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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, brought by ZVHJ (the Applicant) against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister). The core dispute revolved around whether the Tribunal could be satisfied of the Applicant's identity, a prerequisite for approving citizenship under section 24(3) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The decision was made by Ms A E Burke Ao M.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's identity could be established to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, considering the requirements of section 24(3) of the Act and the guidance provided in the Australian Citizenship Policy and Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 (CPI 16). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the Applicant had made a genuine attempt to obtain documentation from Iran/Iraq, whether the documentation provided was sufficient, and if the Applicant's life story was consistent and verifiable, taking into account the three pillars of identity: biometrics, documents, and life story.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of verifiable evidence across all three pillars of identity. While the Applicant provided some childhood photos, a parent's declaration, and a copy of a family holy book, the Tribunal placed little weight on the photographs due to an inability to verify their authenticity. Limited weight was given to the parent's statement and the holy book extract, as they were consistent with the Applicant's life story but did not independently verify his identity. The Tribunal noted that documents obtained after arrival in Australia were of limited value for establishing identity prior to arrival. Crucially, the Tribunal found no independent verifiable evidence regarding the Applicant's family circumstances, education, or work history, which prevented it from being reasonably satisfied of his identity as required by section 24(3). The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, such as *Dhayakpa*, *CDNB*, and *Ater*, to underscore that while documentary evidence is not always essential, a cogent explanation for its absence and persuasive alternative evidence are required to establish identity to a reasonable degree of satisfaction.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that it remained unable to be reasonably satisfied of the Applicant's identity, despite considering the totality of the evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse approval for the Applicant's Australian citizenship by conferral.