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

[2020] AATA 4085

WDNJ and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 4085 (14 October 2020)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2019/8194

Re:WDNJ

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal: Mr S Evans, Member

Date:14 October 2020

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is set aside and the matter is remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that the Applicant satisfies section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship 2007 Act (Cth).

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

Mr S Evans, Member

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – whether the Applicant is of good character – common assault – domestic violence – good behaviour bond – whether the Applicant has demonstrated good/enduring moral qualities –  Citizenship Policy – decision under review set aside 

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – s 18B

Australian Citizenship 2007 Act (Cth) – ss 21(1), 21(2)(h), 24(1)

CASES

Belkahe and Minister for Home Affairs [2019] AATA 4472

Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422; [1996] FCA 663

Kakar and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 132

Mendoza and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 686

Sharma and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 608

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Australian Citizenship Policy

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr S Evans, Member

14 October 2020

1. The Applicant seeks review of a decision of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (“the Minister” or “the Respondent”) to refuse his application for Australian citizenship on the basis that he did not meet the good character requirement.

   INTRODUCTION

2. The Applicant is a 38 year old citizen of Iran who first arrived in Australia in August 2010 as the holder of a Spouse (Provisional) (subclass 309). In May 2012, the Applicant became the holder of a Spouse (subclass) 100 visa, which is currently in place. He applied for Australian citizenship by conferral on 10 August 2018.  On 27 November 2019, a delegate of the Minister refused his application as the delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant was of good character pursuant to section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship 2007 Act (Cth) (“the Act”) on account of his criminal conviction. 

   Hearing

3. The matter was heard on 29 July 2020 and the Applicant, his legal representative and the legal representative for the Minister, all appeared via video conference in accordance with the COVID-19 Special Measures Practice Direction given under section 18B of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The witnesses for the Applicant appeared by video conference or telephone. The Applicant and witnesses provided evidence to the Tribunal under affirmation.

4. For the reasons which follow, the decision under review will be set aside. 

   ISSUES FOR THE TRIBUNAL

5. The sole issue for determination is whether, at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, the Applicant is of good character within the meaning of section 21(2)(h) of the Act.

   LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

6. Under section 21(2)(h) of the Act, a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if, among other things, the Minister is satisfied that the applicant:

   “is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application”.

   Determining questions of character

7. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. Section 24(1) of the Act provides that if a person makes an application under s 21 of the Act, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

8. The term "good character" is not defined or qualified by the Act. Its meaning was considered by the Full Court in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government & Ethnic Affairs[1] (“Irving”) in the context of the power of the Minister to refuse to issue a visa. Justice Davies said:

   It should also be observed that the term "good character" is not precise in its denotation. In one sense, it refers to the mental and moral qualities which an individual has. In another sense, it refers to the individual's reputation or repute: See Oxford English Dictionary, meanings 11, 12 and 13; The Macquarie Dictionary meanings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Necessarily, when decisions are made in Australia under the Act in relation to persons who are overseas, greater attention tends to be given to objective facts and to reputation or repute rather than to a detailed analysis of the person's inherent qualities. I do not suggest that, in the context, "good character" refers to reputation and repute as such. It does not. But criminal convictions or the absence of them and character references are likely to be an important source of primary information. If there is a criminal conviction, the decision-maker will have regard to the nature of the crime to determine whether or not it reflected adversely upon the character of the applicant. If the conviction was in the past, the decision-maker will turn his attention to whether or not the applicant has shown that he has reformed. If persons speak well of the applicant, the decision-maker will take that into account.[2]

   [1](1996) 68 FCR 422; [1996] FCA 663.

   [2] (1996) 68 FCR 422 at [425].

9. To similar effect, Lee J said:

   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 to 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 whilst 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.[3]

   [3] Idem at [431].

10. In Kakar and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[4] (“Kakar”) the Tribunal stated:

    When criminal offences have been committed by an applicant they will obviously be taken into account. The extent to which the existence of criminal conduct will weigh in the scales against a finding of good character will depend upon many things including the seriousness of the crime, the length of time since its commission and the degree of rehabilitation of the offender.[5]

    [4] [2002] AATA 132.

    [5] Idem at [14].

11. The Department’s official guide for decision makers, the Citizenship Policy (“the Policy”), provides guidance for decision makers in determining whether the Applicant is of good character.

12. Informed by the discussion in Irving, the Policy provides 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.[6]

    [6] The Policy, Chapter 11 – Character, p146.

13. The Policy specifically calls for the decision maker to look holistically at an applicant's behaviour over a lasting or enduring period of time[7]. Relevantly, the Policy calls upon decision makers to consider if the applicant has committed an offence, and whether that offence was a serious or minor offence.[8]

    [7] Idem, p 150.

    [8] Idem, p 156.

14. The Policy also notes that minor offences may include offences that lead to a finding of guilt, but no conviction or sentence. In each Australian jurisdiction there are sentencing arrangements for summary offences where there is discretion not to record conviction.

15. The Tribunal was guided by these considerations in determining if the Applicant meets the good character requirement for Australian citizenship.

    BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE

    Background

16. The Applicant was born in 1982 in Iran. He married Ms MH in January 2009. Relevantly, Ms MH was previously married to the Applicant’s uncle, who had died in 2008. Ms MH and the Applicant’s uncle had two children together, a son and a daughter. Their son died in an accident in 2006. The Applicant and Ms MH separated in 2017 and formally divorced in August 2018.

    The Applicant’s offending

17. NSW Police Agreed Facts record that on 11 June 2015, after consuming dinner at home, the Applicant and Ms MH were seated on the lounge in the living room when Ms MH received a message on her phone from her brother.

    As a result of this message, an argument ensued between the couple. The accused [the Applicant] stated, ‘You don’t love me like you love your family. You’re [sic] family don’t like me. You do not do your duties properly and there is not need for you to study. Go and make me tea.’

    The victim [Ms MH] agreed to making the tea on the basis that the accused said, ‘Please’.

    The accused become further enraged thus, the victim make his tea and upon serving it, he threw it on the carpet as they continued to argue breaking the glass and shattering it. Both children began to scream and cry as did the victim who feared for her safety and wellbeing.

    A heated argument continued and as the victim began to clean the shattered glass up, the accused got up off the lounge, standing over the victim grabbing the left side of her shirt as she stood up causing it to rip. The victim has suffered two red marks across her chest measuring about 7cm in length. The victim has hit the accused back in self defence and according to her, was unsuccessful in removing herself from him.

    Using his right closed fist, the accused punched the victim before pinching the victim’s upper right arm leaving a small bruise before pushing her into the bedroom.

    Once in the bedroom, the accused grabbed the victim’s hair on the back of her head driving it into the bed back and forth. A short time later, the accused has driven a punch to the victim’s back as the heated argument continued.

    Both children were present for the entire incident and were emotional as they cried and screamed. The victim states she was scared of the accused and felt immediate pain during the assaults.

18. Following the incident, the Applicant was charged with common assault (domestic violence) and subsequently convicted and fined $500. He was required to enter into a 12 month good behaviour bond and directed to attend counselling and a domestic violence perpetrators program.

19. NSW Police records show that Ms MH called the police on 9 July 2018 to report that the Applicant had repeatedly attended her home and approached her in public unannounced between 6 and 8 July 2018, requesting to see his youngest child. No charges were laid against the Applicant but he was formally informed that he must arrange appropriate visitation times to see his children. The specifics of the incident were put to the Applicant at the hearing and for reasons which I will explain, the incident has not been given significant weight in determining if the Applicant is of good character.

    Evidence of the Applicant

20. The Applicant told the Tribunal that when he arrived in Australian in 2010, he did not understand ‘the issues’ his then wife had with her mental health. He said that the death of her first husband and the passing of their child had a lasting impact on her emotional state. He encouraged her to seek psychological help so that she could get better. In a submission on behalf of the Applicant it is written in part:

    When [the Applicant] came to Australia he did not know how to handle the issues that [Ms MH] had. The first month [Ms MH] could not sleep [the Applicant] would take put her in the car and drive around to help her settle. [Their child] needed care. [the Applicant] told [Ms MH] on numerous occasions to go see he[r] doctor. She went and was given sedatives. [Ms MH] overdosed on the sedatives when she was home alone with her daughter. When [the Applicant] arrived home he rang the ambulance and she was admitted to [hospital]. Her stomach contents were washed out and she told the doctors she took the medication because she did not think the prescribed amount was the correct dosage.

21. After the Applicant arrived in Australia, Ms MH became depressed and he tried to do all he could to help her but she refused help. The Applicant said he was working and helping her with the running of the household and that they had a child together. As neither he nor Ms MH had family in Australia, it was just the couple and their children. Ms MH became more depressed and their home life continued to worsen. He worked during the day and when he would come home, she would criticise him for cooking ‘smelly’ food.

22. The Applicant acknowledged that prior to 2015, the couple had argued but he maintains there had been no abuse. In relation to the offending, he told the Tribunal that on the evening of 11 June 2015, he returned home at 9pm after work and the children had not been fed. He indicated that this was not unusual as Ms MH regularly allowed the couple’s young children to stay up until midnight. He said that Ms MH would send the children to school late and he would manage them in the mornings which often made him late for work, which he found stressful and upsetting.

23. Recalling the evening of the assault, the Applicant told the Tribunal that when he arrived in Australia, his English was poor and until that evening, he had never had any dealings with the police. He told the Tribunal that he was generally stressed at the time and that after he was arrested he was terrified and needed advice. He says that at the time, he did not know that what he had done to his wife was wrong. The Applicant maintains that in Iran problems within families were not dealt with outside the household and that the concept of talking about domestic problems with authorities made him feel ashamed.

24. Though he does not deny the assault took place, he claims that the combination of rudimentary English skills, lack of familiarity with local laws, never having dealt with police and the feeling of shame arising from discussing his domestic affairs led him to leave Ms MH’s account of the incident unchallenged and unaltered. 

25. The Applicant maintains that he feels sad and upset about the assault and concedes that it should never have happened. He said that on that evening of the offending, he could not control himself and he was upset. In a written statement he submits in part:

    The incident started with a heated argument which never should have happened. My ex-wife and I tried to reconcile but it did not work out. We are now divorced and are living separately. However, we do go out together with the children and we have some very nice times together.

26. The Applicant confirmed that he did not attend a specific anger management course and was unclear about whether he considered that he had a problem related to anger. He said that he had spoken to his counsellor who had ‘educated’ him. He said that after the assault, he and Ms MH had reconciled but the problems between them remained and eventually proved insurmountable. He was particularly concerned about what he saw as her ‘neglect’ for their children.

27. He said that in 2017, they began living separately and he would see their children every two weeks. The couple maintained informal childcare arrangements and on 9 July 2018, Ms MH called the police to report that the Applicant was attending her house. The Applicant explained to police that Ms MH was not responding to his SMS or phone messages seeking to arrange for him to see his children. Ms MH told the police that the Applicant had also approached them at a shopping centre on 6 July 2018 but he maintains this was a chance encounter. As a result of the report, the Applicant was formally informed that he must arrange appropriate visitation times to see his child. The Applicant submits that at the time, he provided the police with copies of the text messages exchanged between himself and Ms MH and he was told by police that he had not done anything wrong.

28. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he and Ms MH now have regular contact with each other. He has also provided photos which demonstrate he still has regular contact with his children and has provided evidence that he pays child support. He has also provided evidence that he continues to provide Ms MH with money separate to his child support obligations when she requires it.

    Report of Seyed Hosseinipour – psychologist

29. Seyed Hosseinipour is a registered psychologist who has been treating the Applicant for his depression and relationship problems since June 2015. In a report dated 1 March 2020, Mr Hosseinipour writes that when he first began treatment, the Applicant was suffering from ‘reactive depressive mood following ongoing marital conflict and dispute’. He confirmed that the Applicant completed his marriage related anger management and conflict resolution sessions but resolved to continue counselling and has done so for over four years.

30. Mr Hosseinipour states that the Applicant ‘has never had any anger problem outside his family environment’. After considering the general risk factors and assessing the Applicant, he opines that the Applicant’s ‘primary factor to his anger was relationship problem and as a result; reactive depression’. He concludes that the Applicant’s reactive depression has been successfully treated and his risk of reoffending is the same as that of a non-offender’s.

31. In evidence, Mr Hosseinipour provided a detailed analysis of his treatment of the Applicant and the Applicant’s progress.  He confirmed that the Applicant was concerned that his children were neglected by Ms MH and that she was not interested in caring for the children. He reasons that at the time of the offence the Applicant was a young man who was not ‘sufficiently educated’ and had not been provided an opportunity to integrate into the Australian community. Having treated the Applicant for five years, Mr Hosseinipour considers that the Applicant does not have any personality problems nor an anger problem. He notes that the Applicant is ‘very kind, soft towards others’ and never gets angry at his children. Mr Hosseinipour has worked with the Applicant to alter his values system specifically in regards to raising children, parenting in Australia, the rights of others and expectations in the western world. He claims that within six months of treatment beginning, the Applicant ‘became normal again’. Whilst acknowledging that the Applicant’s condition was initially ‘severe’, Mr Hosseinipour reported that the Applicant responded well to treatment which included medication.

32. Mr Hosseinipour also worked with Ms MH. He said that Ms MH never told him that the Applicant was angry. He said that the Applicant may benefit from further counselling but that it is not crucial. He maintains that the Applicant now has the tools to manage interpersonal relationships effectively. The Applicant knows that the marriage was wrong and knows how to remove himself from a situation which he reacts badly to.

    Reports

33. On behalf of the Applicant, the Tribunal has been presented with a thesis titled Mental Health and Psychological Help-Seeking of Iranian International Students at UNSW Australia, the Code of Practice for the NSW Police Force Response to Domestic and Family Violence and an article titled Domestic Violence in Australia – an overview of the issues. Having considered this material, I do not consider it to be of relevance to the issues to be determined.

    References

    Mohammed Ahmadi, employer

34. The Applicant’s employer, Mr Ahmadi provided a statement in support of the Applicant and also gave evidence at the hearing under affirmation. He explained that the Applicant has been working for him as a chef since 2012 and his responsibilities included opening the shop, preparing for the day ahead and serving customers. He testified that the Applicant is an honest worker and that he has never received any complaints about his work.

1. Whilst initially unaware of the problems between the Applicant and Ms MH, one day Mr Ahmadi told the Applicant that ‘he did not look good’ and consequently the Applicant opened up to him about his personal issues.

2. Mr Ahmadi explained that he had met Ms MH previously and that she changed after losing her husband and son. In a written statement, he submits that he acted as an intermediary between the Applicant and his ex-wife during the time of conflict between them. He reports that the Applicant has been remorseful and that he has watched the Applicant ‘transform into a ‘more managed person’.  In the eight years that Mr Ahmadi has employed the Applicant, ‘he has not shown any aggression or anger during this period’.

3. The Applicant has also tendered a number of statutory declarations in support of his application.  These include statements from Mr Karimi, who is the Applicant’s friend and Mr Solmaz, the Applicant’s colleague. Mr Karimi writes that he used to live in the same apartment building as the Applicant and his ex-wife and children. He writes that the Applicant was ‘very upset’ with himself for his offending and was ‘ashamed, embarrassed, humiliated with his behaviour’. He writes also that he knows the Applicant to be a ‘gentle soul’ who is ‘always very calm’. Mr Solmaz also confirms he is aware of the Applicant’s offending and writes he finds it ‘hard to imagine’ that he was involved in domestic violence. He said that the Applicant expressed how sorry he was for what he put his wife and children through.

4. The Applicant’s mother and sister also provided statements in support of him. His mother acknowledges that the Applicant has had ‘family issues’ and indicates that she mediated to help ‘mitigate his sadness and improve his family situation’.

   CONSIDERATION

5. The Respondent contends that the Applicant does not meet the character test in the Act on account of his common assault conviction and the limited period of time that has passed since the Applicant’s obligations to the Court ceased in August 2016. It was also submitted that crimes of violence against women are viewed particularly seriously and that the offending took place in the presence of children.

6. It is argued that the Applicant’s offending is not limited to just the 2015 conviction, and that he has three driving offences for exceeding the speed limit, though it is conceded that these are ‘less serious’. The Respondent also submits that the incident reported in June 2018 is a relatively recent interaction between the Applicant and his ex-wife which indicates that there was ongoing conflict between them. It is further submitted that the evidence of Mr Hosseinipour that the Applicant and Ms MH often argued is suggestive that the domestic violence was not an isolated incident.

7. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s offending was serious. A crime of violence in a domestic setting directed towards a woman is serious and undoubtably exacerbated by the presence of young children.

8. In relation to the July 2018 complaint detailed in the NSW Police Incident report, the Applicant explained that he was trying to contact Ms MH and that she had not returned his calls and text messages. He conceded that he had attended her house on one occasion but maintains that he had met Ms MH in the shopping centre by accident. He does not recall seeing her near the train station as reported by Ms MH. Whilst the police spoke to the Applicant, he was not charged with any crime and the Applicant submits he was told he had not done anything wrong. Text messages between the Applicant and Ms MH have been submitted in evidence which indicate they had a cordial relationship at that time which was appropriately centred on the care of the children. The Respondent notes that there are no text messages in evidence from 7 July 2018 which is one of the dates when the Applicant was alleged to have approached his ex-wife and submits that the messages are ‘argumentative in tone’. Noting that the text messages may be incomplete, I consider that the content of the messages is more appropriately described as civil and matter of fact rather than argumentative.

9. The Policy requires that the Tribunal consider the Applicant’s ‘enduring moral qualities’. The circumstances are such that the Applicant arrived in a new country with his wife and lived here for 5 years without incident or interaction with the police until June 2015. The domestic violence offence whilst serious was, it would appear, an aberration given it is the only criminal offence for which he has been either charged or convicted over a period exceeding ten years.

10. The Applicant contends that the offending occurred following an argument about his ex-wife’s care of their children. Based on the evidence, I accept that he cares deeply for his children and it may be that their welfare was a factor in the argument between the Applicant and Ms MH. It does not excuse his behaviour in assaulting his wife and nor does it ameliorate the seriousness of the offending.

11. It is relevant in considering the ‘characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time’ that the Applicant has demonstrated meaningful care for his children. Notably, he has not told his step-daughter that he is not her biological father and continues to care and provide for her financially as his own after separating from her mother. I consider this a significant indicator of the Applicant’s character.

12. The Applicant demonstrated his ability to ‘distinguish right from wrong’ by seeking counselling following his offending. In relation to his rehabilitation, the Respondent contends that the Applicant has not undertaken adequate rehabilitation. In the context of the Applicant conceding that he was not aware that the domestic violence was a crime at the time of the offence, it is argued that the Applicant’s rehabilitation is inadequate.

13. The Applicant has completed 31 sessions with Mr Hosseinipour since his offending. He has done so over a period exceeding four years. He writes that he regrets his offending and understands the seriousness of domestic violence and has completed ‘10 sessions of anger management’. In hearing Mr Hosseinipour’s evidence, it is apparent that he worked through the offending, the immediate behaviour change that was required to prevent further such incidents and progressed into therapy to address other issues that the Applicant wanted to work on including his relationship with Ms MH. The Tribunal came to understand through Mr Hosseinipour’s testimony that the initial focus was on assisting the Applicant to manage his anger. Whilst his diagnosis of ‘reactive depression’ may lend itself to misinterpretation, I was reassured by Mr Hosseinipour’s credentials, the long period over which he has worked with the Applicant and his obvious understanding of the Applicant including all aspects of his offending coupled with a detailed knowledge of his personal circumstances.

14. In making a decision about whether a person is of good character, I am required to consider an aggregate of qualities and to look holistically at the Applicant. I note that the Applicant has worked consistently since arriving in Australia and his employer speaks well of him and values his contribution over a period approaching a decade. This is a mitigating factor which weighs in favour of the Applicant. I consider also that the Applicant disclosed his offending on his initial application.

15. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that ‘the quantitative assessment of domestic violence should be communicated when using the term [domestic violence] to describe the criminal activity of a person who has engaged in violence within a relationship. Not doing so may result in the stigmatisation, discrimination and further punishment of a person who has engaged in unlawful violence when that violence may be episodic or resulting from specific stressors’. This, it is argued, requires taking into consideration the Applicant’s background.

16. The question of the application of the character provisions in the Act and domestic violence has been considered by the Tribunal previously. In the decision of Mendoza and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)[9], Senior Member Puplick observed that ‘the Australian community, rightly, professes zero tolerance for violence against women’. The Respondent directs the Tribunal to the matter of Sharma and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[10] where Deputy President Constance found that domestic violence is conduct that is ‘fundamentally inconsistent with the standard of behaviour expected by the Australian community and usually weighs heavily against an individual being of good character’.

    [9] [2018] AATA 686 at [48].

    [10] [2015] AATA 608 at [37].

17. Consistent with these matters, in Belkahe and Minister for Home Affairs[11] Senior Member Kirk observed that ‘[a]pplicants for citizenship who have been convicted of domestic violence offences face a high bar in establishing that they are a person of “good character”’.

    [11] [2019] AATA 4472 at [62].

18. In considering the factors identified in Kakar, I am satisfied that the Applicant has genuinely worked hard on his rehabilitation. He has worked with Mr Hosseinipour to address his behaviour, his anger and mental health.  His employer vouches for the growth in personal development which is evident from that work. Consequently, I do not accept the Respondent’s contention that the rehabilitative efforts are inadequate relative to the offending.

19. It is submitted on behalf of the Applicant that he has the support of his family and access to his daughter and step-daughter and that this, along with his character references, indicates he ‘maintains a good reputation across the community in which he has presence’. I accept the Respondent’s contention that limited weight should be provided to references from family members in accordance with the Policy which notes the ‘inherent bias’ in any reference submitted by an applicant’s family members. However, the references from Mr Karimi, Mr Solmaz and Mr Ahmadi all speak to his regret over the assault and efforts to better himself which I accept.

20. Whilst I have concerns about the length of time that has passed since the Applicant’s offending, I note that having lived in Australia for ten years, the 2015 assault conviction is his sole offence, save for three traffic infringements which the Respondent concedes are less serious.

21. In considering the Applicant holistically, it is relevant that he continues to care for his step-daughter as his own. He supports both her and his biological daughter financially and maintains a positive parental relationship with both children. The tragic circumstances which Ms MH experienced prior to marrying the Applicant add weight to his account of the difficulties he described experiencing soon after he arrived in Australia. Whilst the Applicant’s description of Ms MH’s mental health challenges was inelegant, the evidence supports the proposition that he tried hard to help Ms MH manage her mental health and to actively support her. Having reached the point that the couple decided to separate, the Applicant continues to provide support, including financial support, to Ms MH.

    CONCLUSION

22. Having considered the totality of the circumstances for the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant meets the requirements of ‘good character’ as per section 21(2)(h) of the Act.  The Applicant committed an offence in the past which a person of good character would not have committed, but this does not permanently preclude him from obtaining Australian citizenship. The Applicant has demonstrated remorse and accountability for his actions and he has taken active steps to rehabilitate himself whilst continuing to support his ex-wife and children.

23. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant is of “good character” for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the Act.

    DECISION

24. The decision under review is set aside and remitted to the Respondent with the direction that the Applicant satisfies section 21(2)(h) of the Act.

59.     I certify that the preceding 58 (fifty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of

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

Associate

Dated: 14 October 2020

Date(s) of hearing:	29 July 2020
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms G Refik
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr H McLaurin