1. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may apply to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. To be eligible for citizenship, a person must meet each of the eight general eligibility requirements under s 21(2) of the Act.
2. Section 21(2)(h) of the Act requires the Minister to be satisfied that the citizenship applicant 'is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.' Section 24(1A) of the Act prohibits the Minister (or a person delegated by the Minister under s 53 of the Act) from approving the application unless so satisfied.
3. Section 52(1)(b) of the Act confers jurisdiction upon the Tribunal to review decisions made under s 24 of the Act.
4. The term 'good character' is not defined in the Act but has been interpreted broadly which allows decision-makers to consider a range of events and conduct which relate to an applicant:

...Parliament clearly intended the term to be used in a broad way, and refrained from taking the approach adopted in the Migration Act of giving specific content to a character criterion...[9]

5. The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement (Citizenship Policy) and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs) guide decision-makers in exercising powers and discharging functions under the Act.
6. Relevant to this application is Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 - Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15). CPI 15 explains the meaning of 'good character' in the following terms, reflecting the judgment of the Full Federal Court in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 663; (1996) 68 FCR 422:

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 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 while 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.[10]

7. At [3.3] of CPI 15, it is explained that a person's 'enduring moral qualities' encompass:

(a) characteristics which have endured over a long period of time; > > (b) distinguishing right from wrong; and > > (c) behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.

8. CPI 15 further states that applicants should be requested to provide an overseas penal clearance where they have held a permanent visa and lived or travelled outside of Australia since turning 18, and the total time spent outside Australia was 12 months or more, and the time spent in any one country was an accumulated period of 90 days or more.[11] The policy anticipates that there will be situations where an applicant is not able to obtain a police clearance certificate.[12]
9. This policy is not binding on the Tribunal. The Respondent submitted that although it is not binding CPI 15 should be applied by the Tribunal unless there are cogent reasons not to do so, citing Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634. Although I accept CP1 15 provides useful guidance, I am mindful that it is not binding and there is a need to consider the exercise of delegated powers based on the Act and specific circumstances of each case.[13]
10. President Kyrou in GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] AATA 3245 considered the characterisation of Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 - Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (CP1 16). His Honour found that:

...s 24(3) of the Act does not provide for the exercise of a discretion, but sets out a state of satisfaction that a decision-maker either reaches or does not reach. It follows that CPI 16 cannot be characterised as a policy which seeks to provide guidance on the exercise of a statutory discretion. Rather, it is a policy which sets out a process of reasoning to be followed in deciding whether the state of satisfaction to which s 24(3) refers is reached. In the case of a policy such as CPI 16, the desirable consistency in administrative decision-making to which Drake (No 2) referred can be achieved by applying the same legal principles to attain similar outcomes in factually similar cases. > > In my opinion, in the case of a statutory provision such as s 24(3) of the Act, to require the Tribunal to follow a process of reasoning that is not set out in the section itself in order to achieve consistency would unduly constrain the Tribunal and potentially compromise its ability to decide the outcome by a different process of reasoning which it considers is more appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case. There is no support for adopting such a formulaic approach to merits review reasoning in Drake (No 2) or any other authority. > > ... > > Accordingly, in performing the evaluative task required of me by s 24(3) of the Act, I am not bound to follow CPI 16. CPI 16 does not set out the criterion that must be satisfied in order for the Tribunal to be satisfied of the applicant's identity. That criterion is set out solely in s 24(3) and CPI 16 cannot narrow or define the meaning of 'identity' in that section.[14]

11. I note that like s 24(3), s 21(2)(h) of the Act does not provide for the exercise of a discretion but sets out a state of satisfaction that a decision-maker either reaches or does not reach. It follows that, for the reasons given by President Kyrou in GJDB, I consider my task to be an evaluative one where I must be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character and CPI 15, while it can guide me, cannot constrain or narrow that task.
12. I am also guided by the Federal Court of Australia's decision in BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 where the meaning of satisfaction in the context of s 21(2)(h) was found to require the decision-maker reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character.[15] In addition, I note that the requirement to be of 'good character' does not mean 'perfect character'[16] and that it is not necessary for the decision-maker to have a 'high degree of confidence' that the applicant is a person of good character.[17] Further, the assessment requires a judgment as to whether any proved deficiencies in the moral qualities of a person are sufficient to deny the person citizenship.[18]
13. While I accept that the issue surrounding the requested penal certificate is a relevant consideration, that issue is not the end of my enquiry as to whether I can be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character. I am also required to consider all the available evidence before me which relates to the Applicant and the consideration of his character. That is consistent with CPI 15 which specifically calls for decision-makers to consider an applicant in a holistic way.

1. The Applicant lodged with the application for review a copy of a screenshot of an email from the Certificate of Good Conduct Directorate of Interpol Kampala to the Applicant dated 15 April 2024. He also provided a screenshot of the list of documents uploaded on the departmental system between June 2023 and July 2024 in support of his citizenship application. The Applicant did not provide any further documents or evidence to the Tribunal in support of his application for review The Respondent lodged a Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions (SFIC) dated 17 November 2025. The Respondent also lodged a Hearing Book (HB) comprising of the relevant documents on the departmental file relating to the application for citizenship and the SFIC.
2. The HB was received into evidence and marked Exhibit 1. CPI 15 was also received into evidence and marked Exhibit 2.

1. The Applicant gave evidence that he came to Australia in 2003 as a refugee and he has been here for more than 22 years. He considers he has assimilated into the Australian culture and contributes positively to Australia. He told the Tribunal that he went to school and university where he obtained a bachelor's degree and a master's degree.
2. The Applicant explained that when he was in his teenage years and early twenties he didn't have someone guiding him and on occasion he went astray and made mistakes. He said he accepted responsibility for his past offending from many years ago and considered he has changed and has a different life with different priorities.
3. The Applicant explained that he applied for citizenship in 2017 but given his offending it was refused. He told the Tribunal he re-applied in 2020, and due to covid-19 it was not processed quickly. After finishing his studies, and before obtaining work, the Applicant explained that he decided to travel overseas to visit family in late 2020. He told the Tribunal he has family scattered around parts of Africa, including some in Uganda. He explained he went to visit them for a few months but ended up having to stay there for 10 months due to covid-19 lockdowns. Further, when he was able to leave, he travelled to South Sudan to see the rest of his family and then to South Africa to obtain a covid-19 vaccine which was accepted by the Australian authorities. The Applicant claimed he was not involved in any criminal activities in his time outside of Australia and he did not choose to stay in Uganda for such a lengthy period but was forced to do so due to travel restrictions.
4. The Applicant told the Tribunal that when the Department contacted him in May 2023 he responded and provided them with a list of countries he had travelled to. He was then asked to provide an overseas penal clearance certificate for Uganda. He said he attempted to follow the Department's instructions to get the clearance via Interpol Uganda but had difficulty making payment. He explained he then obtained a police clearance for Uganda through the Department of Justice Western Australia as he obtained a job working as a prison guard. In applying for that role, he was given instructions by that government department to follow a link to obtain the clearance through AIS International Group. He explained that he did that and provided a copy of the report to the Department for the purposes of his citizenship application. He said the Department told the Applicant that was not the correct document and that he had to get the one through Interpol Uganda.
5. The Applicant explained that he continued to try to get the penal clearance certificate through Interpol Uganda, but the system was not straightforward. He said it would have been easier to get one in person in Uganda, and the online system is not like those we have in Australia. Further, he claimed the links he was given by Department were not working properly as once he signed up, he was told to go to different website and asked for payment but then found himself in a loop where the website was telling him to sign up again and then it told him he already had an application pending and could not apply again. He explained the issues he was having and shared screenshots with the Department about them. The Applicant told the Tribunal he found the process extremely frustrating. The Applicant could not be sure, but he thinks he did end up paying for the penal clearance certificate but did not ever receive one. In February 2024, the Applicant asked the Department for more time to obtain it as he was trying to get a response from Interpol Uganda. When he finally received a response from Interpol Uganda in April 2024, he was told his travel document was expired and he had to provide a valid passport for the application to be processed. The Applicant explained he does not hold a passport of any country due to his status as a refugee and to travel in 2020 he obtained a Travel Document (Certificate of Identity) from the Australian government which expired in 2022. Although he accepted it was not impossible for him to obtain another travel document to assist with the requirements of Interpol Uganda, he did not want to do that as he was not planning to travel anywhere, and it would also be costly for him to obtain it. He recalled from the first time he applied for such a document he was asked to provide details of his proposed travel. He was concerned that he couldn't do that as he had no travel plans and did not want to be untruthful to the Australian authorities.
6. The Applicant accepted it was his responsibility to provide the correct clearance which had repeatedly been requested by the Department. He also accepted that he asked the Department to proceed to consider the citizenship application without that requested document. He explained the reason he did that was because he felt he had exhausted all avenues to get it and done all he could to explain to the different people in the Department handling his application the difficulties he had faced in getting it.
7. The Applicant claimed he has good standing in community. He gave evidence that he is married, has two children and a stepchild. Further, he has studied at a high level which required years of saving and planning to be able to afford to do so. He also explained that he has worked in different industries, including for the Department of Justice and in the mining industry. While he would not say he is an active member of any part of the community due to his fly in and fly out work arrangements, he told the Tribunal he does attend some cultural community events and when he isn't away for work he spends time with his children and wife.

1. I accept CPI 15 states that decision-makers ought to request overseas penal certificates in certain circumstances, and that it was open for the Department to seek one from the Applicant due to his time in Uganda. I also accept that such a document serves an important role in a decision-maker assessments of an applicant's character as it assists in verifying any overseas criminal record. However, in the circumstances of this case, I consider the Applicant took all reasonably available steps to obtain one, including by making payment. Further, his reason for not ultimately pursuing the application has been reasonably explained. That is, in early 2024 - after many months of the Applicant trying to get the certificate - Interpol Uganda requested a valid passport and the Applicant does not hold a valid passport and has no right to hold one from any country. I accept that based on the Applicant's past experience and the Department's own website[19] that he would be required to provide details of proposed travel to the Department to obtain a valid travel document. I accept that the Applicant does not wish to do that in circumstances where he has no travel plans and does not wish to provide false or misleading information to the Department. In my view, that was an entirely reasonable position for the Applicant to take. I consider the Applicant's decision to not pursue with the application for the overseas penal certificate further does not mean, in of itself, that I cannot form an affirmative belief that the Applicant is a person of good character.
2. I have also had regard to all the other evidence before me, including the Applicant's oral evidence. In considering the evidence holistically, I am satisfied in my evaluative judgement that the Applicant is of good character for the following reasons.
3. First, I consider the evidence given by the Applicant was honest and forthright. Based on his oral evidence, I am satisfied that the Applicant has behaved in an ethical manner commensurate with the rules and values of Australian society. There is no evidence he has been dishonest or untrustworthy. While he had some criminal offending which is now spent, namely for contravening a direction or requirement in December 2005, wilful damage by graffiti in August 2006 (although he was fined no conviction was recorded), assaulting or obstructing a police officer in February 2011 (although again he was fined no conviction was recorded) and grievous bodily harm in January 2011, a significant amount has time has passed since that offending and the Respondent did not cross examine him on or make any submissions in relation to it. I am satisfied that the offending was from so long ago that it is not relevant to the assessment of the Applicant's character now. Since that time, the Applicant has applied himself to study and obtained a bachelor's degree as well as a master's degree. He has also consistently worked and is now working in the mining industry which is heavily regulated. He is also raising a family and is involved in his community as best he can.
4. Second, I give some weight to the Background Verification Report[20] that was obtained by the Department of Justice Western Australia in relation to the Applicant's criminal history in Uganda. That document, although it is not the document which was requested by the Department, was clearly obtained by a government department to verify that the Applicant does not have any criminal record in Uganda. The Applicant gave evidence to that effect, and it states on the report itself that it was provided to the Department of Justice Western Australia. The Respondent did not cross examine the Applicant on the provenance of the document or its veracity. Also, the Respondent did not at any stage during the citizenship application process suggest to the Applicant that the provenance of the document or its veracity needed to be explained. In those circumstances, I accept the Applicant's evidence about the document and find that it is relevant and reliable. Similarly, I also give weight to the responses the Applicant gave to question 39 of his citizenship application where he disclosed the spent convictions in Australia but said he had not been charged with any offence overseas,[21] as well as the character statutory declaration of the Applicant dated 31 October 2023.[22] I also give weight to the Applicant's oral evidence that he was not involved in any criminal activity while visiting Uganda, he was visiting family and he did not intend to stay for 10 months but was forced to stay due to travel restrictions. Together, this evidence provides the Tribunal some confidence[23] that the Applicant does not have a criminal record in Uganda.
5. Finally, the Applicant gave evidence that demonstrated he is conscious of the need to comply with Australian laws and requirements and be honest in his dealings with the Department. In particular, the Applicant gave evidence about the need:

(d) to obtain a covid-19 vaccine in South Africa that was compliant with the Australian authority requirements[24] > > (e) to seek advice from a lawyer about whether or not he could accurately and honestly complete the character statutory declaration template provided by the Department given his spent convictions, and[25] > > (f) to provide details of travel dates and locations to apply for a new Australian travel document, and, given he had no plans to travel he would therefore have to be untruthful in providing that information in any application, which he refused to do.[26]

1. For the reasons given above, I find that the Applicant's decision to ask the Department to finalise his citizenship application without the requested Ugandan penal clearance certificate has been reasonably explained and does not outweigh the aggregate of positive qualities and ethical behaviour of the Applicant commensurate with the rules and values of Australian society. In all of the Applicant's circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied in its evaluative judgement that the Applicant is of good character pursuant to section 21(2)(h).

1. The reviewable decision is set aside and substituted with a decision that the Tribunal is satisfied of the Applicant's good character pursuant to s 21(2)(h) of the Act.

[9] Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44; (2015) 231 FCR 128, 142 [60]

[10] Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 663; (1996) 68 FCR 422, 431

[13] GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] AATA 3245, [29], (Kyrou J)

[15] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 at [55]

[17] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 at [55]

[19] https://www.passports.gov.au/non-citizen-travel-documents

[23] Noting that the Tribunal does not need to have a 'high degree' of confidence, see [17] and fn 17 above

[24] Applicant's Oral evidence and Exhibit 1, HB82

[25] Applicant's Oral evidence and Exhibit 1, HB97

[26] Applicant's Oral evidence and Exhibit 1, HB189