(a) On 8 October 2014, he was found guilty of 'Make threat to kill', 'Assault with weapon', 'Unlawful assault', and 'Criminal damage (Intent damage / destroy)'. The Court chose not to record convictions and imposed a fine. > > (b) On 12 December 2019, the Applicant was found guilty and convicted of 'Aggravated assault of female', 'Make threat to kill', 'Contravene family violence intervention order - intend to cause harm / fear', two counts of 'Unlawful assault', 'Criminal damage (intent damage / destroy' and 'Drive whilst authorisation suspended'. The Court imposed a 12-month good behaviour undertaking that ended in December 2020.

4. On 24 June 2018, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.[7] One of the questions on the application was whether he had 'been convicted of, or found guilty of, any offences overseas or in Australia (include all traffic offences which went to court, including offences declared in your permanent residence application, and any 'spent' convictions)?' The Applicant responded 'No'[8] and selected 'Agree' to the following declaration:[9]

Declarations > > Warning: It is an offence under section 50 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 to deliberately make, or cause to make, a false or misleading statement, or conceal circumstances in relation to an application. > > The applicant declares that: > > • ... > > • The information they have supplied in this form is complete, truthful and correct in every detail. > > • ...

5. The Applicant stated during oral evidence that his 2018 citizenship application was refused because of pending criminal charges.
6. On 19 April 2024 the Applicant again applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.[10] In response to a question about previous convictions or findings of guilt for offences that went to Court, the Applicant declared: 'Offence: Domestic or family violence'. He also referred to a 12-month good behaviour bond and attendance on a 'men's behaviour program'.[11] The Applicant responded 'Agree' to a declaration acknowledging it is an offence to deliberately make, or cause to make, a false or misleading statement, or conceal circumstances in relation to an application, and that the information he had supplied 'is complete, truthful and correct in every detail'.[12]
7. In a letter dated 21 March 2025, the Respondent wrote to the Applicant informing him that information held by the Department suggested he may not be of good character for the purposes of citizenship.[13] The Applicant responded with certificates and Statutory Declarations from supportive friends.[14]
8. On 14 June 2025, a delegate of the Minister refused the citizenship application under s 21(2(h) of the Act.[15]
9. On 24 July 2025, the Applicant asked the Tribunal to review the refusal decision.[16]

1. Section 52(1)(b) of the Act is the source of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to review decisions made under s 24.
2. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may apply to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. To be eligible, a person must meet each of the eight general eligibility requirements under s 21(2) of the Act as follows:

A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:

(a) is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and

(i) at the time the person made the application; and

(ii) at the time of the Minister's decision on the application; and

(c) satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and

(d) understands the nature of an application under subsection (1); and

(e) possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; and

(f) has an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and

(g) is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and

(h) is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on that application.

If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

Note: The Minister may cancel an approval: see section 25.

1. Section 24(1A) of the Act prohibits the Minister, or a person delegated by the Minister under s 53 of the Act, from approving an application unless satisfied the relevant criteria are met.

1. The term 'good character' is not defined in the Act but has been interpreted broadly by the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court:

'...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...'[17]

1. The Tribunal's decision in Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 is often cited for its elaboration on the significance of good character:

The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home... The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts. It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of State. The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few years' time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.[18]

1. Justice O'Bryan has stated the following about character assessments:

First, it refers to the enduring moral qualities of a person and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community, although the latter may provide evidence of the former. The expression is not concerned with the physical or intellectual attributes or abilities of a person. Second, the expression does not have a fixed and precise content. Like other broad statutory standards, such as whether an entity is a fit and proper person to hold a statutory licence or whether a decision is in the public interest, the expression imports a discretionary value judgment to be made by reference to undefined factual matters confined only by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statutory provisions...Third, and as a corollary of the second point, the expression requires a judgment as to whether any proved deficiencies in the moral qualities of a person are sufficient to deny the person citizenship.[19]

1. The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement and Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) (reissued 1 January 2022) constitute government policy that is intended to guide decision-makers exercising powers under the Act. Relevant to this application is Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 - Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15). Citizenship policy is not binding on the Tribunal but can be applied unless it is unlawful or 'there are cogent reasons to the contrary.'[20] The Full Court of the Australian Federal Court has held that the discretion to approve or refuse citizenship is unfettered, and 'not inimical to the adoption of executive policy'.[21]
2. The guidance in CPI 15 about good character draws on the Full Court's judgement in Irving[22] as follows:

The phrase 'enduring moral qualities' encompasses the following concepts:

• characteristics which have endured over a long period of time;

• behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.

The good character requirement necessitates consideration of an applicant viewed in a holistic way; that is, all aspects of his/her life may be relevant to consideration of character.

1. CPI 15 refers to someone of good character as displaying the following:
   • respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;

• be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay tax, not be in dishonest receipt of public funds, and pay debts to the Commonwealth);

• not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example:

• intentionally providing false personal information ... or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications;

... 2. Under the heading 'Weighing information', CPI 15 sets out how a holistic assessment of a person's character can be made:

... officers assessing whether an applicant is of good character should as a general proposition:

• characterise the nature of any offence or behaviour
• is the offence serious or minor?
• did the offence harm other people?
• who were victims?
• is there a pattern of behaviour?
• was it a one off incident?
• were there extenuating circumstances?

Consider any associations with people or organisations of concern.

• length of time since the offence was committed
• age at time of offence
• behaviour since completing prison sentence or obligations to court
• remorse regarding their offending behaviour
• community support (referee reports etc)
• changes in the life of the applicant. For example, relocation away from people who had a negative influence, marriage or de facto relationship, children, treatment for addiction or mental illness.

The decision-maker must weigh up all relevant factors to decide whether the applicant is of good character. The decision-maker must look holistically at applicant's behaviour over time and reach a conclusion about the person's enduring moral qualities.

1. The sole issue for determination is whether at the time of its decision the Tribunal is satisfied of the Applicant's good character.[23]

1. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's and Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC).[24] The following documents were tendered into evidence:

(a) 'T Documents' lodged by the Respondent numbering 230 pages.[25] > > (b) Respondent's 'Tender Bundle' numbering 93 pages;[26] > > (c) Applicant's Statutory Declaration dated 5 February 2026;[27] > > (d) Statutory Declaration of Mr Ali Naseri dated 5 February 2026;[28] > > (e) Statutory Declaration of Ms AA dated 2 February 2026;[29] > > (f) Statutory Declaration of Mr Ali Taleghani dated 18 January 2026;[30] > > (g) Statutory Declaration of Mr Milad Hidari Alkasir dated 5 February 2026;[31] > > (h) Statutory Declaration of Ms Rita Ayoub dated 22 January 2026;[32] > > (i) Statutory Declaration of Ms Norlen Jane Fernandez dated 3 February 2026;[33] > > (j) Statutory Declaration of Mr Ahmad Taha dated 3 February 2026;[34] > > (k) Statutory Declaration of Ms Shouhana Chand dated 4 February 2026;[35] > > (l) Statutory Declaration of Ms Rea Kristine Lecena Lorejas dated 3 February 2026;[36] > > (m) Statutory Declaration of Ms Maria Cristina Peralta Salva dated 7 January 2026;[37] > > (n) Letter from Dr Babatunde Kuku dated 3 February 2026;[38] > > (o) Report of psychologist Mr Jeffrey Cummins dated 13 February 2026;[39] > > (p) Statutory Declaration of Mr Husain Sameri dated 18 January 2026;[40] and > > (q) Statutory Declaration of Mr Daniel Semaan dated 2 February 2026.[41]

The Applicant and 10 other lay witnesses gave oral evidence. Psychologist Mr Cummins was the only expert witness.

1. The Applicant's oral testimony was given under affirmation and assisted by an interpreter in the Persian language. Mr Merlin confirmed he had discussed the Applicant's privilege against self-incrimination with him.
2. The Applicant adopted Exhibit A1 as true and correct. He recounted aspects of his life in Iran and after arrival in Australia. The latter includes periods of work, vocational courses, and operating a small business. In more recent times his primary focus has been caring for his children while Ms AA works fulltime.
3. The Applicant accepts the accuracy of his criminal history.[42] In response to questions about his first citizenship application in 2018, the Applicant said this was refused because of criminal charges laid against him in late 2018. When asked why he responded 'No' in this citizenship application to a question about any findings of guilt or convictions, the Applicant responded: 'It may have been a misunderstanding'. The Applicant also inferred this was unnecessary because the Respondent was able to access his criminal history. When asked why he did not include the 2014 findings of guilt when completing his 2024 citizenship application, the Applicant responded: 'It may have been a mistake'. During re-examination by Mr Merlin, the Applicant said he 'forgets things'.
4. The Applicant's evidence about his two court appearances is summarised as follows:

(a) 2014 court appearance: > > > (i) The Applicant was in a relationship with a woman and said her former boyfriend 'bothered' them. She and the former boyfriend had a child together and friction arose when the child was picked up for access visits. The Applicant claimed the former boyfriend argued with him and tried to re-establish a relationship with the Applicant's girlfriend. > > > > (ii) The Applicant recalled sending the former boyfriend a message and receiving a response inviting him to visit the man's home. The Applicant thought the purpose of this was to discuss their differences. He claimed upon arrival, however, that the man tried to punch him, causing the Applicant to pick up a nearby stick and wield it in self-defence. The Applicant said the man called police, following which the Applicant was charged. He claims to have pleaded guilty on legal advice despite not assaulting or threatening to kill the victim. > > > > (iii) During cross-examination, Ms Xian took the Applicant through a police report about this offending. He denied initiating the confrontation, assaulting the man with a stick, smashing a mirror on the man's car, or threatening to kill him. The Applicant claimed he talked 'nicely' to the man, 'had no intention of fighting and just wanted to explain what [he] was doing' for [the man's] child'. He claimed the man became aggressive, which caused the Applicant to become 'scared' and use a stick in self-defence. Ms Xian asked the Applicant about a section on the police report titled 'Statement made by accused', which records the Applicant's claim that he was 'angry at the victim' and made 'full admissions to all charges except the threat to kill'. The Applicant denied being angry and said he could not recall what he told police. He said his lawyer told him to: 'Just accept' the charges. > > (b) 2019 court appearance: > > > (i) The Applicant agreed this related to incidents involving Ms AA in late 2018. He recalled that in mid-2018 they were expecting their first child and, about two months before this, he started an affair with another woman. Ms AA became suspicious and confronted him in September 2018. The Applicant said an argument ensued and they started 'beating each other'. He recalled going to court where a FVIO was imposed. This allowed him to continue living with Ms AA and their child providing he did not breach the order. > > > > (ii) The Applicant accepts he breached the order during another fight with Ms AA in November 2018. He recalled that Ms AA left with their child, her mother who was then about 63 years of age, and also telephoned a close friend to come and assist her. The Applicant agreed he followed Ms AA's car. > > > > (iii) The Applicant said after locating Ms AA's car he 'knocked' on the window where Ms AA's friend was sitting. The Applicant said he 'hated' this woman and thought she took advantage of Ms AA. He claims she called police despite him not doing 'anything towards her - just knocked on the window'. > > > > (iv) When asked by Mr Merlin what impact his conduct during both fights had on Ms AA, the Applicant replied: 'She had her own problems and was suspicious of me, but we don't have problems now'. > > > > (v) The Applicant recalled going to Court again after the November 2018 incident. On this occasion a final FVIO was issued preventing him living with or otherwise contacting Ms AA for about a year. > > > > (vi) During cross-examination, the Applicant said he pushed Ms AA during their September 2018 argument because she accused him of infidelity. He recalled the 'main incident' between them on 4 November 2018 involved 'a physical fight' where they were 'hitting each other'. When referred by Ms Xian to a police report summarising this incident,[43] the Applicant insisted their child 'was not there' because Ms AA's mother moved the child to another room. When pressed, the Applicant accepted the child was present when the argument spilled into the lounge room and was also inside Ms AA's car during his later conduct. > > > > (vii) The Applicant accepts he told police he was defending himself when Ms AA attacked him.[44] When asked by Ms Xian if he slapped Ms AA's face causing redness, the Applicant responded: 'She slapped me back'. When asked if he grabbed Ms AA's mouth causing her difficulty breathing, the Applicant accepts this but explained it was because she was screaming and he did not want neighbours to hear. The Applicant also accepts he stated to Ms AA: 'If you call the police, I am going to fuck you up', and that he punched and smashed a picture, table, and threatened to kill her, their child, and himself. The Applicant insists this threat was only intended to convey the seriousness of his claim about not having an affair at that time. > > > > (viii) Ms Xian questioned the Applicant about his conduct after Ms AA fled their house during the fight on 4 November 2018. The Applicant accepts he punched the driver's side mirror causing it to break, tried to block Ms AA's car, jumped on the bonnet, and banged on the windscreen. The Applicant also accepts he told police he did not hit the side mirror of Ms AA's car hard but only 'hit it normal'.[45] > > > > (ix) When asked by Ms Xian why he did not mention smashing a picture, punching a rear vision mirror, and jumping on the bonnet of Ms AA's car during his evidence in chief, he replied: 'I may have forgotten'. > > (c) The Applicant contextualised his conduct against Ms AA in 2018 as resulting from being a first-time parent, work-related stress, and missing his family in Iran. He said that he was 'very childish at that time', had difficulty controlling his anger and emotions, and characterised his conduct as 'stupid'. He claims to have matured, is better in control of his emotions, takes responsibility for his actions, is remorseful, and no longer has any problems with Ms AA. > > (d) The Applicant spoke about completing a court-mandated Men's Behaviour Change Program (MBCP) after his 2019 convictions. He found this to be an 'excellent program' because at that time he was 'not aware of the rules and regulations' in Australia. He said the MBCP made him realise that 'even pointing at someone was the wrong thing to do'. If confronted with another argument with Ms AA, the Applicant said he 'would talk to her calmly without any rude words and if she was unconvinced' he would suggest: 'Let's talk tomorrow'. Apart from the MBCP, he has not done other rehabilitation or counselling specific to family violence, psychosocial immaturity, or PTSD. He consults 'several friends who are elderly' for advice and tries to improve himself through 'social media'. > > (e) The Applicant said he will not reoffend because of his children's interests. He wants to be a role model for them in future. > > (f) When asked why Australian citizenship is important to him, the Applicant said he wants to 'participate in elections' and to obtain a passport for travel.

1. Consideration of good character does not turn solely on a person's repute or standing. In considering references from family and friends, the Tribunal is mindful they can accentuate positive aspects over conduct suggestive of character concerns. The statements and Statutory Declarations in evidence collectively regard the Applicant as a good person, partner, and father. He is variously referred to as friendly, honest, responsible, hardworking, kind, trustworthy and respectful.[46] The general thrust of oral evidence is that he is a caring father and family man who has matured and made positive changes since completing the MBCP. That said, the evidence also discloses the Applicant has committed multiple violent acts and harmed others. Care must therefore be taken about the weight placed on references from family, friends, or those without a complete understanding of past conduct.
2. Lay witnesses are not well placed to express opinions about rehabilitative progress or recidivism risk, which is best left to experts whenever possible:[47]

Predicting whether a particular person will commit a criminal offence in the future is notoriously difficult...the prediction of future dangerousness, if it is to be attempted at all, is a matter for expert opinion ... The necessary expertise combines the ability to make a qualitative assessment of an individual and the ability to utilise the available quantitative risk assessment instruments.

One thing is clear. Judges, including experienced criminal judges, have no such expertise. Neither the conduct of criminal trials nor the sentencing of offenders requires judges to have, or equips them with, the ability to assess the likelihood that an offender will re-offend...

1. Some aspects of the oral evidence from witnesses conflicted with their statements and reflects an incomplete understanding of the Applicant's crimes. For example:

(a) The author of Exhibit A2 stated he does not know 'any bad things the Applicant has done', including past involvement in violent incidents. This conflicts with paragraph 4 of his Statutory Declaration which claims awareness of the Applicant's 'criminal history...and...issues with courts'. During cross-examination the witness, who does not speak English, conceded that someone else wrote Exhibit A2. He could therefore not adopt it as true and correct. The Tribunal gives this evidence no weight. > > (b) The Tribunal has treated Ms AA's evidence with caution given she is a victim of the Applicant's violence and because she contextualises some of his conduct as self-defence or seems to excuse it. This includes in relation to the 2014 incident despite she and the Applicant only meeting three years later in 2017. Ms AA also claimed the Applicant only 'touched' her mouth during their fight on 4 November 2018 because she was 'screaming and a bit hysterical'. Aspects of Ms AA's evidence were understated given the contemporaneous police reports and Applicant's convictions. That said, the Tribunal is satisfied Ms AA reconciled with the Applicant at some point after the final FVIO expired in late 2020. There is no evidence the Applicant's past violence against her has been repeated. > > (c) When asked during oral testimony if the Applicant loses his temper, his elder brother Ali responded: 'Not that much'. He accepted, however, that despite the Applicant answering criminal charges in 2014, he committed further violent offences four years later in 2018. In terms of the Applicant's 2014 offending, Ali claims the ex-boyfriend of the Applicant's then girlfriend was 'acting tough', 'poking his nose' into the Applicant's relationship, and trying to get the Applicant to 'lose his mind'. Ali contextualises the Applicant's use of a stick as self-defence rather than as a weapon. This narrative is unpersuasive given the findings of guilt against the Applicant. Notwithstanding a very close relationship with the Applicant, including a year living together when the final FVIO was in force, Ali claims he does not know what occurred during the 2018 incidents with Ms AA. This is unpersuasive. > > (d) The author of Exhibit A5 initially claimed during evidence in chief that he knows about the Applicant's 2014 and 2018 crimes. This was not evident during cross-examination, however, when he only thought the Applicant appeared in court once in 2014. He explained that he did not want to 'ask details' about what occurred. Given the incomplete understanding this witness has about the Applicant's past conduct, his evidence is given limited weight. > > (e) The author of Exhibit A6 has only known the Applicant and Ms AA as neighbours from April 2024, but they have since moved. Their association is therefore limited. She initially claimed during evidence in chief to be aware of the Applicant's 2014 and 2018 crimes, which Ms AA told her about in late 2025. This information, however, did not change her positive impression of the Applicant. When asked about her Statutory Declaration, the witness said it was 'produced by the [Applicant's] lawyer', who also 'incorporated' what she told him. During cross-examination, the witness thought the 2014 incident related to a 'female' who 'caused problems' in the Applicant's relationship with Ms AA, following which the Applicant 'lost his temper'. She thought his actions consisted of 'yelling...he raised his voice and got angry and upset'. When asked if there was any physical violence, the witness said Ms AA was 'not comfortable elaborating on details'. When asked if she is aware of any other offending by the Applicant, she responded: 'I can't remember that'. The witness responded 'No' when asked if she is aware of any orders preventing the Applicant from contacting Ms AA, or occasions when the Applicant answered court charges. The witness presents as a well-meaning former neighbour but has an incomplete understanding of the Applicant's past conduct. Her evidence is given limited weight. > > (f) The author of Exhibit A7 met the Applicant and Ms AA in 2017 but moved to Tasmania in 2018. She only sees them when transiting Melbourne for international travel. The witness said she is only aware of the 2018 incidents based on what Ms AA told her. She does not know if the Applicant has appeared in courts. The witness contextualised the 2018 incidents as the Applicant and Ms AA 'slapping each other' and exchanging 'hurtful words', but Ms AA later 'dropped the charges'. The witness is unaware of any property damage occurring. Given her incomplete understanding of the Applicant's past conduct, the evidence of this witness is given limited weight. > > (g) The author of Exhibit A8 employed the Applicant for about two years from about 2020. He last visited the Applicant's home in around 2022 but runs into him and Ms AA every now and then. The witness was only aware of an 'altercation' between the Applicant and Ms AA in 2018 where he slapped her, which is '_one of his biggest regret_s'. He claims this incident did not occur in the presence of the Applicant's child. He has no knowledge of any other incident involving the Applicant in 2014 or court appearances. Contrary to the claims in his statement, this witness has limited knowledge of the Applicant's past. His evidence is given limited weight. > > (h) The author of Exhibit A9 only met the Applicant and Ms AA two-and-a-half years ago. She claimed in her Statutory Declaration to be 'fully aware' of the Applicant's 'past dealings with the court relating to his past offences'. This was not evident from her oral testimony, however, when she responded: 'I don't really know what happened' when asked about incidents involving Ms AA in 2018. The witness explained that she 'didn't ask what happened because [she] wasn't interested'. When asked if she is aware of any physical violence by the Applicant, the witness responded: 'No - not really...He told us he had some charges and an IVO. I wasn't interested in knowing about the past'. The witness is unaware about the terms of any order, or whether any incident occurred in the presence of children. Contrary to her documentary claims, the witness is not 'fully aware' of the Applicant's past. Her evidence is given limited weight. > > (i) The author of Exhibit A10 is Ms AA's cousin, who stated in her Statutory Declaration: 'I am familiar with Reza's past [and] know a bit about what happened with the domestic violence offence'. During oral evidence she was aware of a FVIO and that the Applicant slapped Ms AA and punched the side mirror off her car. The witness said Ms AA told her about another incident in 2014 involving an 'ex-partner'. This witness has a better understanding of the Applicant's past conduct, albeit as communicated through Ms AA. More weight is placed on her character reference. > > (j) The author of Exhibit A11 stated in her Statutory Declaration: 'I am aware of Reza's history and past mistakes'. During oral evidence, however, she was only aware of the 2018 incidents involving Ms AA. The witness was unaware if the Applicant ever appeared in court to answer any charges. Given this incomplete understanding of the Applicant's past conduct, her evidence is given limited weight. > > (k) Exhibit A12 is from the Applicant's general practitioner who has only known the Applicant for eight months. Their interactions appear limited to a doctor-patient relationship. The brief reference refers to the Applicant's 'past' in a general way and its probative value in assessing the Applicant's character is limited.

1. The Tribunal has considered a report dated 13 February 2026 from psychologist Mr Jeffrey Cummins. This was accompanied by a 10-page letter of instruction from Mr Merlin containing extensive contentions about the Applicant's circumstances. The only documents enclosed with this letter are the Applicant's National Police Certificate, Statutory Declaration dated 16 April 2025, and Tribunal's 2024 Practice Direction on Expert Evidence.
2. Mr Cummins' report is based on a two-hour meeting with the Applicant on 20 January 2026. He also spoke with Ms AA for about 45 minutes on 27 January 2026. Key aspects of Mr Cummins' report are summarised as follows:

(a) The Applicant feels that obtaining Australian citizenship will provide 'him with a fresh identity' that he does not feel is provided through permanent residency. He also feels that obtaining citizenship will 'enhance his psychological stability and...be an additional protective factor against future offending'. Mr Cummins opines that the Applicant's mental health 'would very likely, if not inevitably, improve if he was granted Australian citizenship'. > > (b) Mr Cummins states that 'both episodes' of the Applicant's offending 'were situationally motivated' and contextualised by 'relative psychosocial immaturity' and 'the fact he was then suffering from very severe symptoms of Complex PTSD [that] was relevant to the offending'. > > (c) Mr Cummins believes the Applicant continues to suffer Complex PTSD, but this has 'now moderated' and his symptoms instead 'centre around' being 'granted Australian citizenship'. Mr Cummins does not consider the Applicant requires mental health treatment, but this may be required if his citizenship application is refused. > > (d) Mr Cummins assesses the Applicant 'now has a very good understanding of why the FVIO was issued...and... the consequences' of breach. > > (e) Mr Cummins assesses the Applicant's risk of committing a further offence of violence as 'Low' and 'equivalent to a non-appreciable risk'.

3. Mr Cummins gave oral evidence in person on 19 March 2025. Key aspects of his testimony are summarised as follows:

(a) In forming his opinion Mr Cummins took a history from the Applicant, read the documentation provided, and used the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20-V3)[48] instrument to assess recidivism risk. He said the Applicant's 'low' risk equates to a 'negligible or non-appreciable risk of reoffending'. Mr Cummins does not consider the Applicant requires further offence-specific treatment. When asked by Mr Merlin if the Applicant's risk of reoffending is meaningfully greater than an average person, Mr Cummins responded: 'It would have to be given his criminal history'. > > (b) In relation to diagnosing the Applicant with 'Complex PTSD', Mr Cummins said this condition does not feature in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5),[49] although it is recognised under the International Classification of Diseases.[50] Mr Cummins said PTSD dates back to the Applicant's teenage years in Iran when he left in 'pressured circumstances'. Reference was also made to the death of the Applicant's parents and 'turbulence' during intimate relationships in 2014 and 2018 as contextually relevant to his mental health. > > (c) When asked how he could determine at as session with the Applicant on 20 January 2026 that he was suffering Complex PTSD while offending 12 years ago, Mr Cummins said this was based on what the Applicant told him. He said the predictive validity of such an opinion can be 'very accurate'. > > (d) Mr Cummins said the Applicant's Complex PTSD symptoms 'have moderated to some degree' and described him as a 'psychologically resilient and stoic person'. When asked by Ms Xian if it was possible to say with certainty after a single session with the Applicant that he is fully rehabilitated, Mr Cummins responded: 'Yes'. > > (e) Mr Cummons said the Applicant communicated techniques about how to deal with future relationship stressors, such as 'thinking clearly', 'not responding spontaneously', 'talking in a non-emotional manner', and having the 'option of walking away'. Although psychosocial immaturity was previously a factor in his responses to stressful situations, Mr Cummins said this is no longer the case. The MBSP had a salutary impact on the Applicant as did being subjected to a full 12-month FVIO. When put by Ms Xian that the Applicant breached an initial FVIO, which is why a final FVIO preventing contact with Ms AA was imposed, Mr Cummins contextualised the initial FVIO as more of a 'warning'.

1. Mr Merlin said the Applicant is not the same person he was in 2014 or 2018 but is now remorseful, more mature, has benefitted from the MBCP, and has not reoffended since November 2018. Mr Merlin said character assessments 'are not about being perfect' and that a holistic view of the Applicant's circumstances show he is currently of good character.
2. Ms Xian said Mr Cummins' evidence about recidivism risk is of limited utility because good character turns on moral qualities over a long period of time rather. She said the Applicant's past violence was not isolated and insufficient time has passed given the seriousness of his crimes to consider he is yet of good character.

1. Committing crimes or other misconduct is not determinative of whether a person is currently of good character. Character can be redeemed by a lengthy period of good conduct:

But the false steps of youth and early manhood are not always final proof of defective character and unfitness. The presumption which, according to circumstances, they may appear to raise may surely be overcome by a subsequent blameless career. > > ... > > In short this appears to be a case in which this Court ought to give effect to the view that the adverse conclusions that might otherwise be drawn from an unsatisfactory beginning may be displaced by a completely satisfactory subsequent career sustained over a lengthy period of time.[51] > > (Emphasis added.)

2. In documentary submissions it was claimed the Applicant's crimes must be considered in the context of his past experiences in Iran, which he left as a teenager.[52] The Tribunal is unpersuaded about any nexus between the Applicant's adverse experiences in Iran and commission of violent crimes as an adult in Australia. The Tribunal is also unpersuaded by the Applicant's claim that he was unaware of the 'rules and regulations' in Australia until he did the court-ordered MBCP. The findings of guilt against him in 2014 should have amply communicated the legal consequences of committing violent crimes_._
3. The Tribunal found aspects of the Applicant's evidence self-serving or attempting to impugn judicial findings. In a Statutory Declaration less than a year ago in 16 April 2025, for example, he claimed:

(a) That in 2014 his girlfriend's former boyfriend harassed them by sending 'repeated, unwanted, and distressing messages' that caused 'emotional strain'.[53] The Applicant claimed to be seeking 'a peaceful resolution' by messaging the victim on social media to meet and amicably 'resolve the matter'. After arriving at the victim's house, the Applicant claims the victim was purportedly 'wearing boxing gloves', 'suddenly' became violent and tried to 'punch' him. The Applicant claims he only picked up 'a nearby stick' to 'defend [him]self and deter further aggression' but did not strike the aggressor or 'cause any injury or property damage'. The Applicant contends the aggressor 'made false allegations' out of 'personal resentment'. He invokes limited English, not having an interpreter during legal proceedings and lacking financial means as explaining why he 'accepted the charge' (sic) on his lawyer's advice. This narrative conflicts with contemporaneous police records and the Courts findings of guilt.[54] The Tribunal prefers the latter, including because the police recorded the Applicant's claims as being 'angry' with the victim, that he 'attended the victim's address with the intention of scaring the victim', and 'made full admissions to all charges except the threat to kill'.[55] > > (b) In terms of the incident with Ms AA on 21 September 2018, the Applicant concedes their argument 'escalated into domestic violence'[56] and led to a FVIO.[57] He also accepts another argument with Ms AA on 4 November 2018 'escalated into a physical altercation', while concurrently claiming Ms AA frequently started arguments with him 'over minor issues' when he came home 'tired' from work, directed 'verbal insults' and 'hurtful language' at him, and that the violence between them was 'mutual'.[58] The Applicant denied threatening to kill Ms AA in this Statutory Declaration and instead portrayed his conduct as trying to 'de-escalate the situation and prevent further misunderstandings'. He only concedes that he 'may have responded back with words that were hurtful'. In oral evidence, however, he accepts that he threatened to kill Ms AA, their child and himself. He insisted, however, that this threat was only intended to convey the seriousness of his claim about not having an affair. This came across as implausible. The Tribunal prefers the findings of guilt and convictions recorded against the Applicant and the police reports, photographs, and statements informing these.[59] > > (c) The Applicant accepts he followed Ms AA after she drove off in a car with her mother but claimed in documentary evidence he did so out of 'concern and emotional distress'. He portrays his effort to stop Ms AA's car with his hand as 'instinct'. This narrative again conflicts with police reports, statements, and judicial findings, which the Tribunal prefers. > > (d) In terms of driving while suspended, the Applicant claims this was not a 'deliberate attempt to ignore the law' but occurred because he was 'acting out of concern and emotional distress...[and]...failed to think clearly'. The Tribunal instead considers he acted out of anger rather than concern when following Ms AA's car. That said, there is no evidence of repeat driving offences.

4. In terms of failing to fully declare his criminal history in two citizenship applications, the Tribunal was unpersuaded by the Applicant's claim that this arose from mistakes, misunderstandings, or that he did not need to include the information because the Respondent could access his criminal history. The Applicant is responsible for official documents submitted in his name particularly given the declarations he made about the completeness and accuracy of information provided. The Tribunal is satisfied he provided incomplete information in both citizenship applications.
5. In terms of rehabilitation, the Applicant was ordered by the Court to complete a MBCP. A letter from Relationship Matters dated 26 May 2020 states he attended 13 of 20 sessions and two make-up sessions during late 2019 and early 2020.[60] The letter contains a disclaimer and does not elaborate on the extent or quality of the Applicant's participation:

The Men's Behaviour Change Program assists men to explore strategies, ideas and concepts to maintain non-violent and respectful behaviours at home and in their personal relationships. Whilst the program supports men to accept responsibility for their actions it is not a guarantee of future behaviour. Attendance at this course does not ensure the safety of others. > > As a result of social restrictions imposed due to Covid-19, Gullam was not able to finish the 20 week MBCP program. He has however engaged with five case management phone calls between the 23rd of April and the 22nd of May 2020. These calls were based on the aims of the MBCP, and provided support and education around family violence in the absence of the group program. According to guidance from Family Safety Victoria, this case management model can suffice for the remaining sessions of the program (sessions 18-20) which Gullam was unable to attend.

(a) The Applicant has not consistently upheld and obeyed Australian law. Rather than learn from the findings of guilt against him in 2014, he committed further violent crimes in 2018. His conduct is not isolated and weighs heavily against him. It is accepted the Applicant was 19 years of age in 2014, and that youth / immaturity may have been contextually relevant. He was 24 years' old in 2018, however, when committing more serious offences. His conduct reflects disrespect for Australian law. > > (b) The adjourned undertaking / good behaviour bond imposed by the Court in late 2019 only expired in December 2020. This is approximately five years ago and a comparable period to that between the Applicant's two court appearances. > > (c) The evidence discloses mitigating factors in the Applicant's favour. This includes undertaking the MBCP and enjoying strong support from family and friends. Salutary lessons are likely to have been conveyed to him from past court appearances and not being able to contact Ms AA or their child during a 12-month final FVIO. He has also made some positive contributions through employment, vocational / self-development courses, and helping care for his children. During the current hearing the Applicant displayed better insight about distinguishing between right and wrong, and strategies that may help him deal with future interpersonal conflict. Other aspects of his evidence, however, are revisionist in nature and raise questions about the extent of his insight, remorse, and rehabilitative progress. This includes in a Statutory Declaration dated April 2025 and oral testimony about only pleading guilty to 'false allegations' in 2014 on legal advice, and because of limited English, no interpreter, and insufficient funds. It is well established in this regard that a plea of guilty constitutes admission to all elements of the charges answered.[61] It is also impermissible for the Tribunal to impugn the essential basis of judicial findings.[62] > > (d) In terms of Mr Cummins' opinion, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant constitutes a low risk of reoffending and has made some rehabilitative progress through the MBCP. The Tribunal is less convinced by Mr Cummins' retrospective diagnosis of Complex PTSD as relevant to crimes committed between 7 and 12 years ago. This includes because Mr Cummins only saw the Applicant for two hours on 20 January 2026 and was only provided with limited documents. > > (e) The Applicant's failure to fully disclose his criminal history in citizenship applications weighs against him. The Tribunal found his explanation for doing so unpersuasive given the plain meaning of questions asked. The Tribunal does not accept these omissions were a mistake and may instead reflect carelessness or a lack of candour in an official context. Neither is to the Applicant's credit. > > (f) For reasons adduced earlier less weight is placed on supportive references where the authors either do not refer to or convey only a limited understanding of the Applicant's past conduct. > > (g) In terms of the Tribunal cases relied on in the Applicant's SFIC, there is no doctrine of stare decisis or equivalent to judicial comity in the Tribunal. I am not bound by the reasoning of other Tribunal members, including because these other cases turn on their own facts.

1. Just over five years has passed since the Applicant's good behaviour obligation to the Court ended. Given the repeat nature of his violent conduct and concerns about aspects of his current evidence, the Tribunal is unpersuaded that this constitutes a sufficiently lengthy period of law-abiding conduct to find he is currently of good character pursuant to s 21(2)(h) of the Act. It is open to the Applicant to reapply for citizenship at any time, including when a longer period of law-abiding conduct and greater consistency in his claims may strengthen the persuasiveness of a subsequent application.
2. It follows that the reviewable decision is affirmed.

1. I certify that the preceding forty-five (45) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

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

[2] Ibid 228. As defined by s 5AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

[17] Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44 [60].

[18] Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 [8].

[19] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 [3] [51], (O'Bryan J).

[20] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645.

[21] Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79; (2019) 164 ALD 103, 120 [64] - [65], [70].

[22] Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 663; (1996) 68 FCR 422, 425 (Lee J), 431 (Lee J); Cited with approval in _Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (_2001) 205 CLR 507 (Gleeson CJ and Gummow J).

[23] In Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361, 'satisfaction' is referred to as an 'actual persuasion of [the] occurrence or existence' of the matter being considered.

[24] A SFIC is routinely lodged by parties during the pre-hearing phase to identify and narrow issues in dispute and help ensure both sides are aware of each other's case.

[25] Exhibit R1. Pursuant to s 23 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth).

[47] RJE v Secretary to Department of Justice [2008] VSCA 265; (2008) 21 VR 526 [16]-[17] (Maxwell P and Weinberg J]).

[48] Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised, 2nd Edition (PCL-R), and Historical-Clinical-Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20-V3).

[49] This is a reference book on mental health and brain-related conditions and disorders. It is published by the American Psychiatric Association and is considered an authoritative guide used by clinicians and researchers to diagnose and classify mental health conditions.

[50] This is a World Health Organisation document containing diagnostic health information used to classify diseases, injuries and causes of death.

[51] Lenehan, Ex parte [1948] HCA 45; (1948) 77 CLR 403 (Latham CJ, Rich, Starke, Dixon and Williams JJ).

[52] Applicant's SFIC, 2 [4], [14].

[56] Applicant's SFIC, 7 [33] - [34].

[61] Maxwell v R [1996] HCA 46; (1996) 184 CLR 501, [19].

[62] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele [1981] FCA 212; (1981) 61 FLR 354 at 358; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT [1999] FCA 1197; (1999) 91 FCR 234 at 244-5_; HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection_ [2018] FCA 1803, [102] (Bromberg J).