VPKF and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) - [2025] ARTA 1917

VPKF and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 1917 (29 September 2025)
Applicant/s:  VPKF
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2024/1480
Tribunal:General Member S. Fenwick
Place:Melbourne
Date:29 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes it with the decision that the Applicant meets the requirements of s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

.........................[SGD]...........................
General Member S. Fenwick
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – identity – national of Afghanistan – inconsistencies in identity documents – Applicant’s life story considered – decision set aside and substituted
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Australian Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Cases
BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials
Citizenship Procedural Instructions
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND

VPKF applied on 4 March 2024 for review by the Tribunal of the decision of a delegate of the Respondent Minister, dated 16 February 2024, refusing his application for Australian citizenship by conferral. This decision was based upon a finding that the delegate could not be satisfied as to VPKF’s identity, as required under s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).
The Applicant is a national of Afghanistan who came to Australia as an illegal maritime arrival in April 2010. He has been granted both a Protection visa and subsequently a Five Year Resident Return Visa. The majority of VPKF’s family members, his wife and five of his seven children, came to Australia at a later point, sponsored by the Applicant.
The key aspect of VPKF’s identity that has come under question is his date of birth, due to inconsistency between that date accepted upon his arrival here, and that in national identity documents from Afghanistan. There are also said to be inconsistencies between information contained in his national identity documents and those of his family members.
The Applicant was represented before the Tribunal and lodged a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (ASFIC), and a bundle of documents (AB) that included updated statutory declarations and country information. The Respondent lodged documents under Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (T), Supplementary T documents (ST), and a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC).
VPKF gave evidence at the hearing, along with his wife and a friend. All witnesses were assisted by an interpreter in the Hazaragi language.
LEGISLATION
Citizenship by conferral is dealt with in Subdivision B of Division 2 of the Act. In addition to addressing matters such as the requirements for becoming a citizen, and general residence requirements, this part of the Act sets out the nature of the Minister’s decision. That is, s 24 provides that a decision must be made to approve or refuse an application (s 24(1)), and also provides for various discretions to refuse an application, notwithstanding a person may satisfy the requirements set out in the Act.
Of particular relevance is s 24(3) of the Act, which states that the Minister must refuse an application unless satisfied as to the person’s identity. Identity is not defined in the Act, but guidance is provided in Citizenship Procedural Instruction No 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (CPI 16). As government policy, this should be applied unless inconsistent with the Act, as an aid to consistency in decision making (Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634).
I summarise key elements of CPI 16:
(a)identity is a combination of personal characteristics or attributes [4];
(b)most citizenship applicants will be well-documented, but some humanitarian entrants may not be in a position to seek country of origin documentation, and it may be necessary to take documentation from the time of entry as the starting point for identity, although discrepancies or inconsistencies in identity must be investigated [4.1];
(c)three pillars of identity are relied upon being biometrics, documents, and life story but it may be that not all pillars are necessary to establish a person’s identity [5];
(d)a decision-maker must be satisfied a person is not concealing their identity and must consider a person’s identity from birth, not at a point in time [11]; and
(e)satisfaction as to a person’s identity involves judgment based upon evidence [12], and any conflicting evidence must be tested, including with any explanation provided by an applicant [12.1].
These essential points are reinforced by judicial authority which holds that the decision-maker must be satisfied that the person applying for citizenship is the person they say they are, that is that they have a single identity (BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865, at [32]).
ISSUES
The sole issue for consideration in this matter is whether I can be satisfied with the Applicant’s identity, as required by s 24(3) of the Act.
EVIDENCE
The first official Australian record of the Applicant’s date of birth is in his arrival documentation (ST2) where VPKF’s date of birth is recorded as ‘1955’ (ST2, 153). In his application for a Protection visa, the date 31 December 1955 is recorded (ST1, 134) and this year is repeated in related documentation.
Other official Australian documentation, such as the Applicant’s local driver licence, bear the date 31 December 1955 (T4, 39). VPKF also relied upon this date of birth in his application for Australian citizenship (T3, 29), which was lodged in early 2016.
In mid-2014, the Applicant appears to have made an invalid application to change his recorded date of birth. VPKF explains this in a Statutory Declaration dated 31 July 2024 (AB) as resulting from the discovery by his family (then still in Afghanistan) of photocopies of national identity documents for the Applicant [11]-[13]. Contemporary departmental correspondence supports the view that such an application was made (ST7).
The photocopied documents comprise: an Afghanistan driver license issued in August 1990, which records VPKF as being ‘26 years old in 1974’ (T4, 53); and, what is described in this matter as a ‘booklet’ form Tazkera, or national identity document, bearing the date of birth ‘1948’ (T4, 76).
A marriage certificate for VPKF and his wife is also in the materials. While the marriage took place at an earlier date, the certificate was issued in 2013, and among the details recorded is the age of the Applicant, described as ‘26 years old of 1974’ (T4, 63).
A further translation of the booklet style Tazkera for VPKF was lodged (AB). This document includes an incomplete age reference – reading ‘26 years old …’ – and unlike the previous version, includes the following registration data: Book Number, Volume 2 [or 3]; Page Number, 42; Registration Number, 335.
Tazkera for VPKF’s wife and children are also included in the materials (AB). These documents record the Applicant’s registration data as: Book, 48; Page, 168; Reg, 136 or 836. The age descriptions in these documents use the reference point 2013, from which I infer this to be the year of issue.
I summarise, relevantly, from VPKF’s 2024 Statutory Declaration:
(a)he did not have documents with him upon arrival in Australia and stated that he did not know his date of birth, but agreed with an estimate of 31 December 1955 arrived at with the help of a translator [4]-[7];
(b)Afghans are not often asked about their date of birth and do not ascribe significance to it, and therefore it is plausible he could not give a date of birth, and having come by boat he was distressed and exhausted [9]-[10];
(c)he was helped by Shepparton TAFE with his attempt to change his records but did not receive a reply and so assumed this had been done [15]-[18];
(d)his first Tazkera was obtained by his father when the Applicant was young, in the province of Ghazni, and he replaced this with a booklet style document after the fall of the monarchy, and this was obtained in the city where the Applicant was then working, and registered in a so-called miscellaneous record book [25]-[27]; and
(e)the Tazkera of his wife and children are linked to his original identity document as they were issued in Ghazni, and the inconsistency in registration data appears to be the result of an administrative error [28]-[29].
The Applicant gave evidence consistent with his declaration at the hearing. He explained that his original Tazkera was essentially used for his school registration. The Applicant confirmed that he completed 12 years of schooling and is fluent and literate in local languages.
The Applicant explained that with the change of government in Afghanistan, previous Tazkera were understood to be no longer valid. He stated that he personally obtained his booklet Tazkera and had been unable to travel to his home town at this time. VPKF restated his explanation about the nature of Afghan culture, observing in evidence that he had never celebrated his birthday.
Consistent with a 2022 declaration (T11), VPKF reiterated that his later national identity documents were stolen from his car while working as a taxi driver. In cross examination, the Applicant was asked both about the whereabouts of his documents and the plausibility of not knowing the contents, specifically a date of birth in 1948. VPKF stated that a Tazkera is not frequently used and is relied upon primarily for transactions such as property purchases. He stated that copies were kept on hand for use with things such as utility bills.
VPKF was also questioned about his lack of documentation on arrival in Australia. He described his journey to Australia through people trafficking, stating that all arrangements and documentation were handled by them. He stated that he himself had made the photocopies of his national identity documents, but I understood him to say that he had forgotten about them. VPKF also responded that he was not sure if he needed them for travel or not.
In further questioning, VPKF acknowledged that he had not filled out his citizenship application himself, but could not recall who had assisted him. When it was put to him that he had attested to its contents, including the 1955 year of birth, the Applicant accepted that he was not aware of all of the contents of the document, due to not being literate in English.
The Applicant’s wife stated in her evidence that she knew her husband from growing up in the same village together, and she identified his ancestors by name. I understood her to state that her family’s Tazkera were issued in their home province of Ghazni. She confirmed the cultural practice with respect to dates of birth as described by the Applicant. Her evidence appears consistent with her declaration dated 31 July 2024 (AB).
VPKF’s friend stated that he is from the same village in Afghanistan as the Applicant. He described their home village as small and in a mountainous region, being a two day walk from the district capital. The witness stated that in Afghanistan he would meet VPKF every two-to-three months at cultural or religious occasions, and they later reconnected once in Australia. The witness stated his own date of birth was recorded in the back of a Qu’ran, but that people in earlier times did not celebrate birthdays. I note the supporting declaration, dated 30 July 2024, included in the materials (AB).
Among the country information I note the relatively well-known 2019 Norwegian ‘LANDINFO’ report which provides background information about identity documents in Afghanistan (AB). Some relevant information here includes that:
(a)only some 60% of the population held Tazkera, with around 90% of men being in possession of these identity documents [2];
(b)they are typically issued based upon information such as the Tazkera of a male family member and/or testimony, and a family tree is an important element, as are registration books showing Tazkera issued [2.1.1];
(c)information on date of birth is not normally given, and it may be estimated based on physical characteristics, and many Afghans either have little awareness of their date of birth or are uncertain about this [2.2];
(d)registration is a manual process and Tazkera are recorded in books of one hundered pages of ten rows each [2.3]; and
(e)Tazkera issued by the proper authorities do not necessarily contain correct information on identity, and registration and quality assurance is inadequate [9].
CONSIDERATION
The Applicant’s representative submitted at the hearing that two conflicting years of birth do not necessarily point to the conclusion that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of VPKF’s identity. This contention was supported by reference to judicial authority in regard to the nature of identity (BQG21). It was also submitted that his mode of arrival in Australia explained his inability to recall his date of birth, and this was also supported by the evidence as to cultural practice. This also explained the fact that he had not recalled his date of birth, despite his inferred familiarity with the contents of his national identity documents.
It was also contended that VPKF had been transparent in his attempt to update his date of birth. The Applicant had also given clear evidence about his different sets of national identity documents, as well as the circumstances in which the booklet Tazkera was produced. The Applicant’s written submissions are comprehensive, including as to the legislation and its interpretation (ASFIC).
The Respondent submitted that there is concern about the year 1955 due to the quality of the evidence about how this was chosen. The principal issue, it was contended, is not the date per se, but the inconsistency with the year 1948 found in national identity documents. It was submitted that VPKF continued to rely upon 1955 up to and after the time he had sought to change his date of birth. Most worryingly, it was contended, the evidence indicated that the Applicant was not aware of the contents of documents he had submitted as part of his application for citizenship.
The Respondent also submitted, fairly, that it was in the Applicant’s favour that there was no apparent motive for him to seek to change his date of birth. It was also accepted that the circumstances of VPKF’s arrival in Australia was a relevant consideration in his favour. However, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s evidence about being unfamiliar with his documented year of birth was not persuasive. That said, it was also contended that VPKF had provided an explanation for the different registration data included in his family’s national identity documents.
There is substantive and relevant judicial authority that identity is a concept and not a construct only based upon verifiable and tangible forms of physical evidence. I understand the parties to have essentially agreed that the discrepancies in national identity documents provided in this matter have been explained. That is, that there is reliable evidence about the different registration data across different documents, due to the issuing of the booklet Tazkera. I am certainly satisfied as to the evidence given about the origins of this document, and the family’s own Tazkera.
Nonetheless, the Respondent raises the question about the origin and significance of the year 1955 as recorded upon VPKF’s arrival. It appears to me on the evidence overall, that as an illegal maritime arrival, it is unhelpful to place substantial weight on a date arrived at by an unknown process. The best evidence is the Applicant’s explanation as to his acquiescence under conditions of stress.
Is there any remaining weight in the contention that – in any event – VPKF should have known his date of birth? The overwhelming weight of evidence, as is frequently the case in matters involving nationals of Afghanistan, is that a date of birth is of virtually no cultural significance. It is therefore credible that the Applicant has seemingly adopted a ‘new’ date of 1955, and that he appears not to have insisted upon recording 1948 in Australian identity documents and other official paperwork. Equally, I accept that VPKF did indeed take steps to regularise his date of birth upon becoming aware of contradictory documentation.
It also appears to me that the repetition of a date in Afghan documents, that is reflective of an estimated year of birth in 1974, reflects the country information and evidence about the general unreliability of dates of birth. The reason for the selection of this year as a reference point remains obscure.
The effect of my findings are that weight attributed to documentation as a pillar of evidence in this matter is heavily reduced. No submissions were made as to biodata, but I do note that multiple photographs of the Applicant as a younger man appear in various documents of Afghan origin.
While limited in number, there are two witnesses in this matter who attest to knowing the Applicant in Afghanistan. They had no hesitation in accepting VPKF as the person he declares himself to be. They did so in terms consistent with the supporting documentation, with respect to ancestry and location. This evidence is important in buttressing the Applicant’s life story, which I have only summarised briefly in different parts of these reasons.
On the basis of this evidence, and also taking into account evidence as to inconsistencies in documentation, I am satisfied as to VPKF’s identity.
DECISION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes it with the decision that the Applicant meets the requirements of s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

39. I certify that the preceding thirty-eight (38) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision herein of General Member S. Fenwick

...............................[SGD].................................
Associate
Dated: 29 September 2025

Date of hearing:
8 September 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Other Party:

Giti Alizada, Beena Rezaee Legal & Migration

Christopher Orchard, Sparke Helmore