Wafaq and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) - [2024] AATA 37

Wafaq and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2024] AATA 37 (19 January 2024)
AppID:  Wafaq and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
MatterType:  Citizenship
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number:2022/0637
Re:Muhammad Jan Wafaq
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:L M Gallagher, Member
Date:19 January 2024
Place:Perth

The decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated 5 January 2022, to refuse to grant the Applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral under s 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) is affirmed.
..................[Sgd]......................................................
L M Gallagher, Member
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – eligibility – refusal of citizenship –Australian Citizenship Act 2007 s 24(2)(h) – whether Tribunal satisfied Applicant was of good character – citizen of Afghanistan – Applicant claimed father was deceased upon arrival into Australia – discovered that father was alive – failed to inform the Department father was not deceased – Tribunal cannot satisfactorily ascertain Applicant is of good character – reviewable decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) ss 21(1), 21(2)(h), 24, 24(1A), 52(1)(b)
CASES
Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2017] AATA 1086
Dawlatshahi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2437
Fang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3686
Minister for Home Affairs v G and Another [2019] FCAFC 79
Nguyen and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2018] AATA 4637
Shah and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2121
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Citizenship Policy (1 June 2016) Chapter 10
Migration (LIN 20/166: Australian Values Statement for Public Interest Criterion 4019) Instrument 2020 (26 November 2020)
Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (1 January 2019)
REASONS FOR DECISION
L M Gallagher, Member
19 January 2024
THE APPLICATION

The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated 5 January 2022,[1] to refuse the Applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral under s 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act) (the Reviewable Decision).
[1] R1, T25(b), pp 280 to 287.
The basis for the refusal was that the delegate was not satisfied that at the time of the decision the Applicant was of good character, for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.[2]
[2] R1, T25(b), p 282.
The application for review of the Reviewable Decision is made in accordance with s 52(1)(b) of the Act, which allows applications to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of a decision under s 24 of the Act.
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant claims to be a 30 year old citizen of Afghanistan.[3]
[3] R1, T6, pp 74 to 75; T25(b), p 280.
The Applicant first arrived in Australia on 16 May 2010 as an unauthorised maritime arrival.[4]
[4] R1, T25(b), p 280.
On 19 April 2011, the Applicant was granted a permanent Protection (subclass 866) visa.[5]
[5] R1, T25(b), p 281.
Applicant’s claim history
On 19 October 2015, the Applicant applied to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department)[6] for Australian citizenship by conferral.[7]
[6] At the time, the Department was known as the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.
[7] R1, T6.
In his application, the Applicant indicated that his father’s name is Awaz Ali Wafaq.[8]
[8] R1, T6, p 78.
On 27 April 2019, the Department requested further information from the Applicant, including:[9]
(a)Form 1399 Declaration of Service;
(b)Form 80 Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment; and
(c)Documents in support of his identity.
[9] R1, T8, p 101.
On 9 August 2019, the Applicant responded to the Department’s request with documents including a Form 80 dated 5 August 2019.[10] The Applicant indicated on the Form 80 that his father, Awaz Ali Wafaq, was deceased.[11] The Applicant did not list his brother Ahmad Ali Wafaq on this form, either as a sibling or as a personal contact in Australia.[12]
[10] R1, T10, pp 154-171.
[11] R1, T10, p 166.
[12] R1, pp 167-169.
On 13 May 2021, the Department wrote to the Applicant inviting him to comment on adverse information before it in relation to his application for citizenship lodged on 19 October 2015, namely:[13]
[13] R1, T16, p 188.
(a)His failure to declare a sibling residing in Australia named Ahmad Ali Wafaq. The Department noted that:
(i)Ahmad Ali was in Australia shortly after the Applicant was granted a Resident Return (subclass 155) visa.
(ii)The Applicant shared an address with Ahmad Ali in Australia.
(iii)Documents indicate the Applicant and Ahmad Ali have the same father and grandfather.
(iv)Departmental records indicate the Applicant transferred money to an individual with the same name and date of birth as his undeclared brother in Pakistan.[14]
[14] See R1, T26: Austrac records indicate the Applicant sent funds to his father ‘Ewaz/Awaz Ali’ in Pakistan between 10 August 2011 and 31 March 2016.
(b)His failure to declare his father to the Department. The Department noted that:
(i)Departmental records indicate that the Applicant and his brothers in Australia made numerous monetary transfers to an individual in Pakistan who bears the same name as the Applicant’s father.
(ii)This information leads it to believe that the Applicant’s father is not deceased as the Applicant claims and that the Applicant is aware of his father’s situation.
(c)On 28 June 2021, an application for migration to Australia by a partner was lodged.[15] The Applicant’s partner was listed as the applicant in that application and the Applicant was the sponsor. In the application, the Applicant indicated his father was deceased.[16]
(d)On 30 September 2021, the Applicant responded to the Department’s invitation with written submissions and a number of related attachments.[17] In his statutory declaration,[18] the Applicant declared that:[19]
(i)He had believed that his father had died in 2009 (he thought) and it was only after his entry interview in May 2010[20] that he found out his father was still alive.
(ii)He chose not to correct his initial statement about his father (having died) because he feared the integrity of his claim would be questioned by the Department.
[15] R2, ST3.
[16] R2, ST3, p 24.
[17] R1, T22.
[18] R1, T22, pp 265-268.
[19] R1, T22, p 266.
[20] See R1, T4, p 18 where the Applicant indicates his father was killed “with the help of the Taliban” in “about 2007.”
On 5 January 2022, the Respondent’s delegate made the Reviewable Decision.[21]
[21] R1, T25(b), pp 280 to 287.
On 27 January 2022, the Applicant applied to the General Division of the Tribunal seeking review of the Reviewable Decision.[22]
[22] R1, T2.
LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
The Preamble to the Act states that:
The Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.
The Parliament recognises that persons conferred Australian Citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations:
(a) by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people; and
(b) by sharing their democratic beliefs; and
(c) by respecting their rights and liberties; and
(d) by upholding and obeying the laws of Australia.
Section 21 of the Act sets out the general provisions for the making of applications and eligibility for citizenship.
Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
Section 21(2)(h) of the Act provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person ‘is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.’[23]
[23] Whether the Applicant is a person of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application for citizenship is the only eligibility criterion in issue in these proceedings.
Further, s 24 of the Act provides:
(1)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.
…
(1A)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
Accordingly, under s 24(1A) of the Act, the Minister must not approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied that the person ‘is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application’, that being the requirement of

s 21(2)(h) of the Act.[24]
[24] See [18] above.
The meaning of good character
The term ‘good character’ is not defined in the Act. The Tribunal is however assisted by the Australian Citizenship Policy (1 June 2016) (the Policy) and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (1 January 2019) (the CPIs).[25]
[25]The Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions were published on 1 January 2019 to support the function of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).
As established in Minister for Home Affairs v G and Another [2019] FCAFC 79 (G), the Tribunal is to apply Ministerial policy, unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[26]
[26]G at [57]-[62].
‘Good character’ is defined in chapter 10 of the Policy:[27]
[27]The Policy pp 136–7.
“Good character” refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and is an indication of whether an applicant is likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia and the other commitments made through the pledge should they be approved for citizenship …
The term “good character” is not defined in the Act. Therefore, the Federal Court (FC) and the AAT have used the ordinary meaning of the words, and made reference to dictionary definitions. Most cases have adopted the following definition from the Full FC judgment in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs ((1996) 68 FCR 422; at 431-432):
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 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 while 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.
In this context, “moral” does not have any religious connotations. The phrase “enduring moral qualities” encompasses the following concepts:
·     characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time
·     distinguishing right from wrong
·     behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
The good character requirement looks at the essence of the applicant. Their behaviour is a manifestation of their essential characteristics.
This broad definition means that a decision maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout their migration and citizenship processes.
In Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, Deputy President Breen discussed the role of the character requirement in a citizenship application (at [8]):
The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home. The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts. It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of State. The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few years’ time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.
The Policy further provides that an Applicant of good character would, among other things:
·     respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries
·     be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay their taxes, and not be in dishonest receipt of public funds)
·     be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments and organisations, for example:
·     providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications
·     involvement in bogus marriage
·     concealment of convictions that could lead to the cancellation or refusal of a visa or citizenship
·     involvement in Centrelink or Australian Tax Office fraud
·     giving false names and/or addresses to police
·     not be violent, involved in drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without licence or insurance)
·     not be associated with others who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour, or others who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia
·     not have evaded immigration control or assisted others to do so, or been involved in the illegal movement of people
·     not have committed, been involved with or associated with war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide
·     not be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant
·     not be involved in or providing assistance to, or reasonably suspected of being involved in or providing assistance to, terrorist organisations or acts of terrorism overseas or in Australia and
·     not be the subject of any verifiable information causing character doubts.
(Emphasis added.)
Chapter 11 of the Policy provides the following guidance on the Tribunal task of weighing up the character decision:
Essentially, the question for decision makers is whether any mitigating circumstances and/or explanation provided by the applicant outweigh the behaviour in question. The assessment about whether an applicant is of “good character” requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. Decision makers should place more weight on significant offences.
In weighing up the various factors, the decision maker must not apply their own personal standards, but must apply community standards. Having regard to the words of the Preamble, and the pledge to be made if citizenship is approved, decision makers are asking themselves:
·would a person of good character have behaved the way the applicant did
·what is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law
·has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia's community standards
·does the applicant share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties.
In Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326 (at [7]), the AAT said:
“a decision about whether a person is of good character requires the consideration of an aggregate of qualities. It is true to say, however, that, despite the many good qualities possessed by a person, those qualities can be outweighed by a single adverse incident if it is of sufficient weight and seriousness.”
A decision maker needs to look holistically at an applicant’s behaviour over a lasting or enduring period of time. The amount of time considered to be “lasting” or “enduring” depends on the merits of each case, but in most cases will go back prior to any visa application.
The CPIs set out a number of factors that may be taken into account when assessing whether an Applicant is of good character,[28] including the Applicant’s behaviour in their interactions with government officials as follows (CPI 15, Item 11):
The Australian community expects that persons in Australia will abide by Australian laws. This includes providing correct information when seeking a government benefit or service.
It is relevant to consider whether the Applicant has been honest in dealings with the Department. Decision-makers should consider all of the applicant’s interactions with the Department, including visa and citizenship applications…
…
If the Applicant has knowingly presented incorrect information or a bogus document, this may reflect on the person’s character. If the applicant presents the incorrect information or bogus document unknowingly, there would be no ground for character concern.
[28]CPI 15, Item 11 states that the set of factors set out in this section that decision-makers may consider when assessing whether the applicant is of good character is “not exhaustive and it is provided only to assist decision-makers exercising powers consistently with statutory requirements. A decision maker should take into account all of the relevant facts of the case.”
The relevant authorities and the Policy make it clear that:
(a)a person can fail to establish that they are of good character even if they have not been convicted of any criminal offences;[29] and
(b)it has long been held that dishonesty in migration and citizenship applications is indicative that a person is not of good character.[30]
[29]See for example, Chapter 11 of the Policy, at page 147 (extracted at [15] above) and decisions extracted at [19] and [20] above.
[30]For example, Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256.
As to the state of satisfaction required for “good character”:[31]
[54] Section 21(2)(h) requires the Minister to form a judgment as to whether he or she is satisfied that the applicant for citizenship is of good character. The word “satisfied” in that context is not amenable to the application of an evidentiary burden of proof, such as balance of probabilities. That is for at least two reasons. First, the decision is an administrative decision to which the rules of evidence are inapplicable and the evidentiary burden of proof inapposite…Second, the matter of which the Minister must be satisfied, the applicant’s good character, is not a fact to be proved but an opinion requiring an evaluative judgment. A standard of proof, such as balance of probabilities, is incapable of application to such an opinion….
[55] The absence of an evidentiary burden of proof does not mean that there is an absence of a legal standard of satisfaction. In the context of s 21(2)(h) of the Act, satisfaction requires that the decision-maker reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character. It is not sufficient for the decision-maker to believe that there is a chance that the applicant is a person of good character; equally it is not necessary for the decision-maker to have a high degree of confidence that the applicant is a person of good character…
(Emphasis added.)
[31]BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574.

As to referee reports (that is, character references), the Policy states:[32]
… [they] can shed light upon an applicant’s character and should acknowledge, where applicable, any offence or other incident and explain why the applicant is nonetheless considered to be of good character. Decision makers should give very little weight to references which do not acknowledge the offence or incident. However, decision makers should note the inherent bias in any reference which is submitted by an applicant in support of their citizenship application.
More weight should be given to references made as statutory declarations than those which are not. References should come from members of the community who have observed the applicant at work or in other contexts, or who are willing to provide contact details. Referees should also explain how long they have known the applicant for, and the context of their relationship. Decision makers are encouraged to contact referees and ask them questions to test their knowledge of the applicant, their relationship etc., if the referee provides adverse information in these discussions, this information should be put to the applicant for comment.
(Emphasis added.)
[32]The Policy p 155.
EVIDENCE
The matter was heard in Perth on 28 and 29 March 2023. The Applicant was represented by Mr Colin Soo of Australia One Migration. The Respondent was represented by Ms Daphne Jones-Bolla of Sparke Helmore Lawyers. Both parties appeared in person.
The Tribunal received the following evidence:
(a)Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC) dated 15 November 2022 (A1);
(b)Applicant’s bundle of documents filed on 30 August 2022 (A2);
(c)Applicant’s bundle of documents filed on 12 September 2022 (A3);
(d)Applicant’s bundle of documents filed on 5 November 2022 (A4);
(e)Respondent’s Section 37 T documents (T1-T28, consisting of 409 pages) filed on 25 February 2022 (R1);
(f)Respondent’s Supplementary T documents (ST1-ST3, consisting of 38 pages), filed on 10 October 2022 (R2);
(g)Respondent’s SFIC dated 10 October 2022 (R3).
In accordance with Tribunal’s directions, the parties filed additional documents following the hearing:
(a)Applicant’s closing written submissions and Statutory Declaration of Newrose Ali Javid, filed on 9 May 2023;
(b)Respondent’s closing written submissions filed on 15 May 2023;
(c)Applicant’s reply closing written submissions and additional evidence filed on 23 May 2023; and
(d)Respondent’s further closing written submissions filed on 8 June 2023.
The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Applicant[33] with the assistance of Mr Mohammad Amin Shahab, Hazaraghi interpreter. Mr Shahab appeared via MS Teams.
[33] The Applicant gave evidence in person and his statements and statutory declarations appear at R1, T5(b), T10(e), T22(e) and A2, pp 1-5 and 33-36.
The Tribunal also heard evidence from a number of the Applicant’s friends, who all gave evidence by telephone:
(a)Mr Assadullah Khurrami, the Applicant’s friend;[34]
(b)Dr Hossein Mohammadi, the Applicant’s friend;[35]
(c)Mr Mohammad Yaseen Hussaini, the Applicant’s friend;[36]
(d)Mr Newroze Ali Javid, the Applicant’s friend;[37] and
(e)Mr Latif Burhani, the Applicant’s friend.[38]
[34] Mr Khurrami’s statement appears at A2, p 39.
[35] Mr Mohammadi’s statement appears at A4, p 40.
[36] My Hussaini’s statutory declaration appears at A2, pp 37-38.
[37] Mr Javid’s statement appears at A3, p 3.
[38] Mr Burhani’s statutory declaration appears at A4, pp 1-2.
The Tribunal has also taken into account additional letters of support, including:[39]
(a)Mr Ali Hamidi, the Applicant’s friend;[40]
(b)Mr Arif Ruhan, the Applicant’s friend;
(c)Mr Ahmed Naveed, the Applicant’s friend;
(d)Mr Kazim Moien, the Applicant’s friend; and
(e)Mr Hieu Nguyen, the Applicant’s former colleague.
[39] These letters appear at R1, T23(a) to (d), unless otherwise stated.
[40] A3, pp 1-2.
The Tribunal has reviewed all of the material before it. The Tribunal is satisfied that all relevant evidence was before it and that both parties were provided an opportunity to address the evidence, either orally or in writing. Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the Tribunal will be analysed and referred to below.
CONSIDERATION
The issue for review by the Tribunal is whether the Applicant was, as at 2 February 2021,

of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
Whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is of good character
The Applicant
The Applicant made the following submissions in support of his claim that he is of good character for present purposes:[41]
[41] A1.
(a)He speaks fluent English, which is relevant to the Australian values statement[42] and hence to his good character,
[42] Citing the Migration (LIN 20/166: Australian Values Statement for Public Interest Criterion 4019) Instrument 2020.
(b)He has not committed any offences and does not associate with anyone who has.
(c)He is honest, financially responsible and has been regularly engaged in employment.
(d)He has not violent and has not caused harm to others.
(e)While he provided incorrect information about his father being dead and failed to disclose the existence of his older brother[43] until the Department asked him about these matters on 13 May 2021,[44] and other false and misleading information over a period of 11 years,[45] this did not occur in each and every instance of the Applicant’s dealings with the Department, he was young, immature, influenced by others to not disclose the information[46] and feared adverse credibility if he did so.
[43] The Applicant declared he did not disclose the existence of his older brother because his older brother had failed to help the Applicant and his family at the time they were trying to flee Pakistan (A2, pp 1-2).
[44] See [12]. The Applicant considers this weighs against his ‘good character assessment’ (A1 [34]) but does not detract from his overall good character when viewed in a holistic way (see for example, A1 [31]).
[45] This period being from the time the Applicant became aware his father was alive (in 2010) to the time he actually disclosed this information to the Department (in 2021). See [12(d)] above.
[46] See also transcript, pp 79 to 81.
(f)Where the Applicant has provided inconsistent dates, for example to the Department in 2010 compared to the Applicant’s statement in 2021:
(i)The Applicant’s 2021 statement was prepared without the benefit of having access to documents requested (but not provided) under Freedom of Information.
(ii)Date recall is rarely accurate and ‘may not be so important’ in certain cultures compared to Australia.
(iii)Information provided at the earlier time were approximations based on his recollections as a minor.
(g)The Applicant’s ‘false declarations’ are ‘not necessarily fatal,’ given that truthfulness is not an ‘absolute requirement, relying on a number of authorities,[47] including Shah and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2121 at [25]:
The legislation makes no specific provision to refuse citizenship upon the identification of a false or misleading statement in the application for citizenship or a migration application.
(h)There is no legislative or policy guidance advising the extent of detail ‘that a witness should describe regarding their knowledge of an Applicant’s bad character.’ The Applicant’s character references demonstrate positive revelations and factors including the Applicant’s involvement in community events, sporting activities, charitable pursuits, social and cultural activities and financial assistance provided to those in need. These references strongly suggest that the Applicant’s enduring moral qualities include altruism and helping the poor and the vulnerable.
[47] Being Dawlatshahi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2437 and Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2017] AATA 1086.
The Respondent
The Respondent’s position is that the Applicant is not of good character as required by s 21(2)(h) of the Act and that the Tribunal should affirm the Reviewable Decision, for the following reasons:[48]
[48]R3 [14], [23]-[45].
(a)The Applicant knowingly provided false or misleading personal information to the Department on multiple occasions over a period of 11 years[49] and did not make any attempt to correct the false information until the discrepancy was raised by the Department. This factor weighs significantly against a finding that the Applicant is of good character.
[49] In his protection visa claims in 2010, in his application for citizenship in 2015 and in his partner visa application in 2021.
(b)In relation to the false or misleading information provided in relation to the Applicant’s father and brother:[50]
[50] See R3 [24] to [43] and as set out at [11], [12] and [38(e)] above. The Applicant also provided inconsistent claims in respect of his work history, where he lived and regarding his education history and attendance at school: See R1; T5, p 68; T22, p 265; T5, p 69; T4, p 16; T4, p 36; T5, p 44 and T22, p 265.
(i)The Applicant’s misrepresentations began in about May 2010, shortly after he arrived in Australia as a 17 year old.
(ii)The Applicant’s claims that he did not disclose his brother because there were estranged and that he cut ties with his brother after his father died are inconsistent with records that reveal he sent funds to his brother Ahmad Ali Wafaq in 2011 and his later disclosure of his brother Ahmad Ali Wafaq in his application for migration to Australia by a partner in 2021, after the invitation to comment letter.
(iii)Regardless of the Applicant’s fears that the integrity of his claim would be questioned by the Department if he had disclosed his brother and earlier advised of his father being alive, and his claim that if he changed his statement that he would be deemed a liar and his application for a protection visa would be refused, the Applicant has failed to correct the information for a period of 11 years.
(iv)During this time, the Applicant continued to make false and misleading claims in his protection visa claims in 2010, in his application for citizenship in 2015 and his partner visa application in 2021. At no time did the Applicant correct the record, for example when he reconciled with his brother or when he became aware that his father was in fact alive.
(v)The applicant’s actions represent an ongoing pattern of behaviour and are not the characteristics of a person of good character.
(vi)Truthfulness in the completion of government documents, including applications for visa and citizenship, is to be treated as an absolute requirement and it is the responsibility of a citizenship applicant to ensure that information submitted by them or on their behalf is truthful.[51]
(c)The Applicant’s character references should be given limited, if any, weight in circumstances where these referees have limited or no knowledge or understanding of the incorrect information provided by the Applicant to the Department and/or are not in the form of a statutory declaration and/or speak of the Applicant’s character only in the context of his business relationships.
(d)Further, the Applicant’s behaviour generally in relation to his business, community and charitable endeavours does not mitigate his behaviour to provide false information knowingly and repeatedly to the Department; especially over an 11 year period and as recently as June 2021.
[51] Citing Fang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3686 at [97] and further noting that citizenship cannot be awarded on the basis of false statements (citing Re Nguyen and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 1082 at [82]-[84]).
As set out above, the issue is whether the Tribunal is satisfied, in that it can reach an affirmative belief, that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
The Applicant does not dispute that he provided false and misleading information about his father and his older brother to the Department on numerous occasions over an 11 year period, including during his visa and citizenship applications.[52] The Tribunal accepts the authorities support the position that truthfulness in the completion of government documents, including applications for visa and citizenship, is to be treated as an absolute requirement and it is the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the submitted information in truthful. The Applicant failed to do so.
[52] See for e.g., transcript, pp 30, 31, 34, 36, 46, 48, 49, 64-68, 73, 74, 76 and 79.
Therefore, what remains for the Tribunal is required to consider is whether any mitigating circumstances and/or explanation provided by the Applicant outweigh this behaviour, looking holistically at the Applicant’s behaviour over a lasting or enduring period of time.
In this context, the Tribunal has considered the Applicant’s argument that briefly, is that there is no law compelling a decision maker to make a ‘negative finding’ on good character where a false or misleading statement is made. The Applicant argues that therefore, it is still open for the Tribunal to decide that he is of good character notwithstanding his having provided false and misleading information to the Department.
The Applicant cited a number of authorities in which the respective applicants were found to be of good character pursuant to s21(2)(h) of the Act in circumstances where they had provided false information to the Department.[53] The facts of these decisions are distinguishable from the Applicant’s matter. In any event, in circumstances where the Applicant has provided false information as recently as 2021,[54] the Tribunal is not satisfied that sufficient time has passed for a finding that he is now of good character.
[53] Dawlatshahi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2437; Shah and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 2121; Ahmadi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2017] AATA 1086.
[54] In his partner visa application in 2021: R2, ST3.
The Applicant gave evidence that he chose to maintain his lie regarding his father to the Department rather than correct the information because he feared his visa would be cancelled, that he might not be able to bring his wife and daughter to Australia and he wanted to achieve a positive outcome with his citizenship application.[55]
[55] See, for eg, transcript, p 59 and R1, T22, p 266
The Applicant claims to be remorseful for his actions, however he continues to excuse his actions by laying blame on additional factors such as poor memory, language barriers, cultural differences and referring to his actions as a misunderstanding.
The Applicant also claims that he did not know how to correct the information he false provided.[56] However, in 2018 he rectified a mistake in his name through correspondence to the Department.[57]
[56] A2, at [18].
[57] R2, ST2, p 5.
Overall, while the Applicant’s claimed reasons do serve to provide an explanation for his conduct, the Tribunal is of the view that his reasons do not mitigate his conduct in circumstances where he failed to rectify his conduct over an 11 year period and when he had the ability to do so.
Character references
The Applicant’s character referees know generally that the Applicant provided false information regarding his father and brother.
However, Dr Mohammadi and Mr Javid both maintained that they prepared their respective statements from scratch in circumstances where those statements were substantially identical. At hearing, Mr Javid accepted that some paragraphs are identical to those in Mr Mohammadi’s statement.[58] As such, the Tribunal gives no weight to either statement.
[58] See transcript, p 153. Following the hearing, Mr Javid provided a statutory declaration dated 3 May 2023. This evidence was filed after the conclusion of the hearing. The Tribunal is of the view that it need not determine whether or not it accepts Mr Javid’s subsequent evidence, in circumstances where it gives no weight to any evidence provided by Mr Javid in any event in light of his earlier written statement (at A3, p 3) being virtually identical to Mr Mohammadi’s statement (A4, p 40). For completeness, the Tribunal did not admit into evidence further additional statutory declarations and related documentations filed after the conclusion of the hearing on the basis that evidence has not been tested.
Mr Khurrami gave evidence that the Applicant told him that his citizenship application was refused due to a miscommunication or misunderstanding. Similarly, Mr Mohammadi characterised the Applicant’s conduct as negligence and that the Applicant told him he did not give false information on purpose. In either case, this is not the case and limited weight can be given to Mr Khurammi’s evidence.
Overall, in the circumstances and referring to the Policy,[59] the Applicant’s character references do not compel a finding that the Applicant is of good character. The references are written by people who could be expected to support the Applicant, namely his friends and community contacts. Limited weight should be placed on their views as to the Applicant’s character by reason of that lack of objectivity.
[59] Extracted at [29] above.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character for the purpose of s 21(2)(h) of the Act. The Applicant’s character references and stated reasons and explanations for his conduct do not outweigh the significant matters against him. These matters are that he failed to correct false and misleading information given to the Department regarding his father and older brother his protection visa claims in 2010, his application for citizenship in 2015 and his partner visa application in 2021.
DECISION
The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated 5 January 2022 to refuse the Applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral, is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 54 (fifty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of L M Gallagher, Member

................[Sgd]........................................................
Associate:
Dated: 19 January 2024

Date(s) of hearing: 28 March & 29 March 2023

Advocate for the Applicant: Colin Soo, Australia One Migration

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Daphne Jones-Bolla, Sparke Helmore

Date(s) of hearing:	28 March & 29 March 2023
Advocate for the Applicant:	Colin Soo, Australia One Migration
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Daphne Jones-Bolla, Sparke Helmore