FCA: the AAT applied the wrong test under s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act 2007 by stating that it was not comfortably satisfied that the applicant was of good character; further, 'lack of responsiveness... in providing documentation to [the Department]... is conduct that...'
Summary and discussionThe Minister refused the applicant's application for citizenship. The applicant applied to the AAT for review of the Minister's decision. The AAT found that the applicant did not satisfy s 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act 2007, which read as follows:
(2) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.The terms "good character" were not defined in the legislation. The AAT affirmed the Minister's decision and its reasons included the following passage (emphasis in the court decision):
The assessment of the Applicant’s character in this case has not been easy. The Applicant has many qualities which make for a good citizen, but I find that it is a feature of his character that he is prepared to act dishonestly and with limited candour in his dealings with government agencies when he perceives that it is to his advantage to do so. On balance, I am not comfortably satisfied that his dishonesty and lack of candour in such dealings is outweighed by the positive aspects of his character.One of the reasons for finding that the applicant was dishonest involved the applicant's 'tardiness, or lack of responsiveness, in providing documentation to' the Department. The applicant "appealed" the AAT's decision to the Federal Court (FCA) under the AAT Act on the following grounds:
- Ground 1: 'the Tribunal erred in concluding that s 21(2)(h) of the Act required it to be “comfortably satisfied” that the applicant was a person of good character, when the correct test required the Tribunal to be “satisfied”'
- Ground 2: the applicant's 'tardiness, or lack of responsiveness, in providing documentation to [the Department], when there is no intention to hide information or to mislead or deceive, and the tardiness works against the [applicant's] best interests, is conduct that is [not] relevant to the assessment of the person’s character under s 21(2)(h)'.
The remainder of this article is only available to Case Law and Platinum subscribers.
Read our Terms & Conditions and upgrade below:
Where GST applies, the above amounts are inclusive of GST.
Basic Content includes basic news, some media articles and selected announcements.
Premium Content includes all our content, except for Case Law Content. In other words, it includes Basic Content, plus all our articles on legislative and policy changes, industry updates and the Migration Legislation Tracker.
Case Law Content includes Basic Content, plus case law summaries, analysis and extract, but does not include Premium Content.
Platinum Content includes Basic Content, plus Premium Content, plus Case Law Content. In other words, it includes ALL our content.
If you already have a Case Law or Platinum subscription, click on 'Login' below.