1. The parties essentially accepted the Tribunal's view that the principles set out by O'Bryan J in BOY19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCA 574 provide a useful guide to the approach the Tribunal should take in determining the question in issue. Such principles to be applied, as summarised previously by the Tribunal as presently constituted, are set out below:[1]

1. Pursuant to s. 24(1A) of the Act, the Minister (and hence now the Tribunal) must not approve an application for Australian citizenship unless the Applicant satisfies the relevant eligibility requirement under s. 21 of the Act; apropos this review, s. 21(2)(h). The Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applicant is of 'good character' at the time of this decision by forming an "opinion requiring an evaluative judgement" and by reaching "an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character" BOY19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCA 574 at [54]- [55]. 2. In determining 'good character' the Tribunal is to look holistically at an applicant's behaviour over time in order to be satisfied of 'enduring moral qualities' within the prospective Australian citizen. Such phrase, as guided by the Citizenship Policy Instruction 15 - Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI), encompasses the following:

(a) Characteristics which have been demonstrated 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.

1. CPI 15 further sets out examples of characteristics of a person of good character and they do not include those who practice deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government or other organisations. For example, intentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents); or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications. 2. Section 50 of the Act provides that it is an offence to deliberately make, or cause to make, a false or misleading statement, or conceal circumstances in relation to an application for Australian citizenship. 3. The Tribunal is to consider a range of events and conduct connected with the Applicant: Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44; (2015) 231 FCR 128 at [60]. 4. Justice O'Bryan in BOY19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCA 574, engaged in a substantial analysis of the meaning of 'good character' in this context. Since not defined, the Parliament intended the term to be used in a broad way:

(a) One looks 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; > > (b) It does not have a fixed and precise content; > > (c) It imports a discretionary value judgement to be made by reference to undefined factual matters confined only by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statutory provisions; and > > (d) It requires a judgment as to whether any proven deficiencies in the moral qualities of a person are sufficient to deny the person citizenship.

1. Justice O'Bryan accepted that "[t]he subject matter, scope and purpose of the Act is informed by its Preamble which states:

The Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.

The Parliament recognises that persons conferred Australian citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations:

(a) By pledging loyalty to Australia and its people;

(b) By sharing their democratic beliefs;

(c) By respecting their rights and liberties; and

(d) By upholding and obeying the laws of Australia."

These ideals of diversity, democracy and liberty are to be assessed "by moral qualities that are regarded as a necessary concomitant of Australian citizenship".

1. As to the 'satisfied' requirement in s. 21(2)(h) of the Act, the word:

"is not amenable to the application of an evidentiary burden of proof, such as balance of probabilities... the decision is an administrative decision to which the rules of evidence are inapplicable and the evidentiary burden of proof inapposite... 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... 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".

1. The decision making power is therefore to be exercised reasonably.
2. Part of the task is to assess the relative weight to be given to conduct that reflects positively or negatively on the Applicant's character.
3. Respect for the institutions of government including government departments is consistent with being of 'good character' in the statutory sense. Such respect can be characterised as a moral quality that is relevant to citizenship.
4. The Tribunal must reach an affirmative belief that the Applicant is a person of good character for s 21(2)(h) of the Act to be satisfied.

1. The Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence (agreed by the parties) to be before it, comprising the T Documents, the Applicant's Bundle and the Respondent's Bundle. The Tribunal has also considered the testimony of the Applicant, a credible and impressive witness, who was thoroughly cross-examined and questioned by the Tribunal. No attack was made on the credibility of the Applicant. The Tribunal has also considered the written and oral submissions of the parties.
2. The Tribunal was particularly assisted during the hearing by the thorough preparation and fair, yet firm, advocacy of the solicitor for the Respondent and his 'model litigant' approach.
3. The Applicant has an impressive work history, particularly in Australia and has been continuously employed since he arrived here in 2017. As recently as December 2025 he was promoted to Growth Lead at Fusion Markets, a senior role, and is presently involved in acquiring equity in that company to complement his role. There is no question as to his admirable work ethic and that he is a highly regarded and valued employee.
4. This and other aspects of the Applicant's testimony only came to light during the hearing as the only prior statutory declaration lodged by the Applicant sworn 25 January 2025 was relatively brief and matter of fact.
5. During his testimony the Applicant revealed the considerable impact the prolonged COVID lockdowns in Melbourne had had upon him. That period of between about 2020 to 2022 was a particularly difficult one for most living in Melbourne, and in particular the Applicant. Although the challenging lockdowns ended in the later part of 2021, the consequential mental health challenges have lingered beyond that date for some Melbournians.
6. The Applicant's unchallenged evidence established that he was prevented from returning to Argentia during that those years and had to endure a long term relationship with his girlfriend based in Argentina, and all of the challenges associated with that. That relationship ultimately collapsing under such strain. He was also under financial pressure, amplified by his continuing attempts to support his family members back in Argentina. Both he and, coincidentally his brother in Argentina, each had spinal surgery in about 2020 and he described his life and mental health during that period and into the early part of 2023 as being "at a very low point" It seems evident that the Applicant was depressed during that period even though depression had not been diagnosed nor had he thought to seek out professional mental health support.
7. After the lockdowns ended he moved to Sydney and he also returned to Argentina for some weeks.
8. The Applicant's only offending against the law occurred in the first quarter of 2023 and must be looked in context and also evaluated against his otherwise unblemished character. The 12 February 2023 relatively minor 'personal use type' drug offence carried no conviction but is still to be included in the evaluation of the Applicant's character.[2]
9. It is the unfortunate 27 March 2023 offence (just 12 days after the Applicant received a two year Conditional Release Order) for which he was convicted, which shows a serious disregard for the laws (and indeed Courts) of Australia. Again, the offence itself was a minor one being essentially 'personal use' drug possession but the Tribunal acknowledges the seriousness of the breach, by the Applicant, of the Conditional Release Order, which included the following additional condition:

"You must abstain from drugs unless they are prescribed for you by a medical practitioner, for the period of 2 years to commence on 15 March 2023 expiring on 14 March 2025"

1. Just 12 days after that Conditional Release Order was issued the Applicant was found in possession of illicit drugs even though the Applicant well knew on 15 March 2023 that the Order meant that "he was to stay away for all that", that being illicit drugs.
2. The Tribunal has considered the concerning proximity of the offending in the context of the Applicant's testimony and his otherwise good character, including incidentally regular donations to the Red Cross over a couple of years, his continuing financial support of family members back in Argentina and to a much lesser degree the various character references in evidence in support of the Applicant. As discussed during the hearing and with no disrespect to the deponent, the Tribunal does not attribute any weight to the statutory declaration of Mr Alan Ford, since he did not attend for cross examination and also, in any event, because of the less than distant association he has with the Applicant. That statutory declaration is of no assistance in the evaluative process required.
3. The Tribunal is satisfied that the closeness of the second drug offending is consistent with the unchallenged evidence of the Applicant. He was in a very dark space in the first quarter of 2023 and the act of moving to Sydney had not resolved that for him. Although he had a history of semi-regular marijuana use socially it is apparent that he was motivated by a view that some "self-medicating with MDMA" may help him with his mental health issues.
4. What is also apparent on the evidence is that his second offence was the wake-up call needed and its proximity to the very recent Conditional Release Order had, on the evidence, underscored in the Applicant a determination to try an alternate approach in dealing with his attempts to get his life back on track.
5. The Applicant testified that he has not touched illicit drugs since late March 2023 and that he has successfully turned his life around since then. He realised then, with some wisdom, that he "had to change himself internally". As is evident from his highly successful career in Australia the Applicant must have some respectable level of intelligence and consequential intellectual ability. In any event, the evidence before the Tribunal establishes that he has in fact turned his life around, becoming more career and less 'music festival/illicit drugs' focussed.
6. Since early 2023 the Applicant has widely read into self help philosophies including those from the East, reading for example 'A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose' by Eckhart Tolle. He learned how to face and deal with fear and pain in life and got to a point where he "would not shake and fall anymore" He says such readings helped him be "at peace" with himself. Whilst such an approach may be viewed by some as unconventional as opposed to seeking out psychological or psychiatric help, it is apparent on the evidence that such an approach has worked. The Applicant complemented this with the recognised Smart Recovery Course of 12 online group sessions dealing with addiction and related matters, which he completed in 2023. He has, in his own way, successfully dealt with his depression and related addiction issues, albeit without seeing a medical practitioner. He testified that he has found joy in life again, including taking on Salsa dance lessons. He learnt that there are better ways to deal with life's problems that reaching for illicit drugs.
7. The Tribunal has considered the concerns of the Respondent set out in the Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions and as summarised helpfully by the Respondent's solicitor in closing. These four points as summarised (the fourth having 5 sub-points), were put persuasively. In particular, and as the Tribunal has observed above, attending a music festival with MDMA 12 days after receiving a Conditional Release Order on its face is a very serious disregard for the laws of Australia. However, as discussed above, such must be evaluated in the context of the body of evidence before the Tribunal including the Applicant's compelling testimony.
8. The Respondent did highlight the fact that the Applicant has only been free of the Conditional Release Order for less than a year and also that the Applicant has had since his very first Court appearance an intense fear of his offending and what impact that may have on both his visa and citizenship application. In that sense the Respondent's solicitor validly characterised such as protective factors, which would evaporate if the Applicant was to be granted citizenship. The implication being that once granted citizenship the Applicant is likely to revert back to an 'MDMA type' lifestyle. On balance, as best the Tribunal can assess on the evidence, the Tribunal finds this to be a highly unlikely eventuality.
9. Further, the Tribunal accepts that on one view there has been insufficient time since the offending for the Tribunal to reach an affirmative view as to good character. The Respondent cited a couple of Tribunal decisions in support of this credible submission. However, such decisions are based on different facts and the task here is for the Tribunal to evaluate the good character (or otherwise) of the Applicant upon the facts and submission before it.
10. The Tribunal has balanced the discrete, albeit relatively recent, proven deficiencies namely the drug and breach of Order offending by the Applicant against his otherwise law abiding, honest, financially responsible and hard working character and has looked holistically at the Applicant's conduct (in the context of his testimony), and his evident positive moral qualities and otherwise good character.

1. The Tribunal finds, on balance, that such deficiencies do not prevent the Tribunal from affirmatively finding that the Applicant is of good character and is highly likely to make a significant positive contribution to the Australian community.
2. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under the matter is remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 25(2)(b)(ii) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

...............................[SGD].........................................

Solicitors for the Applicant: Andrew Topalovic, Visa Plan Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondent: Gianluca Rossi, Mills Oakley

[1] Dawlatshahi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 2437 at [4]- [14].

[2] Joud and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 64.