(a) Soon after arriving in Australia the Applicant applied for a protection visa. This was refused on 25 July 2012 because he was found not to be a person to whom Australia owed protection.[4] The Applicant sought merits review of this decision and, on 5 October 2012, the former Refugee Review Tribunal set it aside. The Applicant was subsequently granted a protection visa on 27 June 2013.[5] > > (b) On 16 May 2015, the Applicant married a Pakistani citizen in Pakistan.[6] He stated during oral evidence that they were introduced by family members earlier that year. > > (c) On 20 December 2016, the Applicant lodged a partner visa application for his wife, which was later granted. > > (d) On 4 May 2017, the Applicant lodged his first Australian citizenship application. This was refused on 14 June 2018 on identity grounds. > > (e) On 18 December 2019, the Applicant was granted a five-year Resident Return visa. > > (f) On 10 April 2020, the Applicant lodged a second citizenship application.[7] He stated that he previously held citizenship of Afghanistan[8] and had a 'National ID card' issued to him on 2 September 2018 by the 'Afghanistan Central Civil Registration Authority' in Kabul.[9] During oral evidence the Applicant said one of his sisters, now living in the United States, collected this card and sent it to him in Australia. > > (g) In August 2020, the Applicant was asked by the Respondent to provide further information regarding his citizenship application.[10] He responded through his migration agent on 26 September 2020.[11] > > (h) On 11 April 2025, the Applicant lodged an application to renew his Resident Return visa, which remains pending. > > (i) On 16 April 2025, the Applicant was asked by the Respondent about inconsistencies in his citizenship application.[12] He responded through his migration agent.[13] > > (j) On 23 May 2025, the Applicant's citizenship application was again refused on identity grounds.[14] On 18 June 2025, he asked the Tribunal to review this decision.[15]

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(2) of the Act provides that a person can apply to the Minister to become an Australian citizen and sets out general eligibility criteria that must be met:

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.

1. Section 24(1) provides:

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. Even if a person meets the relevant criteria, ss 24(3) to (7) of the Act may preclude the Minister from approving citizenship. Relevant to the present matter is s 24(3) of the Act, which states the following about identity:

The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.

1. Division 5 of Part 2 of the Act sets out identity provisions. The statutory emphasis on identity is apparent from the Explanatory Memorandum of the Act[16] and the Minister's second reading speech. The latter states in part:

Strengthened proof of identity arrangements is essential to protect the integrity of Australia's citizenship processes. The new act explicitly provides that the minister must be satisfied of the applicant's identity before an application can be approved.[17]

2. The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement, in effect as of 27 November 2020, and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) (reissued 1 January 2022) constitute government policy that is intended to guide decision-makers exercising powers under the Act. CPI 16 refers to the following 'three pillars' of identity:

Biometrics - a measurable characteristic that is unique to a person such as fingerprints or face.

Documents - reliable and secure identity documents as defined by the Security Standards for Proof-of-Identity Documents. A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features.

Life story - an account of the events that happened to a person during their lifetime.

1. As held in Drake,[18] decision-makers should generally apply such policy unless it is unlawful or 'there are cogent reasons to the contrary.' The Tribunal is not bound by government policy, however, and the CPI 'cannot narrow or define the meaning of "identity" in [the Act]'.[19]

1. In BQG21, Justice Mortimer, as her Honour then was, stated at [32]:

Ultimately, the concept of "identity" is about an assessment of whether the repository of the power to confer citizenship is satisfied the human being who is the individual applying for citizenship is the person they say they are, with the relevant background to their citizenship application they rely on, and not a different human being with a different background which may affect their citizenship application. The historic use in documents of different names that appear to all be attributed to an applicant may clearly be relevant to this assessment. But use (or ascription, even without knowledge, to a person) of a different name may in a given factual circumstance say nothing about identity. Take for example the common situation of a person changing their name when they marry. There may not be documentary proof of this name change, for a variety of reasons, in any given circumstances. But the name change may not affect the proposition that the person has a single identity, rather than being two different human beings, or a human being with an entirely different background to the one they rely upon in their citizenship application. The Minister's submissions acknowledged this to some extent.

1. The issue to be determined is whether the Tribunal is satisfied, at the date of its decision, of the Applicant's identity.

1. In addition to written submissions from the Applicant's migration agent, the Tribunal has considered 11 pages of submissions he personally lodged for the current hearing.[20] The Tribunal has also considered the Minister's Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions.[21] A Joint Tender Bundle numbering 1046 pages[22] and a Supplementary Tender Bundle numbering 61 pages[23] were taken into evidence.
2. The Applicant claims his 'identity is fully established through consistent documentation and government-verified credentials'.[24] He relies on documents issued after his arrival in Australia, including an 'Afghan Taskera' he said was provided to him in 2018 through 'the Afghan consulate in Quetta', a 'consular-issued birth certificate' dated 2015, and 'corroborating family documents'.[25] In response to the Minister's concerns about Afghan documents the Applicant stated:[26]

The delegate expressed concern that it was unclear how the Consulate verified my identity in 2015 without a Taskera. > > • Afghan consular practices allow issuance of such letters for nationals abroad before a Taskera is obtained. > > • Both my 2015 consular birth certificate and 2018 Taskera are consistent and complementary, with multi-generational evidence reinforcing authenticity

3. In relation to inconsistencies between his claims and other evidence before the Tribunal, the Applicant's submissions include:

(a) He had 'no direct involvement' in the humanitarian visa application lodged by his father in 2007 and it would have been 'culturally inappropriate and disrespectful for [him], as a teenager, to question or interfere in such matters'. He claims this application likely originated from an 'intermediary' because his father is 'uneducated'. When asked about a signature attributed to him in this application, the Applicant accepted it may be his but claimed: 'any signature by me was likely under instruction, consistent with Afghan cultural norms and family hierarchy'...[27] > > (b) The Applicant denies ever holding Pakistani-issued documents. He claims his ability to receive an education to tertiary level as an undocumented Afghan refugee was facilitated 'through unofficial means, including bribes' that his father paid. > > (c) The Applicant claims the date of birth on his secondary school certificate, which is three years earlier than the date of birth he currently claims, was 'entered arbitrarily' by the school and does not outweigh the Taskeras he relies upon. > > (d) The Applicant claims his brother's 'use of a different surname' (Jafary instead of Nayeb) after arriving in Australia is a 'plausible cultural variation'.[28] > > (e) The Applicant claims the extensive financial remittances he made to family members in Pakistan[29] were 'cash pickups' from 'affiliated banks' using 'generated identification codes', rather than 'bank transfers', which is why family recipients did not need identification documents, bank accounts, or Pakistani citizenship.[30] > > (f) The Applicant denies that captaining a Pakistani national sporting team at an international tournament in 2007 means he is a citizen of Pakistan.[31] > > (g) In terms of his sister's claim that she and their parents are Pakistani citizens, in support of which she provided documents and verified National Identity Card ('NIC') numbers, the Applicant refers to 'systemic corruption' and 'fraudulent issuance of Pakistani identity documents' by Pakistan's 'National Database and Registration Authority'.[32] He contends claims in such documents should not be 'automatically accepted as conclusive proof of citizenship or identity'. The Applicant submitted:[33] > > '[T]he mere existence of Pakistani CNIC numbers for some family members does not establish Pakistani citizenship or undermine my Afghan Identity'...any assumption by the Department...that I may also be a Pakistani citizen - based solely on family members holding bogus Pakistani documents - is inconsistent with Pakistani law. > > (h) The Applicant claims the invitation issued to him by the Respondent on 25 March 2024 to sit the citizenship test,[34] constitutes acceptance of his identity. He relies on s 23A of the Act and r 10 of the Australian Citizenship Regulation 2016 (Cth).[35]

1. The Applicant gave oral evidence under affirmation and in English. He adopted an 11-page bundle of documentary submissions lodged for this proceeding as true and correct. Prior to commencing his evidence, the Tribunal advised him about his privilege against self-incrimination and gave examples that included s 50 of the Act relating to knowing provision of false or misleading information.
2. The Applicant's evidence and cross-examination centred on inconsistencies between his claims and those in previous visa applications lodged by his father and two siblings. His sister's humanitarian visa application, for example, states she was born in Pakistan and that both she and her parents are Pakistani citizens.[36] The Respondent has inferred from this that the Applicant is also likely to be a Pakistani citizen. The Applicant claims this inference is flawed and that the Respondent has failed to identify 'the statutory mechanism under Pakistani nationality law by which citizenship was lawfully acquired'. The Applicant repeated this multiple times during the hearing, seeming to contend that the Respondent bears an onus to prove his sister's claims about Pakistani citizenship are true. Notwithstanding the Applicant's acceptance that the Pakistani NIC numbers his sister provided[37] have been 'verified', he contends these family members are not Pakistani citizens.
3. The Applicant did not call any witnesses despite claiming much of the information he relies upon is based on discussions with his mother about family history. He said that dates of birth he previously provided for family members are 'estimates' but that he and his mother had confirmed their best recollection that his date of birth is 16 May 1989. When asked why he did not call his mother or the two siblings who migrated to Australia as witnesses, the Applicant agreed that he communicates regularly with his mother but does not believe 'there was any reason to call her as a witness'. He claims to no longer speak with his two siblings in Australia. The Tribunal notes, however, that he provided copies of his brother Liquat's Australian citizenship certificate and driver's licence for this proceeding. He initially claimed to have 'no idea' where Liquat lives but later said he may be in Pakistan because their mother recently 'mentioned him'. When asked why he did not call Liquat as a witness, the Applicant did not think he could help clarify matters.
4. The Applicant claimed the last time he spoke with his sister Habiba, who lives in Australia, was in 2016 or 2017. He denies ever discussing her whereabouts with their mother. In response to further questioning about family composition, the Applicant said three other brothers and two sisters reside in Pakistan. When asked why he did not call them as witnesses to share their first-hand knowledge of the Applicant's life story, he claimed not to be in contact with them. Later in his evidence, however, the Applicant said one of his sisters collected an Afghan identity document for him in Kabul in 2018 and sent it to him in Australia. He claims she has since moved to the United States.
5. During cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed he had left Afghanistan with his family at about two weeks of age, in or about late May / early June 1989. He said the family began referring to him as Mohammed Mehdi after they moved to Pakistan, which is why he is referred to by that name in school documents. When asked why his family left Afghanistan, the Applicant replied: 'I was a baby, so I don't know'. When pressed by Ms Rogerson, the Applicant referred to family discussions about 'fights and stuff' but claims they avoided 'discussing those situations'.
6. The Applicant frequently responded 'I don't know' to questions that included: whether his family left Afghanistan together; whether anyone departed for Pakistan prior to 1989; whether the sister who migrated to Australia still lives in Australia; ages of siblings based on dates of birth he provided;[38] whether some siblings were younger or older than others; when one of his siblings went missing; what documents were used by his family to enter Pakistan; what became of documents previously held by his family; whether it is his signature on a declaration submitted with his father's humanitarian visa application in 2007;[39] whether his family left Afghanistan in 1999 or 2000 as stated in his father and brother's applications[40] or 1989 as the Applicant currently claims; and why his brother gave a different family name and date of birth for the Applicant[41] after arriving in Australia.
7. Cross-examination of the Applicant included the following:

(a) The commonality of signatures attributed to him, including in the declaration submitted with his father's 2007 visa application. The Applicant accepted it could be his, but stated 'if it is', he provided it under 'parental instruction and without a complete understanding of the contents'. > > (b) When asked about his father and brother's claims that they were living in Afghanistan in 2000, which conflicts with the Applicant's claim that his family left for Pakistan in 1989 he replied: 'They might have been, they might not have been...I can't really remember'. > > (c) When asked about his sister's claim in her visa application that the family moved to Pakistan between 1977 and 1983,[42] the Applicant accepted the calculation derived from the information she provided but does not know if this is accurate. The Applicant accepted that his sister's claim was irreconcilable with his claim about moving to Pakistan in 1989 and his father / brother's claim that they did not move to Pakistan until 2000. He stated: 'I can't comment on what my brother or sister said. I neither agree nor accept'. > > (d) When referred to his sister providing a copy of her Pakistani birth certificate and passport in support of her claim to be a Pakistani citizen, the Applicant stated: '...there is no evidence that she or my family received...Pakistani citizenship under actual law, regardless of the Pakistani law that would support her claim'. When referred to country information from Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ('DFAT') that only Pakistani citizens could acquire a NIC,[43] the Applicant re-stated that although the NIC numbers his sister provided are verified, there is no evidence about how she or his parents acquired Pakistani citizenship. He agreed with claims previously lodged by his migration agent that the only way his family members could hold Pakistani citizenship is if this was fraudulently acquired.[44] In oral testimony, however, he tempered this somewhat by stating he 'can't comment' on what other relatives said in visa applications or the 'circumstances' and 'conditions' under which their claims were made. He said: 'I neither deny nor accept anyone's submission'. The Tribunal makes no finding about the veracity of his relatives' claims in the absence of evidence from them. > > (e) When referred to his sister's claim that she had no right to live in any other country than Pakistan, the Applicant speculated she might be unaware of her 'right to Afghan citizenship'. He attempted to draw an inapt comparison with a prominent Australian politician who was purportedly unaware of his New Zealand citizenship. When pressed by Ms Rogerson about why his sister would not know about a right to Afghan citizenship if she grew up in the same household, the Applicant said: 'I don't know'. > > (f) The Applicant was asked about the claim in his citizenship application that one of his sisters, 'Sharifa Nayeb' was born in 1982 and died in 2006.[45] The Applicant's father, however, referred in his 2007 application to a daughter called 'Shareefa Nayeb', purportedly born in 1976, who was residing in Pakistan.[46] The Applicant claimed this sister was 'miraculously found alive' after kidnap 'by a gang for ransom'. > > (g) The Applicant was questioned about his captaincy of Pakistan's national under 19 soccer team at a 2007 competition in Iran.[47] He said this does not prove he is a Pakistani citizen, He claimed to have only provided 'photos' to football officials in Pakistan, who gave him travel documents at the airport, took these off him on arrival in Iran, and then repeated the process for the return journey. When pressed that only Pakistani citizens could represent national sporting teams the Applicant responded: 'I don't know. I was not a citizen of Pakistan, but I played in that competition'. > > (h) When asked if he ever held a Pakistani-issued Proof of Registration ('PoR') Card or other documents to regularise his claimed status as an undocumented Afghan refugee, the Applicant responded: 'I don't remember...I don't think so'. He accepted DFAT country information to the effect that since 2007 Afghan refugees in Pakistan could obtain a PoR Card but claimed he never did. This is despite accessing education in Pakistan to tertiary level, working, and playing sport at a high level for many years. The Applicant insisted his father paid bribes that a person did not need to be a citizen to attend Pakistani schools or universities. > > (i) When asked if his family members possess documents issued by Pakistani authorities, the Applicant claimed to have 'never discussed this with them'. When asked by Ms Rogerson if he suspected they might, he responded: 'I don't know'. > > (j) The Applicant accepted that the earliest document he produced in this proceeding from his 22-year life in Pakistan was a secondary school certificate dated 2002. This states his birthdate is 16 December 1986 and his name is Muhammad Mehdi.[48] His evidence about this was earlier summarised. The Applicant could not explain why the school recorded a birth date three years prior to the one he now claims. Apart from this school certificate, the Applicant agreed there is nothing other than self-reported claims about his residence in Pakistan or to contradict the claims of his father and siblings in their visa applications. > > (k) When asked about a claim in his protection visa application that he paid a '$4000 bribe to get through Karachi Airport on an invalid travel document' when travelling to Australia[49] the Applicant could not recall this and said he 'never paid anyone'. After an adjournment, the Applicant recalled that the travel document he used to depart Pakistan was 'provided or assisted through [a] friend at the airport'. > > (l) The Applicant accepted country information to the effect that the authenticity of Afghan identity documents is 'low',[50] but stated: 'this does not mean it is z_ero_'. He claimed the Taskeras he provided are 'fully authentic'. When asked if the Afghan birth certificate issued to him in April 2015[51] was based on Australian identity documents, the Applicant rejected this and said it was based on his 'family linkage' and father's / grandfather's Taskeras. He agreed, however, that neither his father's nor grandfather's Taskeras mentions his date of birth or where he was born. The Applicant agreed that his date of birth on the 2015 marriage certificate[52] reflects his Australian-issued identity documents. When asked how he obtained an Afghan NIC in Kabul, the Applicant said a sister then living in Afghanistan collected this and sent it to him in Australia. He said this sister now lives in America. When asked why he did not call her as a witness, the Applicant responded: 'No reason'.

1. Facial images link the Applicant to a different date of birth as a dependant in his father's 2007 humanitarian visa application. This also contains a variation in the spelling of his surname. The Applicant is unsure if the signature attributed to him in an accompanying declaration[53] is his. In oral evidence he said 'if it is', he signed under 'parental instruction and without a complete understanding of the contents'. There is no evidence that anyone other than the Applicant signed this document or others in his name.

1. Documents can assist the broad evaluative judgement on which identity assessments are based but are not legally essential nor determinative. The Tribunal accepts that dates relating to notable life events in western countries are culturally less important elsewhere in the world. Inconsistencies can also arise from different calendars, such as the Persian Solar Hijri Calendar, which is used in Afghanistan and Iran. Some countries may historically not have issued birth certificates. The Tribunal is obliged, however, to consider what documents might reasonably be available, what efforts have been made to obtain them, and explanations given for any inconsistencies.
2. The Tribunal as presently constituted has heard citizenship cases for almost a decade. Document fraud relating to Afghan identity documents - either obtained directly from Afghanistan or from Afghan officials in other countries - is a regular feature of these hearings. A 2019 Landinfo report states that the authenticity of Afghan documents 'is low, partly as a result of decades of armed conflict, a weak central government, a widespread corruption culture and incomplete registration procedures and archive systems'.[54] A Country Information Report for Afghanistan dated 27 June 2019, from Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, states the following regarding document fraud:[55]

Document fraud is a major issue in Afghanistan. Because the process for obtaining some documents is decentralised to the provincial level, and because the documentation itself generally does not contain robust security features, the system is vulnerable to fraud. Genuine documents can be issued based on false information, with supporting forms of documentation such as school, academic, or banking records easily forged. This is particularly problematic in the case of taskiras, given they are the primary document used to obtain other forms of identification...

1. In terms of documents relied on by the Applicant:

(a) The letter he purportedly obtained from Afghan consular officials in Pakistan in 2015 predates by three years the Taskera purportedly issued by Afghan officials in Kabul. Both the letter and Taskera were issued several years after the Applicant obtained Australian identity documents. These include a driver licence, Medicare card, and Titre de Voyage. There is no corroboration of what document/(s) were presented to or relied upon by officials who issued the 2015 letter or 2018 Taskera. The Applicant said the latter was collected by a sister on his behalf in Afghanistan, but who is now living in the United States. She was not called as a witness. Similar authenticity concerns arise regarding Taskeras the Applicant produced for his father, uncle, grandfather, and the latter's military service certificate.[56] The Applicant said these were previously in his mother possession, but she was not called as a witness. > > (b) The Applicant's marriage certificate was obtained in 2015,[57] which again postdates his acquisition of Australian identity documents. It remains unclear what documents he presented to Pakistani officials to verify his identity before the marriage certificate was issued. The Applicant did not call his wife as a witness. > > (c) Documents relied upon by the Applicant dated between 2002 and 2007 relate to his academic and sporting achievements in Pakistan. These variously refer to him as Muhammad / Mohammad Mehdi instead of Ali Mehdi Nayeb as now claimed.[58] A secondary school certificate states his date of birth is 16 December 1986,[59] which is three years prior to the date of birth he currently claims. The Applicant explained in his citizenship application and oral evidence that his first name at birth was Ali, but his family began referring to him as Mohammed after the family moved to Pakistan when he was '2 weeks old'. He said this is why he is 'known by the name Mohammed Mehdi in...Pakistani documents'.[60] There is no independent corroboration of this claimed name change from family members. The Applicant said he never obtained identification documents from Pakistani authorities despite completing a university degree, working,[61] and representing Pakistan in an international competition in 2007 as captain of the national soccer team. He claims that neither national sporting representation nor being issued travel documents prove he is a Pakistani citizen or had residency rights. This is unpersuasive, including because comparable, current identification requirements from the Asian Football Confederation are focussed on ensuring eligible representation.[62]

1. If the Applicant's narrative is to be accepted, he arrived in Pakistan with his family in around mid-1989, completed education to tertiary level because his father paid bribes, and represented Pakistan as captain of a national sporting team, while he and his family were living unlawfully in Pakistan without identity documents. These claims are implausible or unpersuasive given country information[63] and the claims made by his father, brother, and sister in their Australian visa applications. Examples follow as to why:

(a) The Applicant claim that immediate relatives had no Pakistani-issued documents is uncorroborated by statements or oral evidence from them and directly contradicted by his sister's provision of documents about Pakistani citizenship and verified NIC numbers. > > (b) Four dates of birth for the Applicant in evidence traverse a period from 1986 to 1992.[64] There is no evidence from his mother to corroborate the detailed discussions that purportedly led them to settle on his currently claimed birthdate. > > (c) The Applicant's brother, Liaquat, arrived at Christmas Island in 2000 as an Unauthorised Maritime Arrival.[65] This was approximately 12 years prior to the Applicant. Liaquat claimed during initial processing, in a 2000 protection visa application, and in a Statutory Declaration dated 2005,[66] that: > > > (i) His name was Liaquat Ali Jafary and he escaped from Afghanistan after living there until November 1999. This is a decade after the Applicant claimed the family left Afghanistan. > > > > (ii) Liaquat disclosed a mother, seven sisters, and six brothers, all purportedly with the surname Jafary rather than Nayeb. He claimed they lived in Afghanistan and his father was imprisoned by the Taliban. In a Statutory Declaration dated 18 May 2005, he stated that family members were living 'unlawfully' in Pakistan as refugees and could not work or travel freely.[67] > > > > (iii) The Applicant was referred to as Ali Mehdi Jafary with a 1990 birth date, who was purportedly living in Afghanistan.[68] The Applicant did not provide a statement from nor call Liaquat as a witness but did provide a copy of an Australian citizenship certificate and driver's licence in the name Liaquat Ali Nayeb.[69] He claims to be uncertain about where Liaquat currently resides and did not call him as a witness. > > (d) The Applicant was included as a dependant in an offshore humanitarian visa application lodged by his father in early 2007.[70] He did not previously disclose this application. A signature on the application,[71] under which is the name 'Ali Mehdi Nayeb', appears comparable with other signatures in the Applicant's name.[72] If the Applicant's birth year is 1989 as he currently claims, he would have been about 18 years' old at the time. In oral evidence the Applicant accepted the signature may be his, but said that 'if it is', he provided it under 'parental instruction and without a complete understanding of the contents'. Inconsistencies between information in the Applicant's father's 2007 application and other evidence includes: > > > (i) The Applicant's father states his date of birth is 1 January 1955[73] and he left Afghanistan 'in about June 2000'.[74] This date of birth is about nine years later than the date claimed by the Applicant for his father in the 2020 citizenship application (31 December 1946).[75] The date his father said the family left Afghanistan is over a decade later than the Applicant claims. > > > > (ii) The Applicant's name is stated to be Ali Mehdi Nayeb, with a different date of birth (1 January 1990) to that currently claimed.[76] This information conflicts with the Applicant's evidence about being called Mohammed from the time his family moved to Pakistan. The Applicant's father gives dates of birth and other details for the Applicant's siblings that are different to those in the Applicant's 2020 citizenship application. For example, the Applicant claimed in his citizenship application that one of his sisters, 'Sharifa Nayeb' was born in 1982 and died in 2006. The Applicant's father, however, refers to a daughter called 'Shareefa Nayeb', who was purportedly born in 1976 and was residing in Pakistan at the time of his 2007 application. The Applicant now claims without evidence that this sister was 'miraculously found alive' after being 'kidnapped by a gang for ransom'. > > (e) The Applicant's sister, Habiba, lodged an application for an offshore humanitarian visa in June 2013,[77] in which she claimed: > > > (i) To have been born in Pakistan on 7 November 1988. This is only six months prior to the Applicant's claimed date of birth. Habiba states she is a citizen of Pakistan and that her parents and five siblings were also born in Pakistan.[78] > > > > (ii) Habiba refers to education in Pakistan to tertiary level and becoming a teacher.[79] > > > > (iii) Reference is made to Habiba holding a Pakistani passport and identity card issued by the Government of Pakistan.[80] A copy of a Pakistani passport[81] and a Pakistani birth certificate were submitted with her application.[82] NIC numbers are provided for Habiba and her parents. These documents and the NIC numbers have been assessed by the Respondent as genuine.[83] While accepting the NIC numbers have been corroborated, the Applicant asserts the numbers and documents obtained by Habiba are fraudulent.[84]

2. Little weight is placed on the Statutory Declarations, supportive statements, and certificates the Applicant relies on.[85] They are brief, general in nature, and from people who did not know him prior to arrival in Australia.

1. The Act does not specify how a decision-maker is to be satisfied of identity. The Applicant does not bear an evidential burden. The Respondent does not need to disprove an applicant's claimed identity, much less prove, as the Applicant contends, how his sister and parents acquired Pakistani citizenship. It is self-evident, however, that a party seeking merits review should make the case for changing an earlier administrative decision.
2. The Applicant's asserts that an invitation from the Respondent to sit a citizenship test constitutes acceptance of his identity. This is erroneous and unsupported by authority. His reliance on s 23 and r 10 of the Citizenship Regulations does not support his claim.
3. The Applicant has consistently used the same name since arriving in Australia. That said, the identity documents he obtained since arrival in Australia, or the citizenship certificates obtained by his son and brother Liquat, do not establish the Applicant's identity for the purpose of the Act. The Afghan identity documents and marriage certificate he relies upon post-date his arrival in Australia and it remains uncertain what he presented, and to who, to acquire these. His success in obtaining an Australian visa or Australian-issued identity documents is not determinative of identity in a citizenship context. Otherwise, s 24(3) of the Act would have no work to do. The statutory emphasis on identity in the Act requires the Tribunal to consider identity since birth and the probative value of evidence provided. This includes whether an applicant has availed themselves of 'opportunities to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist'.[86] Such enquiries are necessary to protect the integrity of Australia's citizenship system due to the considerable privileges and benefits that citizenship bestows.
4. The Applicant's identity claims run into substantial and irreconcilable inconsistencies in other evidence - including from his father and two siblings. The explanations he provided without corroboration from family members are a scant basis on which to make persuasive identity findings. Although the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence, the fact that the Applicant did not call close relatives with personal knowledge of his circumstances, leads to an inference that their evidence may not have assisted him.[87] He instead relies on perfunctory Statutory Declarations from people he met after arriving in Australia.[88] The Tribunal does not consider the Applicant has fully availed himself of opportunities to present identity information since birth, particularly from close relatives who know him best. The Tribunal was left with the impression that aspects of the Applicant's evidence were overly general, opaque, or less than forthright. This weighs against accepting his assertions alone.
5. Country information, which the Tribunal accepts, is that a PoR Card is needed by Afghan refugees in Pakistan to access education, public health, and enjoy freedom of movement.[89] The freedoms and opportunities the Applicant enjoyed in Pakistan, including a tertiary education, employment, and captaining a Pakistani sporting team, appear more consistent with his sister's claim about Pakistani citizenship than the Applicant's insistence he and his family are undocumented Afghan refugees.
6. There is scant biometric information and documentary evidence about the Applicant's 22-year residence in Pakistan. His evidence does not traverse a persuasive continuum since birth and conflicts in significant ways with the claims of other relatives in Australian visa applications. The Tribunal is not satisfied of the Applicant's identity.

I certify that the preceding thirty-seven (37) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision of Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC.

[1] Exhibit R1, 12, 49, 82 [Q8-9], 131, 166 [2].

[3] Ibid 98 [Q27], 172 [46]. An Unauthorised Maritime Arrival is defined at s 5AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to include a person who entered Australia by sea at an excised offshore place.

[16] Explanatory Memorandum, Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 (Cth) 26, 53.

[17] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 9 November 2005, 12 (John Cobb, Minister).

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

[19] BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865, [11]-[12] ('BQG21'); G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1229; (2018) 266 FCR 511.

[21] An SFIC is routinely lodged by parties during the pre-hearing phase and is comparable to a pleadings document in a court proceeding. It serves to identify / narrow the issues in dispute and helps ensure both sides are aware of and have an opportunity to answer each other's case.

[37] Ibid 652, 656, 666,669, 676-677, 682.

[64] Ibid 49,141, 166[1], 173 [53], [56], 594 4.3(a)(ii).

[70] Ibid 693. This was lodged through a Migration Agent at the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre; 722.

[72] Ibid 60, 65, 67, 70, 82, 100, 108, 116, 147.

[77] Ibid 639. Interview record at 687-692.

[84] Ibid 162 [29]-[30], 169 [85].

[85] Ibid 119-120, 123, 144-146, 201, 203, 206.

[86] Dhayakpa and Minister for immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 310 at [117].

[87] Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298, 320 (Dixon CJ, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ).