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

[2022] AATA 510

WYZG and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2022] AATA 510 (18 February 2022)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2018/4387

Re:WYZG  

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member

Date:18 February 2022  

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and decides in substitution that the Applicant satisfies the requirements of s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

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

Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – identity – inconsistencies in personal data provided previously – taskera issued in absentia by Afghanistan authorities – whether details of life story corroborated – decision set aside and substituted

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Secondary Materials

Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Citizenship Procedural Instructions, (30 April 2019) CPI 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report: Afghanistan (Report, 27 June 2019)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member

18 February 2022

BACKGROUND

1. Mr Applicant applied on 29 July 2018 to review a decision of an officer of the Department of Home Affairs dated 3 July 2018. The officer refused to grant citizenship by conferral to the Applicant on the grounds that the officer was not satisfied of Mr Applicant’s identity.

2. Mr Applicant is a gentleman of Hazara ethnicity who first arrived in Australia on 26 November 1999 without a visa. Mr Applicant was granted a permanent Protection visa on 4 May 2005, and a Resident Return visa on 4 April 2011. He applied for citizenship on 3 December 2015.

3. The decision record notes that Mr Applicant provided several documents, all of Australian origin, with his application, including: a Victorian driver licence; an Australian Titre de Voyage; and a Medicare card. Mr Applicant was asked in writing on three occasions between 8 August 2017 and 15 March 2018 to provide further documents, including certified copies of any original identity documents.

4. The decision record notes that Mr Applicant stated in his citizenship application that he was unable to provide a birth certificate. It also notes that he had not provided any identity documents issued prior to his arrival in Australia, and had not responded to the written requests. Accordingly, the officer stated: ‘In the absence of any information or documentation to support your identity since your birth, at the time of this decision I am not satisfied of your identity’.

5. Mr Applicant was represented before the Tribunal. In addition to lodging written submissions, dated 20 June 2019 and 22 September 2021, Mr Applicant lodged a substantial body of material following lodgement of the original application. The relatively protracted life of this matter is the result of steps undertaken by Mr Applicant to provide various documents, as well as corresponding efforts at verification of those documents by the Respondent.

6. The Respondent lodged a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC), an Amended SFIC, as well as documents pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (T documents) (116 pages), Supplementary T documents (ST documents) (662 pages), and a bundle of selected material relied on by the Applicant (A) (28 pages).

7. The Applicant was the only witness at the hearing, and assistance was provided by a Dari-speaking interpreter.

   LEGISLATION

8. Under s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act) the Minister must not approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless satisfied of the person’s identity.

9. Beyond this, satisfaction as to identity is addressed in a series of policy documents. The relevant policies are an overarching Policy Statement (ST1) and Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (ST2) (CPI 16).

10. The Policy Statement contains no material of direct relevance here as it appears largely to restate the legislation. CPI 16 refers at paragraph 2.1 to a further document, the National Identity Proofing Guidelines, which is a document of the Attorney-General’s Department (the guidelines). The guidelines are described as serving as a benchmark for standards related to issues of identity.

11. Drawing on the guidelines, CPI 16 states at paragraph 4.2 (quoting the guidelines):

    A person’s identity is not a fixed concept; it is highly dependent on context. It is some combination of characteristics or attributes that allow a person to be uniquely distinguished from others within a specific context.

12. At paragraph 4.4 of CPI 16, the instruction states decision making about identity relies upon ‘three pillars’ of identity, being:

    (a)biometrics, or personal physical identifiers, including images;

    (b)documents, noting that only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar, meaning if they are ‘issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features’; and

    (c)life story, which is defined as a ‘narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present’, stating further that consideration is to be given to information and details correlating to the events.

13. Having set out the three pillars, CPI 16 states that a single pillar alone should not be relied upon as this is not considered a generally reliable basis to establish a person’s identity.

14. At paragraph 4.5 of CPI 16, the instructions include a relatively detailed discussion of different naming conventions which includes the recording a single name only, and the different order of names used in some countries. This discussion also gives the example of the use of a father’s name as a family name, and the apparent absence of a surname in Islamic cultures.

15. At paragraph 4.7 of CPI 16, the instruction addresses how to assess changes to attributes of a person’s identity. Decision makers are encouraged to consider reasons for any changes and some examples are provided of instances in which ‘particular care and sensitivity’ is to be used, including: indigenous Australians who may have little or no documentation; British and Maltese child migrants who may have limited documentation; and people born in Australia whose births have not been registered.

16. An evidence-based approach to assessing identity is encouraged, and CPI 16 states at paragraph 4.12 that it is not sufficient to be satisfied of a person’s identity at a single point in time. Rather, using the three pillars, decision makers should build a chronology which, in most cases, commences with birth-documentation.

17. The assessment of documents is dealt with in paragraph 4.14. Here, CPI 16 states documents alone do not establish or verify a person’s identity but can provide an anchor to corroborate the information chronologically. It goes on: ‘the crucial element of a document, whether genuine or not, is the story the document tells’. Various examples are given in respect of fraudulent documents.

18. Finally, at paragraph 4.15 of CPI 16, assessment of life story is described as contributing to the creation of a complete picture of a person from birth. Information or documentation relating to life events ‘can be valuable’ when piecing together a timeline. One example provided is of identity when an individual became registered with the UNHCR.

19. In some instances, it is recognised that one pillar may be given more weight. For example, if a person is an undocumented stateless person, life story may be given more significant weight.

    ISSUES

20. There is a single issue in this matter which is whether I can be satisfied as to Mr Applicant’s identity as required by s 24 of the Act.

21. The Respondent at the hearing contended that there may be situations where an applicant’s life story might be sufficient, such as where it is impossible to provide documents. This, however, was said not to be such a case.

22. According to the Respondent, there are deficiencies in several key supporting documents provided by Mr Applicant which mean that this pillar weakens rather than strengthens Mr Applicant’s story.[1] More specifically, it is submitted that the Tribunal is not able to rely on Mr Applicant’s own taskera (the national identity document in Afghanistan), despite purportedly being issued under the auspices of the Afghan government. Further, it is contended there is a lack of detail about his life prior to his arrival in Australia.

    [1] I note the Respondent prepared a detailed guide to alleged inconsistencies in its Amended SFIC which I will summarise at a later point.

23. The Applicant’s representative submitted that Mr Applicant took all reasonable steps through the national authorities to obtain his identity document. With respect to his life story, it is contended that statutory declarations reinforce Mr Applicant’s story and that it has remained consistent throughout his time in Australia. It was noted that Mr Applicant is not literate, and that by virtue of his Hazara ethnicity, is a member of a persecuted minority and at risk in Afghanistan.

24. The status of the citizenship application of Mr Applicant’s wife was raised in Mr Applicant’s evidence. Accordingly, I asked the Respondent’s representative to provide a submission after the hearing on this issue. On 17 December 2021, the Tribunal was advised that the citizenship application had been refused on grounds unrelated to any issue arising in this matter. The Respondent’s representative maintained, as submitted at the hearing, that any decision made in respect of the separate application of Mr Applicant’s spouse did not have bearing on his own application.

25. Finally, I note that the Taliban captured Kabul in August 2021, some three months prior to the hearing in this matter. No specific submissions or evidence arose from this fact, but it was the subject of discussion at the hearing given the relevance in this matter of actions of the previous authorities with respect to issuing documentation.

    EVIDENCE

    Oral evidence

26. Mr Applicant stated in evidence that he grew up in Lashkargah, Helmand Province, Afghanistan. He attended school to ‘grade two or three’, and thereafter was apprenticed to a cobbler. He stated that he would bring materials for his work from Kandahar.

27. Mr Applicant stated that his father died when he was ten years old, and he has two brothers and two sisters. In summary:

    (a)the older brother (GN) moved away when their father died and married, and they received some news of his brother from time to time. GN now lives in Melbourne;

    (b)the younger brother stayed with the Applicant’s mother, including when they lived in Iran for a time. The younger brother lives in London now; and

    (c)his mother currently lives in Afghanistan with GN’s family.

28. Mr Applicant met his wife (N) prior to leaving Afghanistan. She is from Kandahar and they met as a result of a family link with her mother, describing his wife as a ‘niece’ to his mother. He arrived in Australia ‘close to 2000’ and travelled to Pakistan to marry N in Quetta in 2007.

29. When asked why N is described as ‘single’ in her taskera (A12), issued some months after their marriage, Mr Applicant responded ‘I don’t know’. He stated further that women do not obtain these documents themselves, and that N brought it to Australia when she came here in 2011. Mr Applicant here stated that it may have been provided to the Department in respect of her own citizenship application, which he described as ‘approved and finalised’.

30. It was put to Mr Applicant in cross-examination that his mother’s taskera was a fake, which he denied. Mr Applicant was aware that a verification process had been undertaken, but maintained despite this that ‘in the main registration book it is registered’.

31. Mr Applicant was asked how he had obtained a copy of GN’s taskera and also his own taskera. He stated that he travelled to the Embassy in Canberra and showed his father’s taskera as proof of identity, was interviewed, and the officials sent documents to Afghanistan to obtain Mr Applicant’s taskera.

32. Mr Applicant acknowledged that the English translation of his own taskera refers to GN’s taskera. The Respondent’s representative indicated that this passage of evidence had been intended to highlight that details on the identity documents of both his father and brother GN do not match that of Mr Applicant.

33. I ascertained from Mr Applicant at this point that he was not able to read at all in any language. A little later in his evidence Mr Applicant stated further that he had always received assistance in filling out forms and cannot do this by himself.

34. Mr Applicant was asked why his mother was described in a personal particulars form in an earlier visa matter (ST6, 294) as ‘[name omitted]’ when her name was documented as ‘[name omitted]’. He responded that when a woman is married in his culture a name is chosen for her by their in-laws, and ‘[name omitted]’ was the Dari name by which his mother had always been known. He did not know her real name until her taskera was provided later. Mr Applicant stated further that he had selected the family name ‘[name omitted]’ upon arrival in Australia as he had been told he needed a family name; he derived it from the Shia term ‘[name omitted]’.

35. Mr Applicant was asked why he stated in earlier documents (ST6) that his older brother GN was ‘missing’, and he responded this was because ‘he was no longer with us’. When asked why he used the same description for his younger brother, Mr Applicant said that he had stated his brother was deported from Iran, and was ‘not sure what it means’.

36. Further questions were put to Mr Applicant about apparent inconsistencies in statements he has made about having any national identity documents, for example when asked as part of a visa process in 2000 (ST6, 320) and his application for citizenship (T4, 86). In summary, Mr Applicant stated that he had said that when a child, his father obtained a taskera for him, that he does not have a birth certificate as such, and that his mother had advised that ‘everything was lost or left behind’.

    Documentary evidence

37. In an undated Statutory Declaration (A20) Mr Applicant states that he understood the Afghan Embassy in Canberra assisted him by communicating with authorities in Kabul to ‘issue me a taskira in absentia’. Friends and family ‘followed up with the authorities as per the Embassy’s instructions that a taskira in absentia would be processed and sent to Australia’.

38. The very broad personal background information Mr Applicant provided in evidence reflects that accepted by the Refugee Review Tribunal in its decision of 4 October 2004 (ST9, 395-424) recognising protection obligations. The Tribunal there was also satisfied that because of his minority status, there was more than a remote chance that should Mr Applicant return, he would be denied assistance and protection by the authorities, despite the Taliban no longer being in control of the country.

39. I consider it appropriate to summarise here the key issues identified in the Respondent’s Amended SFIC with respect to the documentary evidence.

40. Mr Applicant is said to have used three different names and/or identities:

    (a)[name omitted], born either on a date in January 1975 (T4, 84) or February 1975 (A7, 11), also spelled [name omitted] (ST6, 332);

    (b)[name omitted] born on a date in January 1975 (ST6, 273), also spelled [name omitted] (ST6, 300); and

    (c)[name omitted] born 1975 (ST6, 294).

41. Associated with these different identities are varying descriptions of Mr Applicant’s home location, also with two different dates of residence. Common to all of these is a reference to Lashkargah, and to Helmand (or in one case Elmand). One of the locations appears to be more detailed. Residence times vary from ‘Oct 1985 – Oct 1999’, and ‘1995-1999’.

42. Again in association with the three identities, there are seen to be variations in references made by Mr Applicant to family members:

    (a)his father is named [name omitted] with possible birth years of 1933, or 1934/35, and also names [name omitted] (T4, 88; A17; ST6, 294);

    (b)his mother is named [name omitted], [name omitted], [name omitted], [name omitted] and [name omitted] with possible birth years of 1952, or 1953/54 (A19; ST6, 242; ST6, 213); and

    (c)his wife is named N and [name omitted] (daughter of Z), with possible birth years of 1983, or 1984/85 (A12; ST6, 178).

43. The Respondent observes that from the documentary record, Mr Applicant and his mother appear to have provided, in interviews or other statements, a variety of accounts of the whereabouts of his siblings.

44. Finally, Mr Applicant is said to have stated: that he does not have a birth certificate (T4, 98); that he has a national identity card but had been unable to have it sent out from Afghanistan (ST9, 523); he does not have a taskera and therefore relies instead on that of his mother, wife and brother to establish his identity (A2, 5); and the Afghanistan National Statistics Agency (NSIA) informed the Department of Home Affairs that his mother’s taskera is not genuine (ST5, 85).

45. The Respondent makes certain specific contentions in its Amended SFIC about the provenance of the taskeras of Mr Applicant and his mother. With respect to these I note Mr Applicant lodged:

    (a)a taskera and translation (A7; A8) said to have been issued on 27 February 2021 in the name [name omitted], noting his father as [name omitted], and grandfather as [name omitted]. The document on its face was issued based on the taskera of Mr Applicant’s brother, identified as volume 2, Q 1384, p 42, no. 109;

    (b)a document and translation dated 17 March 2021 (A9; A10) said to be from the NSIA Helmand Province, referring to correspondence from the Executive Directorate of Services for Issuing Tazkera in Absentia noting the issuance of Mr Applicant’s taskera was based on his brother’s taskera (citing the related document numbers contained in the above document);

    (c)a document and translation dated in 2018 (A14; A15) said to be in the name [name omitted], noting the father as [name omitted] and grandfather as [name omitted], identified as volume J-12, p 93, no. 463;

    (d)a document and translation (A16; A17) said to be in the name [name omitted], noting the father as [name omitted]; and

    (e)a document and translation dated in 2007 (A18; A19) in the name [name omitted], identified as vol. 7, p 54, no. 268.

46. The Respondent lodged email correspondence from March 2020 (ST5) about steps taken to verify the taskera of Mr Applicant’s mother. After contacting authorities in Helmand by telephone, the NSIA states there that her taskera appears not to be based on a registered identity.

47. Finally, a number of documents are attached to Mr Applicant’s written submission of 22 September 2021. These are three statutory declarations, including one of Mr Applicant, together with copies of two identity documents for two of the deponents.

48. The other deponents are gentlemen who state that they knew Mr Applicant in Afghanistan, and both state explicitly they have always known him as [name omitted]. The first deponent states that he met Mr Applicant approximately 25 years ago when the deponent was running a shop in Kandahar, and that they met again in Melbourne and remain close friends. He states that Mr Applicant would stay with him in Kandahar.

49. The second deponent states that his father knew Mr Applicant’s family in Helmand, and that he got to know Mr Applicant when he stayed at their home in Kandahar. The deponent states that Mr Applicant’s brother-in-law recently married the deponent’s daughter, that they attend family gatherings, and that the deponent’s wife has looked after Mr Applicant’s children.

    CONSIDERATION

1. Further to the summary of contentions outlined above, the Respondent makes submissions in its Amended SFIC based around two of the pillars of identity.

2. With respect to documents, the Respondent submits:

   (a)the NSIA is responsible for managing and issuing taskeras;

   (b)the DFAT Country Information Report (ST3) warns about the prevalence of document fraud;

   (c)no process for verification of taskeras is currently in place; and

   (d)little evidence corroborates the use of official channels for Mr Applicant’s taskera in absentia, and were it to be considered properly issued, it appears to have been issued in part upon the basis of his mother’s non-genuine taskera.

3. With respect to life story, the Respondent submits the Tribunal should take into account what it describes as the many inconsistencies found from Mr Applicant’s varying identities and associated information, which I have summarised above. The Respondent submits that no explanation has been provided for these differences, nor has Mr Applicant advanced direct or other supporting evidence from any individual who knew him in Afghanistan.

4. Mr Applicant’s written submission of 22 September 2021 address the Respondent’s key contentions (and postdates the Respondent’s Amended SFIC).

5. In relation to inconsistencies, Mr Applicant’s representative:

   (a)acknowledges changes in the spelling and structure of Mr Applicant’s name, but submits that he is illiterate and familiar with a different set of Afghan naming conventions. These conventions include that members of the same family may carry different last names. It is submitted that he has been known consistently since arrival in Australia as [name omitted];

   (b)submits that any variations in birth dates should be understood in the context of Afghan cultural and administrative practices. It is further submitted that Mr Applicant has not attempted to conceal a true birth date, nor can he demonstrate an actual birth date;

   (c)variations in Mr Applicant’s home address in Afghanistan do not support the contention as to multiple identities, and it is unreasonable to expect exact residential addresses be provided; and

   (d)Mr Applicant has relied on third parties throughout in the completion of forms.

6. Mr Applicant’s representative contests the verification process undertaken in respect of the taskera of Mr Applicant’s mother, noting that the original response from the NSIA (ST5, 88) has not been provided in the form of a NAATI translation.

7. In a statutory declaration dated 21 September 2021, Mr Applicant explains, consistent with his oral evidence, the choice of the name [name omitted] on arrival in Australia. Mr Applicant states that he does not know his date of birth, and he has had little input to the choice of date used at various times.

8. Mr Applicant states further that the more detailed of the several addresses provided reflects the Afghan practice of using directions to add orientation with respect to a location, noting there are not postal addresses. He also states, consistent with his evidence at hearing, that he originally knew his mother by the name [name omitted] or [name omitted], a name given her by his father. It was when he attempted to sponsor his mother that documents were provided including the name [name omitted].

9. The Respondent’s key contentions closely reflect the policy guidance in the CPI. They do so in particular through the propositions that a single pillar of identity is an insufficient basis to meet the legislative requirement, and that evidence supporting multiple pillars should be positively reinforcing.

10. It is well-established that in the case of a broad statutory discretion, policy guidance may play an important role. This is because it expands upon the purpose of the discretion and aids in consistent decision making. This does not make policy binding, and, in any event, the CPI contains numerous examples of instances where a need for flexibility might arise.

11. The apparent reliance by Mr Applicant on a range of names and identities is a foundational issue in this matter. I accept the evidence provided that Mr Applicant is, effectively at least, illiterate. I also accept his evidence that he has received assistance over time in completing forms.

12. These findings do not entirely absolve Mr Applicant from the responsibility to provide his name consistently. I do not consider, though, that variation in name order to be problematic. This is addressed in CPI 16, and adequately explained also by reference to Afghan naming conventions found in official government reference documents.[2]

    [2] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Report: Afghanistan, dated 27 June 2019 (ST3), and United Kingdom Home Office Country Background Note: Afghanistan (ST13).

13. I also do not consider that the apparently brief adoption of the additional name [name omitted] to cause any fundamental concern as to Mr Applicant’s identity. I accept that the evidence indicates that this appeared as a result of some pressure or confusion arising upon his arrival in Australia.

14. Further, I consider that the variations in the level of detail provided at different times as to his home location in Afghanistan are explained by local context. They do not rise to a level such as to raise concerns about multiple identities and therefore, in summary, I do not consider that Mr Applicant has sought to adopt or project multiple names.

15. It is patently clear in this matter, however, that the only official Afghan record identifying Mr Applicant is the taskera issued in absentia in quite recent times. No evidence was introduced by either party substantiating the legal or administrative basis upon which this process was conducted. Equally, the Respondent has not challenged the fact that this method of obtaining an Afghan identity document was open to Mr Applicant. It is reflected in information still available on the relevant website here and in other countries, and in the British government source referenced above (ST13, 639).

16. There are several substantive questions raised by the Respondent about this document. The first is that Mr Applicant has not adequately demonstrated how the process unfolded. I consider that the evidence provided by Mr Applicant is, however, adequate, particularly in the absence of any material substantiating an alternative interpretation.

17. More importantly, there do appear to be obvious inconsistencies as to the data entered with respect to the taskera of Mr Applicant’s brother. On its face, the Applicant’s identity document was issued on the basis of his brother’s taskera, but each document identifies GN with a different set of registration numbers. The conflicting numbers have not been explained by any other evidence, and this raises questions about the weight to be given to this document.

18. I note that it has also been submitted that the taskera in absentia has not been verified, or had not been so verified by the time of the hearing.

19. Beside this important anomaly, the documentary evidence appears to demonstrate consistency in respect to the male lineage on Mr Applicant’s family. That is, the taskera of Mr Applicant, his brother and father are consistent in the use of names in the paternal line. I understand from the government documents already cited that paternal ancestry would appear to be critical in substantiating, and so forming, personal identity in the Afghan culture.

20. I accept the Respondent’s submission that Mr Applicant’s mother’s taskera has been found to be non-genuine through what I accept to be a formal verification process. However, against this I consider it important to balance the above cultural context relating to the primary significance of male lineage. I also take into account Mr Applicant’s evidence as to the reason for variations in his mother’s name as documented. His evidence that he did not know the form his mother’s name took in official records until relatively recently is particularly relevant.

21. The Respondent further submitted that, ultimately, problematic aspects of the identities of other parties, including Mr Applicant’s wife, were of lesser significance in this matter than the central question of Mr Applicant’s capacity to substantiate his identity.

22. The other pillar of importance here is that of life story. There is no doubt that the details of Mr Applicant’s narrative relating to his life in Afghanistan are brief, perhaps cursory. I am uncertain, though, as to what other details might assist in understanding the life of an illiterate Afghan cobbler.

23. That aside, there do not appear to be any unexplained gaps or anomalies in the wider context of Mr Applicant’s life story. The Respondent raised possible discrepancies in the stated whereabouts of Mr Applicant’s siblings at various times, however, I do not consider these to be of great significance in the overall context of a life story that generally lacks detail in any event.

24. Mr Applicant also relies upon sworn statements by two individuals to substantiate his identity. Both deponents state unambiguously that they knew the Applicant as [name omitted] in Afghanistan. This material lies uncontested bar the observation that Mr Applicant did not call any other person to give direct evidence at the hearing. It cannot be disputed that oral evidence in circumstances such as this would be preferable. However, that consideration does not thereby rob this material of weight.

25. As I noted above, CPI 16 includes a number of examples where some latitude might be taken by decision makers where cultural factors and other important dimensions of local context at an individual’s point of origin require consideration. Bearing this in mind, and on the basis of the evidence overall, I am satisfied of Mr Applicant’s identity.

26. Mr Applicant’s national identity document bears, in one respect, what appears to be a glaring anomaly. However, I do not consider that this flaw is sufficient to negate the evidence that I do have before me, including the sworn statement of two Afghan nationals, resident in Australia, confirming the Applicant to be [name omitted]. I consider that, in the circumstances this is the correct or preferable decision.

    DECISION

27. For the reasons given above the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and decides in substitution that the Applicant satisfies the requirements of s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding 76 (seventy -six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member

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

Associate

Dated: 18 February 2022

Date of hearing:	22 October 2021
Date final submissions received:	17 December 2021
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ibrahim Safi, Migration Prospects
Advocate for the Respondent:	Oliver Morris, Clayton Utz