Wang and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by Yong Wang, which had been refused by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The refusal was based on the applicant not satisfying the good character requirement, stemming from allegations by Chinese authorities that she had engaged in fraudulent dealings and absorbed public funds while working in China, leading to a detention warrant being issued for her. The applicant contended that these were mere allegations without supporting material and that she was of good character. The decision under review was made by Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant, Yong Wang, was of "good character" for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine if it could form an affirmative belief that the applicant was a person of good character, a determination that involved an evaluative judgment rather than the application of a strict evidentiary burden of proof. The Tribunal also had to consider the weight to be given to allegations made by foreign authorities and the potential implications for international cooperation, although the Senior Member indicated these broader issues were not central to the narrow question of character.

The Senior Member reasoned that the assessment of good character under section 21(2)(h) required the Tribunal to reach an affirmative belief, not merely a belief that there was a chance the applicant was of good character. Applying this standard, and after considering the applicant's evidence, her admissions regarding minor inconsistencies in previous forms (attributed to reliance on a migration agent), and the lack of any adverse record in Australia, the Senior Member formed a strong belief that the applicant was of good character. The Tribunal found that the allegations from Chinese authorities, while noted, did not provide sufficient grounds to doubt the applicant's good character, particularly in light of character witnesses attesting to her generosity and willingness to help others, and her stable home life and religiosity.

Consequently, the Senior Member set aside the decision under review, finding it was wrongly based on the applicant not being of good character. The matter was remitted to the Respondent with a direction that the applicant satisfies the good character requirement under section 21(2)(h) of the Act.