BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

(a) The Applicant arrived in Australia on 29 May 2010 as an Irregular Maritime Arrival. He identified himself as Mahdi Askary born on 21 March 1993. He held no formal identity documents and claimed to be a stateless Faili Kurd born in Ilam Province, Iran. > > (b) The department assessed the Applicant to be over 18 years of age and recorded his date of birth as 1 January 1989. > > (c) The Applicant applied for a Refugee Status Assessment (RSA) on 14 August 2010. He claimed to be a stateless Faili Kurd from Iran who feared harm from the Basij and other Iranian authorities. On 27 September 2010, the RSA determined that the Applicant was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations. > > (d) On 25 April 2011, an Independent Merits Review (IMR) of the RSA determination found that the Applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations. The Applicant was subsequently granted a Protection (Subclass 866) visa (the Protection visa) on 21 June 2011. > > (e) The Applicant lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral on 27 September 2015 (the first citizenship application). It was refused on 11 November 2019 because the delegate was unable to be satisfied about the Applicant's identity. > > (f) The Applicant was granted a Five Year Resident Return (Subclass 155) (the first Resident Return visa) visa on 9 December 2020. > > (g) The Applicant lodged a second application for Australian citizenship by conferral on 4 January 2021 (the second citizenship application). > > (h) The Applicant departed Australia and travelled to Iran on 21 December 2023. Due to an administrative error by the department, the Applicant's first Resident Return Visa ceased whilst he was offshore. The Applicant attempted to board a return flight to Australia on 29 January 2024 but was denied entry because his first Resident Return Visa had ceased. > > (i) The Applicant applied for another Five Year Resident Return (Subclass 155) (the second Resident Return visa) visa on 9 February 2024. He requested expedited visa processing so that he could return to Australia alongside his three children and because he was required to present to Tehran Revolutionary Court on 17 February 2024 and he wanted to avoid imprisonment. > > (j) Copies of the Applicant's Iranian passport, Iranian National Identity card, Iranian birth certificate and Iranian Military Completion card were included in his application for the second Resident Return visa. Those identity documents recorded the Applicant as Mahdi Asgary, an Iranian citizen who was born on 4 May 1984. > > (k) On 26 March 2024, the Applicant attached the above identity documents to his second citizenship application. The Applicant asked the department to update their records to reflect 4 May 1984 as his correct date of birth. > > (l) On 27 February 2025, the Applicant responded to concerns raised by the delegate about previous identity information that the Applicant had provided. > > (m) The delegate made a decision refusing the Applicant's second application for Australian citizenship on 3 March 2025 because they were not satisfied that the Applicant was of good character at the time of their decision as required by s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act). > > (n) The Applicant applied to this Tribunal for merits review of the delegate's decision on 27 March 2025. > > RELEVANT LAW > > 1. Section 24(1A) of the Act provides that the Minister must not approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under ss 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (7) of the Act. > 2. Relevant to this case are the 'general eligibility' requirements in s 21(2). More specifically, s 21(2)(h) requires that the Minister is satisfied that a person is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision. > 3. The phrase 'good character' is not defined in the Act. However, its meaning was considered (albeit in a different context) by the Full Federal Court in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422.[1] In that case, Lee J said (citations omitted):[2] > > Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning to 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, not to 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 whilst 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. > > 1. The Federal Court of Australia has also considered the state of satisfaction that is required in determining whether a person is of good character. In BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, O'Bryan J observed (citations omitted): > > Section 21(2)(h) requires the Minister to form a judgment as to whether he or she is satisfied that the applicant for citizenship is of good character. The word "satisfies" in that context is not amenable to the application of an evidentiary burden of proof, such as balance of probabilities. That is for at least two reasons. First, the decision is an administrative decision to which the rules of evidence are inapplicable and the evidentiary burden of proof inapposite. Second, the matter of which the Minister must be satisfied, the applicant's good character, is not a fact to be proved but an opinion requiring an evaluative judgment. A standard of proof, such as balance of probabilities, is incapable of application to such an opinion... > > The absence of an evidentiary burden of proof does not mean that there is an absence of a legal standard of satisfaction. In the context of s 21(2)(h) of the Act, satisfaction requires that the decision-maker reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character. It is not sufficient for the decision-maker to believe that there is a chance that the applicant is a person of good character; equally it is not necessary for the decision-maker to have a high degree of confidence that the applicant is a person of good character...[3] > > 1. The Respondent department's citizenship policy identifies the legal requirements and related policy and procedures that apply to the assessment of an application for Australian citizenship. Citizenship Procedural Instruction 15 Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15) provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the good character requirement. I am not bound to strictly apply policy but, as it is government policy, it should be considered unless there are cogent reasons not to do so (Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2))[4]. > 2. I do not consider that CPI-15 is inconsistent with the Act and there are no cogent reasons before me to justify departing from it. > 3. Sub-section 3.3 of CPI 15 relevantly provides: > > A decision-maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout the time the applicant held a visa, and during the time their citizenship application was lodged and processed. > > 1. A person's enduring moral qualities encompass:

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

The written material and evidence presented to me includes, but is not limited to:

(a) The documents provided by the Respondent under s 23 of the Act;

(b) A joint hearing bundle which was marked as Exhibit HB1 (HB 1) containing, among other things:

(i) Submissions, submissions in reply, statements and other documents filed by the Applicant;[5]

(ii) An Amended Statement of Facts, issues and Contentions, tender bundle and supplementary tender bundle filed by the Respondent;[6]

(iii) A brief of information and Criminal History Record provided by the New Zealand Police.[7]

(c) Additional Statutory Declarations made by Mr Massud Jassempour (marked as Exhibit A1 (A1)), Ms Mariam Hajiki (marked as Exhibit A2 (A2)), Dr Jack Wallace (marked as Exhibit A3 (A3)) and Mr Masud Jafari (marked as Exhibit A4 (A4)).

Evidence of the Applicant

The Applicant submits that he satisfies the 'good character' requirement in s 21(2)(h) of the Act.[8]

He concedes that he has provided misleading and incorrect information. For example:

(a) "He claimed he was a stateless and undocumented Fali Kurd from Iran, his country of usual resident; however while was a Fali Kurd who was citizen of Iran and that he had identify documents.

(b) He provided his name and date of birth was Mahdi ASKARY born on 1 January 1989; however, the actual spelling of his name is Madhi ASGARY and that this actual date of birth was 4 May 1984.

(c) In September 2015, the Applicant repeated the incorrect information about being stateless, the spelling of his surname and his date of birth in his first application for Australian Citizenship by Conferral. He misleadingly claimed in that application he was unable to provide any documentation due to his statelessness in his country of usual residence.

(d) The Applicant lodged a Subclass 155 Resident Return visa on 9 September 2020 in which he repeated the same incorrect and missing information about his identity.

(e) On 2 January 2021, the Applicant repeated the same incorrect and misleading information in this second and current application for Australian Citizenship by Conferral.

(f) The Applicant's actual identity became apparent when the Applicant's migration agent assisted him with his Subclass 155 visa application on 9 February 2024. Accompanying the application were submitted translated copies of his Iranian identity documents whereby his date of birth was recorded as 4 May 1984. The Applicant's Migration Agent provided a submission on the Applicant's behalf by submitting:

'The visa holder was born on 4 May 1984 in Shourabeh Khanali, Shirvan, Loumar, Shirvan Chardavol situated in Ilam Province, Iran. His date of birth is recorded as same on this Birth Certificate issued by the Ministry of the Interior displaying serial number A/89 235995 (as supplied):

The visa holder has identified a discrepancy between his date of birth as converted from the 'Jalali Calendar' to the 'Gregorian Calendar'. He expressed thay the discrepancy could be due to an error on the part of the interpreter when converting the Visa Applicant's date of birth per the 'Jalali Calendar' to the 'Gregorian Calendar'. The Visa Applicant commits to rectifying same upon his return to Australia so that his date of birth is consistent across his Iranian and Australian identity documentation.

The visa holder did not previously supply identity documentation issued by Iranian government departments and agencies to the Department as he was urged and warned by people smugglers not to provide same as he will returned to Iran. He claimed to be an undocumented Fali Kurd because of such strongly held fears and did not supply his Iran-issued identity documentation until it was requested of him when he most recently departed Australia. His intentions were not to mislead the Department of his identity - he feared he would be deported to Iran as a documented Fali Kurd and apologises for not having previously supplied his Iran-issued identity document to the Department'.

(g) Identify documents attached included his Iranian passport; Iranian National Identity Card; Iranian Birth Certificate and Iranian Military Completion Card."[9]

(errors in original)

He says that he provided incorrect information to the Department for a Protection visa based upon the instructions of people smugglers facilitating his travel to Australia and his fear of being returned to Iran where he felt trapped in a cycle of addiction and marginalisation as a Kurdish man with limited education. He has denied being motivated by malice or outright disregard for Australia's laws.[10]

The Applicant submits that he was in a relationship with Ms Shantasha Edwards (Ms Edwards) and that she is the mother of his three children. He submits that her brother was, and remains, a member of a criminal organisation and is the President of a Chapter of the outlawed biker's organisation. He claims to have faced threats and intimidation from bikers associated with the gang.[11]

The Applicant contends that he was a 'prospect' of a New Zealand chapter of the Mongols Mob but has denied being a 'patched' member.[12] He contends that his association with the Mongols Mob was one of diminished responsibilities due to a range of mental health reasons, relationship breakdown, drug dependency and intimidation and threats against him and his family.[13] He says that he has never been charged or convicted of any offences in relation to an association with an outlawed motorcycle gang and claims to have cooperated with the authorities in Australia where it was safe to do so.[14]

He acknowledges being in a 'volatile relationship' with Ms Sharneise Tackney (Ms Tackney). According to his evidence, Ms Tackney was the daughter of a senior Mongrel Mob member and he shared a co-dependency to drugs with her.[15] He submits that the 'thrust' of the evidence provided by the New Zealand Police indicates that he was the victim of physical and emotional abuse.[16]

The Applicant acknowledges that authorities in New Zealand refused his application for a firearms licence, but denies that it was refused because of an 'association' with an outlaw motorcycle gang.[17]

He concedes that he was involved in an altercation in New Zealand on 16 May 2023 that led to an arrest warrant being issued against him, but denies that he 'fled' New Zealand to avoid arrest and points to records indicating that he is a 'cleared offender'.[18]

The Applicant submits that there is no criminal record or court-related evidence of his involvement in criminal offending and that, despite his history of substance abuse, he has been substantially compliant with the laws of Australia.[19]

The Applicant contends that his time spent living in Australia and New Zealand without being charged or convicted of any crimes, his involvement in a stable and loving long distance relationship, the care that he provides to his three children as a sole parent, his proactive approach to his mental health and sobriety, his involvement in his local Neighbourhood Watch and registration as an organ donor attest to his good character.

Witness evidence

The Applicant has submitted a number of statutory declarations and/or letters of support that he relies upon in this proceeding.[23] They are brief but, in general terms, attest to his good character, his remorse in providing false information, the care that he provides to his three children, his narcotics addiction and his involvement with Narcotics Anonymous.

The Applicant called upon Mr Masoud Jafari (Mr Jafari) to give oral evidence at the hearing. During evidence-in-chief, he spoke of the Applicant being a distant relative that he knew from before they each travelled to Australia. He spoke of his own drug use as well the Applicant's involvement in Narcotics Anonymous. He re-iterated that the Applicant is kind to his children and is remorseful for his actions.

Under cross-examination, Mr Jafari conceded that his contact with the Applicant was very limited whilst the Applicant was living in New Zealand. He was unaware that the Applicant was a prospect for an OMCG but was aware of some difficulties that the Applicant was experiencing with his then spouse's brother.

Mr Jafari acknowledged that he did not travel to Australia on the same boat as the Applicant but that they did spend time together on Christmas Island. He conceded that the part of his Statutory Declaration describing his travel to Australia with the Applicant was therefore incorrect but maintained that it was correct in all other respects.[24]

The Applicant filed a report by Ms Trish Thomas (Ms Thomas), Psychologist.[25] Prior to the hearing, the Respondent complained that the report failed to comply with the ART's (Expert Evidence) Practice Direction 2024.[26] The Respondent requested the Applicant to provide a copy of the briefing letter. The Applicant's response to the Respondent's complaint did not include a copy of the briefing letter.

Ms Thomas was called upon to give oral evidence at the hearing. Without traversing all of the concerns, and without wishing to impugn the professionalism of Ms Thomas, it became readily apparent that Ms Thomas was an unsuitable expert witness. She explained that she had not been provided with a briefing letter, her report was not intended for the Tribunal proceeding, she was unfamiliar with the Tribunal's Practice Direction, she felt conflicted and unable to give expert evidence on the Applicant's behalf.

After hearing from the Applicant and the Respondent, I agreed with their request to excuse Ms Thomas from continuing with her oral evidence. The parties further agreed that her written report and the oral evidence that she had provided would be withdrawn from the proceeding and that no weight would be placed upon it.

Because of this, and upon the parties agreement, I allowed the Applicant to return to the witness stand for the very confined purpose of giving further evidence about this mental health and use of professional health services. He spoke to the mental difficulties he was experiencing after returning from New Zealand and the decision of his GP to refer him to a psychologist. He attended a psychologist on 12 occasions throughout 2024 and 2025 and discussed his experiences from living in Iran and New Zealand. The sessions have assisted him with mindfulness and relaxation and have provided him with encouragement to continue attending Narcotics Anonymous.

The Respondent

The Respondent contends that the evidence weighs strongly against a finding that the Applicant is a person of 'good character' for purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act. [27]

The Respondent submits that the Applicant has a substantial history of knowingly and continuously providing false and misleading information to Australian authorities over a long period of time for purposes of obtaining favourable migration outcomes. This includes:

(a) Providing a false name and date of birth upon his first arrival in Australia in order to be considered a minor and an undocumented stateless Fali Kurd born in Iran;

(b) Maintaining the claim to be Mahdi Asgary born on 21 March 1993 and to be stateless and without any legal identity documents before later claiming to be Mahdi Asgary born on 1 January 1989;

(c) Maintaining the identity of Mahdi Asgar born on 1 January 1989 and stateless throughout his first citizenship application lodged on 17 September 2015, his Resident Return visa application lodged on 9 November 2020 and his application for Australian citizenship by conferral that is the subject of this review;

(d) Providing false statutory declarations in support of his false identify and refugee claims;

(e) Only disclosing his true identity as a documented Iranian citizen whilst stranded in Iran and facing potential imprisonment.[28]

The Respondent submits that a person of 'good character' would not associate with persons who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour or who do not uphold any obey the laws of Australia, such as criminal gangs and OMCGs, and would not be a person who commits domestic violence, yet contend that the Applicant:

(a) Has a history of associating with persons who are involved with an OMCG and was a member of an OMCG;

(b) Has been served with a five day Police Safety Order as a result of a verbal altercation with his former partner that resulted in both of them hitting each other, and there is a record of four other instances of domestic violence involving the Applicant and his former partner.[29]

The Respondent further contents that a person of 'good character' would not be the subject of an international arrest warrant and submits that the Applicant's failure to attend a New Zealand court in relation to charges of common assault, a warrant for his arrest being issued in New Zealand, his departure from New Zealand to Australia and the arrest warrant remaining outstanding are relevant and significant matters that go towards this.[30]

The Respondent rightly conceded during the hearing that the New Zealand Police's brief incorrectly records the gender for two of the Applicant's children. The Respondent contends that there is insufficient information as to why the brief records the Applicant's place of birth as Syria,[31] with at least one possible explanation being that it was based on information given to them by the Applicant. It is further submitted that the Applicant's place of birth is recorded as Iran elsewhere in the brief,[32] and that overall the reliability of the evidence in the brief should be accepted.

Consideration

There are aspects of the Applicant's conduct and behaviour that weigh favourably towards him being of good character.

He has previously held meaningful employment and, by all accounts, would have continued doing so were it not for experiencing a workplace injury. I am prepared to accept that he is a protective and nurturing father[33] who wants his three children to have the benefits of a good education,[34] and that he is also their primary care giver.

I accept that the Applicant has a long history of drug use which he has sought to address since 2024 by abstinence and his ongoing involvement with Narcotics Anonymous where he currently holds a leadership position of 'secretary'.[35] I also accept that the Applicant is involved with his Neighbourhood Watch program and is a registered organ donor.

I accept that there are no disclosable court outcomes recorded against the Applicant in Australia.[36]

I accept, and have also placed some weight upon, the Applicant's character references and his witness evidence. Subjectively, the material attests to him being a person of good character who has experienced and overcome personal adversity, has been misled by people smugglers, takes his rehabilitation very seriously, has responsibility for sole parenting his three children and who is remorseful for providing incorrect information.

Despite this, I am not satisfied that the Applicant is a person of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.

I find that there is more force in the Respondent's contention that a person who has a substantial history of providing false and misleading information to the Australian government, and who has a history of associating with persons who are involved with a criminal gang and/or an OMCG, and who has been served with a five day Police Safety Order as a result of a verbal altercation with their former partner, and who is the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in New Zealand is not a person of good character.

I find that the false information about his name, date of birth and claim to be a stateless person with no official documents was given, and then maintained, for the purposes of securing favourable migration and citizenship outcomes. The false information he provided was deceptive, it was deliberate, it was sustained, and it was repeated in multiple applications and across his many dealings with Australian government officials. It has previously been said by this Tribunal that such conduct 'strikes at the heart of the integrity of the Australian migration and citizenship framework.'[37] With respect, it is a statement that I agree with and one that I consider is apt to repeat in the circumstances of this case.

I am satisfied that the Applicant only came forward with his true identity out of necessity. He was in Iran facing a precarious situation and did not have a visa permitting his re-entry into Australia. Were it not for these events, I have no confidence that the Applicant would have ever corrected his identity with Australian government officials.

'...I have no disclosable court outcomes against me nor have I ever been involved in any altercation with any other person'[40]

can only be viewed as a deliberate mistruth.

So too is the written statement:

'While in New Zealand, I did not engage in serious criminal activities. Nor had I been charged or convicted of any crimes in that country.'[41]

The truth is that he had been involved in an altercation, he had been charged with common assault and he had failed to attend court to have the charge heard. His explanation of being too drug affected to remember is not persuasive.

Finally, the evidence before me raises questions about family violence. The New Zealand Police brief identifies the Applicant as both a victim and a suspect.[42] The Applicant strongly denies being a perpetrator of family violence. I have given no weight to the untested allegations of violence allegedly perpetrated by the Applicant. I am prepared to accept that the Applicant was in a volatile relationship whilst living in New Zealand, that he may, at times, have been a victim of family violence and that he may have experienced some pressure from his ex-spouse's family not to report certain matters to the Police.

However, it concerns me that the Applicant's interactions with the New Zealand Police in relation to the alleged matters were not disclosed by him until after a copy of the New Zealand Police brief was given to him. Whilst he later acknowledged that he was served a five day Police Safety Order, for example, it is a matter that he deliberately mislead about in earlier statements that he made. In one statutory declaration, for example, he wrote:

"I have never had any complaint against me for intimate, domestic or family violence. Perhaps this because I have had a rough beginning to my life, I find such behaviour repulsive".[43]

(errors in original)

Whilst I accept that the Applicant has not been convicted or charged with a family violence offence, there can be no doubt that he was at least the subject of complaints.

Nor am I persuaded that his volatile relationship with his ex-partner provides a satisfactory explanation for his ongoing association with the Mongrel's Mob whilst living in New Zealand. It was an association that lasted for a significant length of time, it involved him being more than a mere acquaintance of OMCG members and it involved him wearing Mongrel Mob attire. I have reached the view that all of those actions were deliberate and voluntary despite the nature of the relationship with his ex-spouse and her family members.

Conclusion

Weighing up all of the above, I am not satisfied that the Applicant is a person of good character at the time of this decision. He has engaged in the deliberate, repeated and ongoing practice of deception or fraud in his dealings with the Australian government over a prolonged period of time for the purposes of obtaining favourable migration and citizenship outcomes. His decision to eventually correct the record was driven out of crisis and necessity and not by contrition or remorse. He has associated with persons involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour, such as OMCGs, which he has then sought to deny, minimise or avoid responsibility for. He has sought to deny and mislead about his interactions with Police and the criminal justice system in New Zealand. Such conduct is the antithesis of the enduring moral qualities required for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.

Decision

The decision under review is affirmed.

Dates of hearing: 28 and 29 January 2026

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr Brendan Darcy, Brendan Darcy Consultancy

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Olivia Cameron

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Emma Rogerson**,** HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (27 paragraphs)

Asgary and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2026] ARTA 527 (12 February 2026)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)