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

[2021] AATA 3987

XRKV and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 3987 (1 November 2021)

Division:General Division

File Number(s):      2019/6507

Re:XRKV

APPLICANTS

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

Date:1 November 2021

Place:Sydney

The decision under review is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Minister for reconsideration with the direction that the Minister be satisfied of the Applicant’s identity for the purposes of subsection 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

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

Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – whether satisfied of identity of applicant – various dates of birth provided – Australian Citizenship Procedural Instructions – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) s 24

CASES

Bebe Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256

CDNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 757

Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310

Mohsin and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 1999

Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Australian Citizenship Procedural Instructions – CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (reissued 26 February 2021)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

1 November 2021

Introduction

1. In May 2010, the Applicant arrived in Australia by boat with two other people.  They claim they are brothers.  I will refer to the latter two people as the older and younger brother respectively.  They claimed to be members of a persecuted ethnic group, Faili Kurds, in their country of origin (CoO), Iran, who are stateless.  In 2012, they were granted protection visas after an independent merits review process.  In 2016 they applied for citizenship by conferral.  Their applications were refused in separate decisions on 13 September 2019.  In each case, the delegate was not satisfied of the Applicant’s identity under s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act).  The Applicants now seek review of those decisions in the Tribunal.  Their cases were heard together.  A direction was made was that evidence in one was evidence in the other matters.  Separate written decisions are being published.

   The issue

2. The issue is whether I am satisfied of the Applicant’s identity under s 24(3) of the Act.

   The legal framework

3. The following summary of the legal framework is based on that provided by the Respondent.

4. Section 24(3) of the Act provides that the Minister must not approve an applicant becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the applicant.

5. In applying s 24(3) of the Act, the Tribunal may be assisted by policy that is relevant to the administration of the Act.  In this case, the Minister relied on Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 - Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (CPI 16).  Whilst not bound to apply policy guidelines, the Tribunal will usually do so unless there are cogent reasons in a particular case not to (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634).

6. As set out in CPI 16, in order to comprehensively test and evaluate a person’s claims with regard to identity, each of the three pillars of identity should be considered, namely biometrics, documents and life story.  When assessing a person’s identity, the objective is to determine whether the information pursuant to the three pillars is consistent.

7. In Mohsin and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 1999 at [12], the Tribunal stated that:

   The decisions of the Tribunal recognise that the issue of identity is of particular importance because of the very significant benefits conferred by Australian citizenship. The Tribunal has also emphasised the need to consider each case on its individual merits, including considering particular impediments to obtaining documents related to identity.

8. The Respondent accepts that the production of documentation supporting the claimed identity is not essential to satisfying a decision-maker of identity in every case.  However, as found in CDNB and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 757 at [9]:

   where such evidence is not produced for the grant of citizenship, there will need to be a cogent and acceptable explanation as to why, in order for me to reach a state of positive satisfaction of the identity of the applicants. Furthermore, I must form a view that other evidence given by the applicants as to their personal background must be reliable.

9. Where an applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist and which he has been advised to secure, the application ought be rejected: see Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2015] AATA 310 at [117].

   The parties’ contentions

10. The Respondent contended as follows.

11. A certificate of Australian citizenship is a legal document of extraordinary significance.  The Tribunal should not accept an outcome which could lead to a certificate being issued in circumstances where the Applicant’s identity if far from clear.[1]

    [1] Bebe Beyan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 256 at [38]. See also

12. The Applicant has provided several dates of birth which he admits were not correct, and in one case at least was given intentionally to mislead.  The lack of documentation supporting his identity from the CoO weighs heavily against him.  There were other inconsistencies in his evidence.  The country information about the circumstances of Faili Kurds in the CoO, demonstrates that most are Iranian citizens, it is difficult to forge identity documents, including passports, and it is difficult to leave the CoO through Imam Khomeini International Airport using a fraudulent passport. 

13. The Applicant contended that he was and is unable to obtain identity documents from his CoO for himself or any member of his family, including those who remain there, because he is a Faili Kurd who is unregistered in the CoO.  He gave examples of being harassed and assaulted by nationals of the CoO from childhood on, including by members of the Basij, a paramilitary organisation that operates in the CoO.  He and his brothers claimed to have left Iran through Imam Khomeini International Airport using false passports.

    Country information

14. The Respondent relied on a number of country information reports about the CoO. 

15. The DFAT Country Information Report – Iran dated 14 April 2020 (the 2020 report) acknowledges that there are Faili Kurds who are undocumented with the government and are not legally entitled to work, access government services or obtain birth, death and marriage certificates.[2]  That supports the Applicant’s claims.  The Respondent relied on information in the report about birth registration generally to suggest that the Applicant would be entitled to a birth certificate.  That is inconsistent with the information in the report specifically about undocumented Faili Kurds.  

    [2] At [3.25].

16. The 2020 report refers to various pieces of information and reports about the difficulty of manufacturing identity documents for fraudulent use and concluded that the likelihood of a person leaving through the Imam Khomeini International airport with a fraudulent passport is extremely low.[3] 

    [3] At [5.41] to [5.45].

17. The 3 December 2014 DFAT Thematic Report - Faili Kurds in Iraq and Iran states the following.  Reliable estimates of the number and location of unregistered Faili Kurds in the CoO are not available.  Information is difficult to access but DFAT had not seen evidence of widespread official discrimination or harassment.  In relation to registration, expired cards cannot be replaced.  Government officials may show some leniency in individual cases.  Officially, unregistered members of the group would be deported if detected, but that rarely occurs.  A person has to have a valid document to get a child registered.  There is difficulty if it has lapsed, or the person has failed to comply with regulations relating to registration, including annual re-registration.  Citizenship is required to register the birth of a child and receive an Iranian birth certificate.  An official or unofficial birth record is issued if a child is born in hospital, depending on the documents provided. 

18. Unregistered refugees and those without documents do not generally enjoy access to services, although access to education for children is theoretically possible because of an Iranian Government policy allowing all children access to education.  In practice, undocumented children usually miss out on available places, because Iranian citizens and documented refugees are prioritised.  In some cases, a hospital birth record and separate vaccination book may be sufficient to secure schooling for a child.  Also, attendance at school risks bringing undocumented family members to the attention of Iranian authorities. 

19. Normally, identity documents would be required to buy a house, car, mobile phone or establish a utilities account.  A legally recognised lease would also require identification, but it is possible that private, undocumented arrangements could be made between a lessor and lessee that would avoid the requirement to provide identification.  Accessing healthcare services without identification is possible but requires payment without drawing on health insurance.  Faili Kurds without identification would not normally be able to access the formal education system.

20. Formally, unregistered refugees in the CoO, of whatever origin, have no right to work.  It is unlikely that a Faili Kurd could apply for a work permit.  Sources have said that in practice, many Faili Kurds, whether registered or unregistered, have informal access to employment.  This is normally tolerated by authorities.  Some members of the ethnic group are self-employed while others might find employers prepared to disregard the law.  Faili Kurds are frequently employed in low-paying manual labour.  Their conditions and pay are often significantly worse than for nationals doing the same work.  Harassment, detention, or physical assault is not widespread but cannot be ruled out in individual cases.

21. The majority of Faili Kurds are probably registered.  Many could produce nationality documentation when pressed, for example when applying for visas for family members.

22. It is possible that individual members of the Basij discriminate against ethnic and religious minorities.  In Tehran, the Basij patrols, usually late at night.  Identity cards may be checked.  Inspections are infrequent and are not a normal part of everyday life.  However, the frequency of inspections fluctuates, and the presence of security forces varies.

23. A 2009 report included the following.[4]  The human rights situation for Kurds had been deteriorating over the past few years, with increasing difficulties with government authorities, including discrimination and harassment solely on the grounds of ethnicity.[5]  There was in increased presence of the Basij in the streets of Tehran in 2008.  They operated arbitrarily.[6]  A western embassy stated that it was very difficult to leave Iran illegally through an airport because of the security checks, although it may be possible to bribe airport personnel but that would involve a lot of airport staff because there are several check points.[7]  Two sources said that some people managed to leave through the airport on forged documents.  A small number of specific cases were mentioned.  In such cases bribery might be involved.[8]  Before departing Imam Khomeini International Airport, a number of security checks are conducted which include checks of the individual’s passport.[9]

    [4] Danish Immigration Service, Human Rights Situation for Minorities, Women and Converts, and Entry and Exit Procedures, ID Cards, Summons and Reporting, etc, 30 April 2009.

    [5] At [2.2].

    [6] At [5.1].

    [7] At [7.5.1].

    [8] At [7.5.2].

    [9] At [7.9.2].

24. The report from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated 3 April 2006 included the following information about Iranian passports.[10]  A UNHCR official stated that while counterfeit Iranian passports can be purchased rather easily on the black market with prices fluctuating “according to the quality of the counterfeit work”, authorities were “generally adept” at identifying false passports.  It referred to a 2003 report which had stated that “in the past, forged or fraudulent Iranian passports have been abundantly encountered”.  In August 2005, the director general of the Iranian Police Passport Department was reported in the press as stating that since the creation of a new passport application system in March 2005, there had been no reports of forged passports.  

    [10] Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Iran: The passport; its features and procedures for application including whether an applicant who was refused a passport would be notified and have recourse; the use and prevalence of fraudulent or counterfeit passports to exit Iran; ease of illegal entry into and exit from Pakistan, Turkey, and Azerbaijan overland, and Oman and the United Arab Emirates by sea; whether authorities seize passports from certain individuals to prevent their departure from the country (2004 - February 2006), 3 April 2006.

    Various dates of birth

25. The various birth dates given by each of the applicants was central to the Respondent’s argument.  The Applicant has provided various dates of birth since his arrival in Australia, including the following which were provided during the first year after arrival:

    ·The first date he gave was 27 March 1990.[11]  The form included questions in English and Persian.  He was assisted by an interpreter in the Persian language.

    ·In a later form his date of birth is recorded as “1994”. [12]  The form states “16 years 3 months no exact dob” and that he was the twin of the younger brother.  He was assisted by an interpreter in the Kurdish language.

    ·31 December 1994.[13]

    ·31 December 1994, with the assistance of  Kurdish interpreter.[14]

    [11] Record of Biodate Interview (Biodata document) completed in May 2010.

    [12] Entry interview dated 24 June 2010.

    [13] Form 80 – Personal particulars for assessment form completed on 6 August 2010 (the Form 80).

    [14] IAAAS interview on 6 August 2010.

26. The Department carried out an assessment of the Applicant’s age and on 4 January 2011 notified him that it had reached the view that he was over 18 years of age and would use his date of birth that he originally provided, 27 March 1990, unless he could show why another date should be recorded.

27. The document titled People in Detention – Request Form dated 17 January 2011 is written in two languages.  The older brother said that he can write both Kurdish and Farsi.  He wrote the letter in Farsi.  The English translation appears not to have been prepared by a qualified interpreter.  The letter is signed by the older brother and the Applicant.  They explained that when they arrived on Christmas Island, they pretended to be underage because they did not want to be separated.  When they were moved to the main camp, they realised their younger brother was not happy.  They were told “by others” that if they stated their true ages they might be separated, so they had better declare that they were under-age.  They were sorry for telling a lie about their age.  Their mother had given the younger brother to their care.  They apologised again and said that they hoped that they would be forgiven.  They were concerned about the younger brother.

28. After the Department’s age assessment, the applicant provided the following dates of birth:

    ·27 March 1990;[15]

    ·27 March 1986.[16]

    [15] Citizenship application received by the Department on 6 July 2016 and identification documents provided in support including learner driver licence, Centrelink Income Statement and his Australian visa.

    [16] In his review application lodged in the Tribunal on 11 October 2019.

29. The Applicant sent an email to the Tribunal on 23 October 2019 correcting his date of birth from 1986 to 27 March 1990.

30. During cross-examination, the Applicant said that his date of birth was 27 March 1990 but then said that his actual date of birth was in 1991. 

31. The evidence shows that the younger brother was a minor when they arrived in Australia.  On arrival they all gave dates of birth so that they were over 18 years of age.  None of those dates was correct.  I accept that the brothers were under a great deal of stress when they arrived in Australia.  They had no understanding of what they were about to face.  They could not speak the language.  I infer that many different rumours ran through the different language groups who arrived.  They wanted to stay together.

32. Later when the younger brother was finding it difficult being in an adult camp, they changed their dates of birth so that they were all minors.  They did so because of their concern for him and advice they had received from others.  I accept the reason for changing the date was to stay together with the younger brother.  In the circumstances, it was understandable.

33. The Applicant has continued to use the date of birth determined by the Department in 2011, including in the citizenship application where he did not disclose that he had had a different date of birth and declared that the information was true.  I infer that the 1986 date he gave in his application to the Tribunal was an error.  Since the department’s age assessment, the applicant has generally used 27 March 1990 as his date of birth.

34. While reviewing the material in this matter after the hearing, I found a reference to a letter from the Applicants’ mother in a decision of the Independent Merits Reviewer dated 22 February 2012 which was possibly consistent with the evidence of one of the brothers near the end of the hearing that the applicants had provided a letter from their mother which set out their dates of birth.  In response to my request, the Respondent provided a copy of it.  It had not been translated.  It was very brief.  In response to my further request, the Respondent obtained and provided a translation of that letter which had been written in Persian.  

35. The dates of birth were the same as those each of the brothers claimed was his actual date of birth at the hearing.  The mother wrote that she gave birth to her children at home.  The letter stated that the applicants’ sister wrote the letter because the mother is unable to read and write.  The mother’s signature was a thumb print, which was consistent with the evidence of the brother who remembered that the letter had been sent.

36. In a written submission, the Respondent argued that I should give the mother’s letter limited weight because:

    (a)The applicants did not appear to be aware of it and had not relied on it in the proceedings.

    (b)It did not demonstrate on what basis she considered they were the applicants’ dates of birth and whether she has some other documentary record of those dates and she was not cross-examined.

    (c)Directions had been made on 13 October 2020 in each matter that the Applicant were to ensure the availability of their mother as a witness “at the hearing as re-listed”. 

    (d)On the first day of the hearing, the applicants advised that she would not be giving evidence without providing cogent evidence why not.  The applicants said that they contacted their mother, she was ready to give evidence, but then the family was not agreeable with that because of security and matters like that.  The Respondent claimed that it was unclear what security issues would have arisen as she had already provided “various written statements” for the applicants.

    (e)The letter has limited probative value compared to genuine identity documents from the CoO.

    (f)The letter shows that she would have been a critical witness about dates of birth and circumstances in the CoO, including obtaining identity documents, and their schooling.  I may infer that they decided not to call her because her evidence would not have been helpful to their case.

    (g)The fact that the applicants had previously obtained evidence about their dates of birth from their mother shows that they did not take all possible steps in these proceedings to obtain identity information.  It was only through the requests from the Tribunal that the document was identified.  The applicants appear either to be not making attempts to obtain information from Iran about their identity, or to be deliberately obscuring further conflicting information about their identity. 

1. Contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, I give the letter considerable weight.  At the hearing, each of the applicants gave a different date of birth from almost all the dates previously given, which increased concerns about their credibility.  Those dates were consistent with the dates in their mother’s letter.  I find that that letter was probably provided to the Department before the independent merits review process in 2011.  I infer that because no translation was provided, it was not considered.  I draw no adverse inference from the fact that the applicants did not rely on it at the hearing.  Considering all the evidence, I find that they are unsophisticated people and generally truthful.  I do not know why they did not mention it earlier in the hearing.  Perhaps they had forgotten about it until questioning caused one of them to recall it, given that it was provided at least 10 years ago in very stressful circumstances.  It had not been included in the documents provided by the Respondent.

2. For each of the applicants to give a different date of birth at the hearing from the dates previously given and referred to in the Respondent’s Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions, was not consistent with the conduct of applicants who are scheming for a positive outcome.  An alternative possibility, that they are unintelligent or lack common sense, is not the assessment I have made of each of the applicants.  Rather, each was truthful.

3. The respondent did not have the opportunity to cross-examine the applicants’ mother.  I am not prepared to infer that the applicants decided not to call her as a witness over the telephone because her evidence would not have been helpful to them.  I accept that there were security concerns about her giving evidence over the telephone, that is, that she might be overheard or recorded by the regime of the CoO giving sensitive evidence that may adversely affect her family.  I do not accept the Respondent’s argument that there was no such concern because the mother had sent a letter in support of the applicants.  I infer that the security concerns relating to telecommunications and traditional mail are different and less in the case of the latter.

4. I also do not accept that because the mother does not demonstrate the “basis” on which she gave those dates, little weight should be given to her evidence.  As a matter of common experience, I doubt a mother has to refer to a birth certificate to recall a child’s date of birth.  If there is no birth certificate, memory would be more important. 

5. I find that the Applicant’s actual date of birth is the one he gave at the hearing which is the same as that his mother gave in the letter.  I find that he adopted the date of birth assessed by the Department because it was on his visa which the first form of Australian government issued identification he was given.  I infer that it was used to obtain other official documents, including his driver licence and registration for Medicare.

6. My findings about the various dates of birth given by the applicants undermine a central plank of the Respondent’s case. 

   Lack of documentation from the CoO

7. None of the applicants have provided any identity documents from the CoO for themselves or any member of their family.  The Respondent’s case was that explanation for the Applicant’s family’s undocumented status was vague and the Tribunal should doubt whether the Applicant’s claimed identity from birth until his arrival in Australia is true. 

8. The country information before the Tribunal establishes that there is a group of Faili Kurds that is unregistered, and who cannot access government services or government identity documents, including birth certificates.  I note that re-registration was possible after 2007 but not registration.  If the rules were not satisfied, re-registration was not possible.  That being so, there was no point in the Applicants’ seeking documentation if they are unregistered Faili Kurds.

9. The Applicant’s evidence was that he was too young to remember what happened, but his father had a Green Card that he had to give back and the authorities never gave him a White Card.   The Applicant did not make any inquiries about whether anyone in his family held a White or Green card but perhaps his older brother had.

10. The Applicant was the third youngest child.  His two older brothers, who remain in the CoO, took responsibility for the family when their father died, including arranging the departure of the three brothers.  When the three brothers left the CoO, the older of the three was responsible for their welfare.  He has continued to be, including during the citizenship application process and the review in this Tribunal. 

11. The evidence of the Applicant’s mother was contained in a letter written by her daughter and signed with a thumb print.  She wrote that after being in detention they received a Green Card which had no value: she could not work or access a hospital and her kids could not enrol in school.  She had been waiting for the White Card forever.

12. I accept the Applicant’s evidence on that aspect of the documentation issue.  It is consistent with the evidence of his two brothers and his mother.  It is not inconsistent with the country information.

    Other aspects of the Applicant’s life story

13. The only evidence from the CoO are two photographs of the Applicant’s father claimed to have been taken in Baghdad, a photograph of the older brother with his mother, father, sister and a younger brother who remains in the CoO, claimed to have been taken in 2007, and recent photographs of the Applicant’s mother, sister and the same younger brother in a well-known area in Tehran and an undated letter with a thumb print and a translation claimed to be from the mother of the applicants and written by their sister.  There are no photographs of the two older sons who remain in the CoO or of the Applicant or the younger brother who is now in Australia. 

14. The Applicant claimed that he did not attend school but was informally educated for a few years by a neighbour.  Both his brothers claimed to have been educated for about five years and nominated an institution with a similar name.  When questioned about that, both claimed that they did not attend school.  However, neither’s explanation was convincing, and I have found that both did attend an education institution of some kind for that period.  As set out in the country information, that is possible for unregistered Faili Kurds.  Of significance to my finding that it was not inconsistent with being a member of that group, was that it was only for a relatively short period of five years.

15. The Respondent argued that the family’s capacity to rent a home that was connected to electricity, access a landline telephone, and more recently that family members in the CoO had mobile phones, is inconsistent with the their status as Faili Kurds.  I do not accept that.  The country information states that informal rental and work arrangements may be made.  I accept the evidence of the older brother that it is possible to access mobile telephones and SIM cards without documentation.  I infer that unregistered Faili Kurds in the CoO find ways to live, including making informal arrangements to rent premises which includes access to electricity, and to access use of a landline and mobile telephones.

16. The applicants claim to have departed together from Imam Khomeini International Airport using fraudulently obtained passports with their photographs and false names.

17. In the record of interview, the older brother explained that his family paid US$23,000 to US$24,000 to people smugglers, his older brother borrowed from family, relatives and friends, and each of the three brothers contributed US$1-2,000.  The people smuggler provided false passports.  The people smuggler took the passports before they boarded the boat to travel to Australia.

18. The Respondent questioned the capacity of the applicants to obtain the money to pay the people smugger, given their poorly paid jobs.  The evidence was that the money came from savings and borrowings.  The evidence of the older brother that the three of them had been able to transfer more than $100,000 to the CoO from 2012 to 2020 shows that they can live frugally and save.  It is also consistent with having to repay borrowings.

19. It is of some significance that the older brother or brothers of the three applicants organised their departure.  They remain in the CoO.  That the applicants did not know details of the arrangements, such as bribery, is not inconsistent with their evidence.

20. The Respondent relies on the country information summarised earlier in this decision to contend that it is unlikely that the three brothers could have left through that airport using false passports.

21. I accept that the weight of the country information suggests that it was unlikely that the three applicants left the CoO together through Imam Khomeini International airport using fraudulent passports, but it also demonstrates that it was possible.  Country information is not definitive.  For example, the 2009 country information report lists the sources of the information obtained and states:

    It is not exhaustive; if some information is not included, this should not be taken to imply that it does not exist; simply that it was not obtained by the mission team.

22. I conclude that it is possible that the three Applicants left the CoO using fraudulent passports as they claimed.

    Conclusion

23. This is an unusual case.  I accept that the Applicant and his brothers are unable to provide documentation from the CoO confirming their identity because they are unregistered Faili Kurds in Iran.  Such documentation would include biometrics.  I accept the Applicant’s life story.  I have found the three to be generally truthful witnesses.  At times, they have not been truthful for good reason, for example when they changed their dates of birth while in detention because of concern for the Applicant, but they did try to provide correct information from their mother when the issue arose, as discussed earlier in this decision.  The evidence of the younger brother and older brother about their education was evasive and their attempted explanations unpersuasive.  However, I have formed the view that their conduct has not been consistent with the conduct of applicants who are scheming for a positive outcome by concealing their true identity.

    Decision

24. The decision under review is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Minister for reconsideration with the direction that the Minister be satisfied of the Applicant’s identity for the purposes of subsection 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding 60 (sixty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

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

Associate

Dated: 1 November 2021

Date(s) of hearing:	15 & 16 February 2021 4 March 2021
Date final submissions received:	25 April 2021
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr J Hutton, Australian Government Solicitor

the Explanatory Memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005, which states: “There may be cases where identity is unclear or cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. In these circumstances the Minister cannot approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.”