being not satisfied as to his identity, or his good character. The Applicant seeks merits review of the delegate’s decision. The matter came before the Tribunal on 18 May 2021. The Applicant was represented by a solicitor. The Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined by the Respondent’s representative.
CHRONOLOGY
(i) The arrival interview
In December 2010, the Applicant arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival. Within three days of arriving, he participated in an interview in which he stated that his name was VKLN and that he was persecuted as a stateless Faili Kurd.[1]
[1] S8/45–65.
(ii) The Refugee Status Assessment
On 14 February 2011, he requested a Refugee Status Assessment.[2] He stated again that his name was VKLN and that was a stateless Faili Kurd. He also claimed that he was a convert to Christianity.[3] He declared that he had problems with the Basij (the informal religious and moral militias) on account of his relationship with a woman, and that he was harassed and abducted by the Basij.
[2] S1/1–19, 20, 21, 22.
[3] S4/22–28.
He signed a declaration that the information was 'complete, correct and up to date in every detail'.[4]
[4] S1/17.
(iii) The protection visa application
On 8 July 2011, he applied for a Protection (Class XA) (subclass 866) visa (protection visa). He declared that he was a stateless Faili Kurd by the name of VKLN, and gave his birth date.[5] In the Form 80 accompanying his visa application, he listed the following people as members of his family:[6]
(a)Father: JKL (DOB approx. 1951; deceased);
(b)Mother: MNO (DOB approx. 1954).
[5] S12/88, 101, S4/22–28.
[6] S5/37.
The Applicant signed the Form 80, declaring that the information was true and correct.[7] He stated that he understood that the provision of any false or misleading information could lead to the refusal of his visa application or cancellation of his visa. On 14 July 2011, he was granted a Protection (subclass 866) visa.
[7] S5/35.
(iv) The Resident Return application
On 29 June 2017, he applied for a Resident Return Visa.[8] He stated that his name was VKLN and provided a date of birth and declared that this information was true and correct.
[8] S13/122–125.
(v) Australian citizenship application
On 16 July 2015, he signed an application (received 11 August 2015) for conferral of Australian citizenship, stating that his name was VKLN, that he had never held citizenship of any other country, that he did not have any identity documents, and that this information was true and correct.[9] He maintained this position until July 2020.
[9] T3/28-39.
On 12 March 2020 the Department requested further information to support the Applicant’s claimed identity before he arrived in Australia, including any Iraq/Iran/Kuwait issued documents he had together with details of his life story. The department’s letter sets out an extensive but non-exhaustive list of the types of documents that might be relevant. The letter also requested further information relating to his life story, including any aliases by which he had been known, as well as family composition, associated visa applications, residence history in Iran/Iraq/Kuwait, countries he and his family had resided in outside of Iran/Iraq/Kuwait.[10]
[10] T8/49-55.
In March 2020, the Applicant's representative lodged a request by way of Freedom of Information to receive all information and correspondence to and from the department relating to his visa and citizenship applications.[11]
[11] T10/60–67
On 10 July 2020, the Applicant’s representative sent an email to the Department attaching a 'Form 80—Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment', together with a statutory declaration.[12] The declaration stated, among other things, that the Applicant had previously provided incorrect details regarding his name, date of birth and nationality. The declaration attached copies of official documents of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the name of NLKV, including:
·an Iranian national identity card,[13]
·a copy of a passport;[14]
·Iranian military service exemption;[15]
·his shenasnameh, the equivalent of an Iranian birth certificate;[16]
[12] T16/ 85–111.
[13] T17/131.
[14] T17/128.
[15] T17/126-127.
[16] T17/132-133.
He also provided copies of his father’s and sister’s shenasnameh.
THE DELEGATE’S DECISION
On 24 September 2020, the delegate decided to refuse his application.[17] The Decision Record states:
As explored in detail below, with regards to your identity, I find that there are several points in your life story as told by you which are inconsistent or implausible. I find that you have made a number of false and misleading statements to the Department in order to conceal your true identity, and to engineer a migration outcome for yourself (that is, the grant of Australian Citizenship) and this weighs against your claim to good character…[18]
One fundamental expectation of the Australian community with respect to Citizenship Applicants is that they have to have been honest and accurate in their dealings with the Australian Government. As articulated below, in the ‘identity section’, your inconsistent and misleading statements to the department have raised concerns about your name, date of birth and nationality. I find that the provision of false personal information about yourself, thus engaging in dishonest behaviour in order to secure a migration outcome, is not indicative of someone who is of ‘good character’.[19]
[17] T2/11-24
[18] T2/17
[19] T2/18-19
THE TRIBUNAL HEARING
The Applicant gave the following evidence to the Tribunal:
·His father was a drug addict and violent.
·He had never known his father not to be on drugs – he grew up with that and when he was in his early twenties his father died by suicide.
·His older brother was also on drugs. He used ICE and was even more violent than his father. He said that his brother’s wife was also on ICE.
·He tried to help his family but the situation was “making him crazy” and that it was one of the reasons he decided to come to Australia. He said he did not have good role models in his life.
·Another reason was that he did not have religious freedom in Iran. He wanted to be free to decide his own course in such matters. He said he was a Christian inside but could not express himself – and could not talk about his beliefs with his mother. He felt he had no freedom of speech.
·He was asked whether his childhood motivated him to turn to religion and specifically Christianity. He said that his father had a Christian friend and he used to go to his house and saw that they were happy and different and started to get more interested in religion and into different beliefs.
·He said that in Iran he was working in a bank where employees were forced to participate in prayer every day, and he couldn’t do it. He said he was very concerned when his employer asked him to hand his passport in. He didn’t think he was targeted because this requirement was imposed on everyone, but it was worrying.
·He also referred to the religious and moral police (the Basij). When he was 19, he said he was caught talking to his girlfriend and was bashed. He said he was taken to a prison and then to court and given a sentence of 85 lashes and could not enter the city again for the next five years.
·He said that he decided to leave Iran and made arrangements to travel to Australia with the help of people smugglers.
·He left Iran on his own passport but his passport was taken from him by the smugglers.
·He travelled by air to Indonesia and then on a boat provided by the smugglers. He arrived at Christmas Island and gave a false name.
·When he got to Christmas Island it was his first good sleep in long time, but he was terrified that he would be sent back so he lied.
·He told the immigration authorities at Christmas Island that he was a stateless Faili Kurd, and had no identity documents.
·He admitted that he did provide true false information about his name, date of birth, family, ethnicity and citizenship. He said that the name he used at the outset (VKLN) was not his real name. His real name was NLKV.
·He agreed that he lied on his citizenship application but the main reason he came to Australia was religion, and freedom of speech.
·He said that he acted on the advice of the smugglers. The smuggler told him he had to lie and what to say.
·He said that he had been thinking of owning up for the past six years.
·He said that he gave some false information about his background but the main reason he came to Australia was religion, and for freedom of speech. He said that he maintained the alias he had created because he did not want to be found out and deported. He agreed that he had multiple opportunities to correct the position but he thought he would be sent back.
·He said that he had worked hard since coming to Australia. He completed a Certificate III in English in Sydney, went to TAFE full time, was in his second year in Construction Management and was aiming to do a Diploma of Construction Management. He had been working as a carpenter since 2015. In 2018 he started his own company and in 2019 got his builder’s licence and since then had been working on his own but he was very busy. He obtained a NSW Driver’s Licence in the name of VKLN. He did not have a criminal record in Australia.
·He said that he had been positive and supported the Cancer Council and made blood donation every year because he had some personal experience of a friend with cancer and tried to support those with cancer.
·Since coming to Sydney he has been baptised, and went to church regularly until COVID made that difficult. He went to North Ryde Church. He said he had a very good friend of nine years who called him brother and he regards her as a sister.
·He said that he had been a good citizen.
The Applicant called as a witness a person he identified as his brother. I refer to the witness as ABNC. He gave the following evidence by telephone from Iran:
·He had signed a witness statement dated 15 May 2020.
·He was NLKV’s brother
·He and his family were Turks from East Azerbijan in Ardebil.
·He identified his siblings by name and he gave the names of his parents.
·He was born in in Tehran and attended school. He identified the names of the schools he went to.
·His brother attended a different school.
·He was one year and two months younger than his brother and about six years older than his sister.
·When his brother finished school he went to Abuhamza and then went to India for further studies. He attended Ghazvin University, where he studied to computers. He then went to India. When he returned from India he was employed in the bank but before that he changed two or three jobs.
·He worked as a plumber, but had to come out of that. He was an addict but somehow had to find money for drugs.
·He was exposed to drug addiction from a very young age, and was addicted to drugs from the ages of 20 to 23. He said that because of his father, the house was not normal. There was constant fighting and bickering in the house.
·His father was a heavy heroin user. He said that he overdosed on pills in the 80s and committed suicide.
·He attended drug rehabilitation with an international organisation for drug users. He said it was about nine years that he had been clean.
·His brother NLKV (the Applicant) was very supportive and would cover the costs of those rehab sessions.
·He was admitted into a psychiatric hospital somewhere between 12-13 years ago.
·Under cross-examination he said that he had a birth certificate, driver’s licence, passport and national ID document, but none of the documents had his signature.
·He offered to show various documents which had a photo ID.
LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
Subsection 21(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’) provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. Pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Act:
If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Relevant to this application, subsection 24(3) of the Act provides that:
The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.
The Department has issued the Australian Citizenship [Policy Statement] and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs) which contains relevant guidance in relation to assessing identity under the Citizenship Act. The Tribunal will ordinarily consider and apply lawful Government policy unless there is a cogent reason not to: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634.
According to ‘CPI 16: Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act’ (CPI 16), a person's identity is a combination of characteristics or attributes that allow a person to be uniquely distinguished from others within a specific context. The assessment of identity relies on three elements, referred to as the ‘three pillars of identity’. These are biometrics, documents, and life story.
The first pillar is biometrics, which refers to personal identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person's signature. Biometrics can be used for comparison, with, for example, facial images held by the Department, or other domestic or international agencies.
The second pillar is identity documents. Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features.
The third pillar is a person's life story. This is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. A person's life story may include descriptions of family composition, education, employment, countries of residence, countries visited, social footprint, and online presence.
The CPI 16 states:
Officers should not rely on a single pillar to establish a person's identity. Considering a single pillar in isolation is generally inadequate for providing a reliable basis on which to establish a person's identity. In order to comprehensively test and evaluate a person's claims with regard to their identity, decision-makers should consider each pillar.
The CPI 16 provides decision-makers with advice as to how to assess identity within each of the three pillars. For example, in relation to the third element, life story, section 4.12 states:
The way in which officers should approach the concept of assessing a person's identity from birth is to create an identity timeline, thus creating a complete picture of the person's identity from birth to present. The objective is to link the Applicant's identity at birth to the identity provided in their application for Australian citizenship by considering key chronological events in the person's life. The three pillars are the methodology for establishing a person's identity, and officers must turn their mind to the individual characteristics in order to piece together a person's identity timeline and create an 'identity picture'.
Paragraph 5.1 of the National Identity Proofing Guidelines 2014 establishes that where a person cannot meet the minimum identity requirements, alternative identity proofing processes may be undertaken. Such processes may include:
·verification of the person’s claimed identity with a trusted referee whose identity has been (or is being) verified to an equal or greater level of assurance; and/or
·a detailed interview with the person about their life story to assess the consistency and legitimacy of their claims.
FINDING ON IDENTITY
It is common ground that the Applicant provided false information to immigration officials on several occasions, as listed under the heading Chronology above. He continued the deception until July 2020 when, challenged by the Department in the course of processing his citizenship application, and on the advice of his solicitor, he admitted to the deception and provided identity documents said to be in his real birth name (NLKV). He did not provide the identity documents with his citizenship application in 2015, because at that point he was still maintaining the deception.
The Tribunal has made many decisions involving the issue of identity. A person who has lied in the past about fundamental matters faces an uphill battle in establishing sufficient credibility to persuade the decision-maker that he or she is now telling the truth.[20] An absence of identity documents is not fatal to establishing identity, provided the claimant can establish his or her trustworthiness.[21]
[20] Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256 at [34] to [48] (no identity documents and conflicting evidence regarding identity); Confidential and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 144; Al Temimi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 97 at [28] to [31] (change of name documents lodged); Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310 [95] to [100], [111] to [121] (previous use of fraudulent papers); YMPL and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1458 [32] to [35] (wedding certificate tendered, other steps taken); Sinnathamby and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] [2018] AATA 2579 (bogus documents); GJURA and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 4222 (Applicant using different identities).
[21] See, for example, Qasimi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 378 (DNA test).
The witness ABNC said that he was NLKV’s brother. He identified the Applicant as NLKV. He provided consistent family history evidence. He was knowledgeable about his family circumstances and educational history. When asked in general terms about the Applicant’s encounters with the Basij, he referred to the incident involving corporal punishment.
30.ABNC presented various documents to the camera for identification but none contained his signature. Although collusion can never be ruled out, I am comfortably satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that ABNC gave truthful evidence as to his identity, relationship with the Applicant, and family history.
The Applicant says that the people smugglers told him to lie about his identity and ethnicity because it would improve his prospects of acceptance as a refugee. He was then trapped in the web of deceit. This is not implausible.
The Respondent has not seriously challenged the identity documents provided by the Applicant, including his Iranian passport, and national identity document. I am confident that he is the person identified in the Iranian identity documents provided to the Department as NLKV.
I am comfortably satisfied that the Applicant is now telling the truth. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Applicant is the person NLKV identified in the Iranian identity documents, and therefore I am satisfied as to his identity.
FINDING ON CHARACTER
I turn to the question of character, as required by paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Act. The question raised by this application is whether someone who provides misinformation and false declarations to the Department about his identity in order to secure a visa, or citizenship, may later be regarded as a person of good character.
A perusal of recent decisions of the Tribunal suggests that mostly,[22] but not always,[23] it is found that a person who has persistently lied about his or her identity is not of good character.
[22] Not of good character: Nazari and MICMMA (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2000, Senior Member Damien O'Donovan; PBMH and MICMMA (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1619; XJDS and MICMMA (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 4912, per Brigadier A G Warner, AM LVO (Retd), Member; Al-Hussaini and MICMMA (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 1267, Senior Member Puplick; Valle and MICMMA (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 549, Mr S Evans, Member.
[23] Good character: Ahmadi and MICMMA (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1877 DP Sosso.
The concept of good character refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and should be judged in the round; in other words, by taking a full account of a person’s life, not just by focusing on a small fraction of bad behaviour, although a single incident may negate a person’s good character if sufficiently serious. As noted by Deputy President Sosso in Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 1877 at [83]:
There have been numerous decisions where good character has been found and where the persons involved have had a past of petty and, sometimes, major crimes. In each case the decision-maker has looked at whether the Applicant has reformed themselves, and issues such as the passage of time, contribution to society, family life, employment history and health issues have all been taken into account.
The creation and maintenance of a false identity is a serious matter. Immigration deception or the use of an alias to obtain an advantage may result in criminal charges, the refusal[24] or cancellation[25] of a protection visa, or the refusal or cancellation of citizenship.[26] Each case turn on particular statutory provisions and facts but there is little doubt that the creation and maintenance of a false identity, with all the associated deceptions involved, is serious.
[24] AIB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 163
[25] Assad v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 921; Muggeridge v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 200.
[26] Ghumaan and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 200; Waraich and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 4524.
It is worth noting some of the criminal sanctions that might be applied in such cases. Providing false information in a citizenship application is a serious offence punishable by a maximum imprisonment of 12 months imprisonment or 1,000 penalty units.[27]
[27] Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), section 50.
The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) contains even more serious sanctions. Providing false information to an immigration official is a serious offence punishable by a maximum imprisonment of 10 years or 1,000 penalty units.[28] A non-citizen must fill in or complete the application form in such a way that no incorrect answers are given or provided.[29] The Minister must refuse a protection visa application if the Applicant has provided bogus documents or destroyed identity documents.[30] Providing false information in a Statutory Declaration can result in a maximum penalty of 4 years’ imprisonment.[31]
[28] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), section 234.
[29] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), section 101; see Koker and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 118 at [194].
[30] Migration Act 1958 (Cth), section 91WA: BGM16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 72.
[31] Statutory Declarations Act 1959 (Cth), section 11.
The Respondent emphasises that the Applicant did not come forward until he was challenged by the Department, and that it was only on 6 July 2020, when it became apparent that he could not satisfy the Minister as to his identity, that he provided what he now says is the correct information.[32]
[32] See Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, para 54.
I find that the Applicant has provided false information about his identity and ethnicity to the Department of at least five separate and sombre occasions. The citizenship application itself is made in a false name.
I find that the Applicant was not in fact a stateless person fleeing persecution, contrary to what he told the authorities, but an Iranian citizen by the name of NLKV dissatisfied with life in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and keen to improve the political and economic conditions of his life. The identity he created as a stateless person was entirely false. His deception was aimed at improving his chances of securing a protection visa. He was led to believe by unscrupulous people smugglers he foolishly trusted with his life that his real circumstances and identity would not support a protection claim. He sought to improve his chances by fraud. The fact that he was not surrounded by mentors or family advisers is a weak excuse. There is much to be said for the Respondent’s contention that he did not ‘fess up’ until challenged. This is not the behaviour of a person of good character.
I also find that the Applicant has led a law-abiding life since arriving in Australia (if one overlooks that his identity in Australia has been until now a false one). There is no evidence that he has engaged in any other criminal activity. There is evidence that he has worked very hard to integrate into Australian society, including studying English and attending TAFE to develop a trade skill which has led to him setting up his own business. All of this is very creditable.
The Applicant, like so many, wanted to come to Australia for a better life. Although his reasons for wanting to leave Iran are not to be discounted, the means he chose to do so were based on deception and fraud. Ironically, his claim of religious oppression may have supported a protection claim in its own right. In wrongly claiming to be a stateless refugee he has prejudiced the claims of genuine refugees, including Faili Kurds. Extreme circumstances would be required to justify such conduct. There is nothing in the circumstances of his case to suggest circumstances of extreme duress (such as the separation from children or family) that might serve to mitigate the wrongdoing implicit in such deception.[33]
[33] SYLN and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2018] AATA 4408; affirmed SYLN v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2019] FCA 1986.
Given the circumstances and his reasons for providing false information upon arrival, and on numerous occasions thereafter, I consider that his behaviour up until 2020 cannot be considered the behaviour of a person of good character, and despite his good conduct in the community, insufficient time has passed to make a positive finding.
I am satisfied that, at this time, and for the purposes of his application for citizenship, NLKV (whom I accept to be the Applicant) is not a person of good character.
DECISION
The reviewable decision is affirmed, with the qualification that the Applicant is not a person of good character.
I certify that the preceding 47 (forty -seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Emeritus Professor P A Fairall, Senior Member
..........................[sgd]..............................................
Associate
Dated: 27 August 2021
Date(s) of hearing: 18 May 2021 Date final submissions received: 18 June 2021 Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms A Ryburn, Ryburn Solicitors Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms J Strugnell, Minter Ellison
0
22
0