1. Section 21(1) provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
2. Section 24(1) provides that if a person makes an application under s 21, the Minister, must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
3. Section 24(3) provides that the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person. The term 'identity' is not defined in the Act. However, the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2005 (Cth) states the following about the requirements of s 24(3) of the Act:[3]

There may be cases where identity is unclear or cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. In these circumstances the Minister cannot approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

4. Section 52(1)(b) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review decisions made under s 24 of the Act.
5. When considering the issue of identity, the following observations by the Federal Court in BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs provide some helpful guidance:[4]

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.

6. The above observations were endorsed by the President of this Tribunal when considering the application of s 24(3) in GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs:[5]

Section 24(3) of the Act does not require the Minister - or the Tribunal in performing its review function - to exercise a discretion. Instead, it requires that the Minister make an evaluative judgment and form an opinion about a person's identity. If the Minister is satisfied of a person's identity, the Minister is not required by s 24(3) to refuse to approve them becoming an Australian citizen. That section prompts a binary choice; the Minister is either satisfied of the applicant's identity or the Minister is not.

1. The Citizenship Procedural Instructions provide guidance to decision-makers exercising powers and discharging their functions under the Act. The relevant CPI in this case is CPI 16 - Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (updated 7 November 2025). Although such policy is not binding on the Tribunal, decision makers undertaking merits review should generally apply such policy unless it is unlawful or 'there are cogent reasons to the contrary.'[6] This type of reasoning is what the President in GJDB referred to as the "first type of policy" and generally applies when decision-makers are exercising a discretion.[7] The President reasoned that CPI 16 is a "third type of policy" and that the Tribunal should apply it as follows:[8]

The third type of policy seeks to provide guidance to public officers by setting out a process of reasoning they must follow in deciding whether they are satisfied that a particular statutory requirement is met. Such a policy cannot bind the Tribunal, as the Tribunal is obliged to form its own view about the correct or preferable process of reasoning it should follow. In performing its task, the Tribunal must give an active intellectual consideration of the material before it in a fulsome way, and not only in accordance with a structure imposed on the decision-maker by an executive policy. The Tribunal may consider the logic underpinning the process of reasoning set out in the policy and may adopt it if it is persuaded by it and concludes that it is preferable to all alternative processes of reasoning that are argued before it. In such a case, the Tribunal reaches its own view about the correct or preferable process of reasoning to determine whether it reaches a state of satisfaction after taking into account not only the policy but all other submissions and matters before it that are relevant to whether it should reach the state of satisfaction. > > ... > > In my opinion, CPI 16 falls into the third, rather than the first, type of policy. For the reasons set out at [‎12] above, s 24(3) of the Act does not provide for the exercise of a discretion, but sets out a state of satisfaction that a decision-maker either reaches or does not reach. It follows that CPI 16 cannot be characterised as a policy which seeks to provide guidance on the exercise of a statutory discretion. Rather, it is a policy which sets out a process of reasoning to be followed in deciding whether the state of satisfaction to which s 24(3) refers is reached. In the case of a policy such as CPI 16, the desirable consistency in administrative decision-making to which Drake (No 2) referred can be achieved by applying the same legal principles to attain similar outcomes in factually similar cases.

2. The guidance in CPI 16 does not narrow or define the meaning of 'identity' for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act.[9] As stated by the Federal Court in BQG21:[10]

...I have discussed an earlier version of these instructions in G v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1229; 266 FCR 511, where I explained how policy cannot control the meaning of the legislation or the statutory task of the repository of power; a decision-maker must perform their task with (at [266]): > > active intellectual consideration of the material before them in a fulsome way, and not only in accordance with a structure imposed on the decision-maker by an executive policy. A Tribunal must give active intellectual consideration to what is the correct or preferable decision on the basis of all the material before it, in all of the circumstances before it. One of those circumstances is the existence, and content, of an executive policy.

CPI 16 - Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act

1. Paragraph 3.1 of CPI 16 provides that '[a] person's identity is defined by a certain combination of characteristics or attributes that allow that person to be uniquely distinguished from others within a specified context.'[11] Characteristics of identity include a person's name, gender, date of birth, place or country of birth, and nationality.[12] The CPI notes that this is not an exhaustive list, and there may be other characteristics of identity.[13] The CPI references the National Identity Proofing Guidelines ('NIPG').[14] As stated in paragraph 3.1:[15]

The NIPG outlines the standardised and transparent national approach to identity proofing processes for government agencies in Australia. It also provides a benchmark for identity-related standards within the Department. Delegates must consider the NIPG when confirming a person's identity for the purposes of the Act.

2. The NIPG includes five identity proofing objectives that may assist delegates to 'be satisfied' of a person's identity:[16]
   1. Confirm uniqueness of the identity in the intended context;
   2. Confirm the claimed identity is legitimate;
   3. Confirm the operation of the identity in the community over time;
   4. Confirm the linkage between the identity and the person claiming the identity;
   5. Confirm the identity is not known to be used fraudulently.
3. Paragraph 3.2 of the CPI provides that to be satisfied of a person's identity for the purposes of the Act, a delegate should obtain information about the person, their claimed identity, and their claimed life story and verify the information provided:[17]

Obtaining identity information means collecting a person's biometrics, biographical, and other information contained in documents (evidence) and their life story. This information forms the 'Three Pillars of Identity'.

4. Paragraph 3.3 contains the three pillars of identity that the Department relies upon when assessing a person's claimed identity. They are:[18]

1. Biometrics - a measurable characteristic that is unique to a person such as fingerprints or face. 2. Documents - reliable and secure identity documents as defined by the Security Standards for Proof-of-Identity Documents. A reliable and secure identity document - for example, a drivers' licence or passport, is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features. 3. Life story - an account of the events that happened to a person during their lifetime.

Combining and checking the 'Three Pillars of Identity' against each other provides a strong evidence-base upon which a delegate may be satisfied of a person's identity. > > The level of risk associated with the citizenship application should determine the type of evidence required to assess a person's life story. In some cases, a delegate may determine that not all of the pillars of identity are necessary to be satisfied of a person's identity. Conversely, a delegate may require evidence against all of the pillars of identify to be satisfied of a person's identity.

5. Each of the three pillars of identity is detailed further below.

1. Paragraph 3.3.1 contains the following further information regarding this pillar of identity and why it is important:[19]

The Department collects biometrics, such as facial images and fingerprints, to verify and anchor a person's identity. Verifying and anchoring identity, through biometrics, commences at the start of a departmental process. For example, at the time a person applies for a visa. Verifying and anchoring identity allows departmental officers to have confidence that the person they are engaging with is the person recorded in departmental systems and increases efficiency by:

• quickly locating all of the person's relevant information
• reducing duplication of records and making it easier to reconcile duplicate records
• identifying persons who may have changed names and obtained documents under false identities
• identifying persons of concern based on checks against law enforcement and other holdings.

1. Paragraph 3.3.2 contains further information when considering a person's documents in establishing identity:[20]

Documents provide an anchor to corroborate biometric and life story information. When assessing documents, delegates must consider and assess whether the documents and information is consistent with, and supports, the applicant's claimed identity. > > To 'be satisfied' of a person's identity, identity documents should meet the following standards:

• be issued by a government issuing authority which utilises robust identity proofing processes, and which meet the issuance protocols
• include multiple data and security features designed to confirm validity and authenticity of the document and the information
• contain biographic information particular to the holder, such as name, date of birth, and address information
• contain biometric information particular to the holder, such as photograph and/or signature.

Note: Where documents do not meet the standards in 3.3.2 above, delegates should still consider the documents as part of a person's life story, and as evidence of continuity of identity.

1. Paragraph 3.3.3 provides guidance when considering a person's life story:

When assessing 'life story', the objective is to link the applicant's identity at birth, to the identity in which the citizenship application was made. Delegates should consider the applicant's life story claims, identify the key chronological events, and compare the claims and events against the applicant's documented history and biometrics.

1. The Applicant is a national of Afghanistan. He first arrived in Australia as an irregular maritime arrival on 11 April 2012.[21]
2. He applied for a Protection visa on 16 July 2012 under the name MNH with the date of birth as AB.[22] In this application, the Applicant stated he arrived in Australia on a false Pakistani passport under a different name (JK).[23] He declared that this passport had been taken by the people smugglers during his transit to Indonesia.[24]
3. The Protection visa was granted on 10 September 2012.[25]

1. On 15 July 2017, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.[26] He applied with the same name and date of birth in the Protection visa application.[27]
2. He provided the following documents in support of his application:

(a) A Titre de Voyage issued 5 July 2016 containing the name MNH and date of birth AB;[28] > > (b) A Victorian Driver's Licence containing the name MNH and date of birth AB;[29] and > > (c) A Taskera ending in number 503 in the name of MNH and date of birth AB.[30]

3. He declared that his parents were still alive, and that he has two brothers and one sister.[31] He also declared he has a fiancé who remained in Afghanistan.[32]
4. On 6 October 2018, the Department emailed the Applicant's representative and acknowledged receipt of the above identity documents and requested further identity documents as outlined in the accompanying email.[33]
5. On 30 July 2019, the Department requested further identity documents and the completion of a Form 80 for the character assessment.[34]
6. On 5 August 2019, the Applicant returned a completed Form 80 which contained the same name and date of birth as the citizenship application.[35] The parents and siblings details in this form were consistent with the parents and siblings identified in the citizenship application.[36] The Applicant also provided a Statutory Declaration dated 5 August 2019 in which he stated that he has no other identity documents except for his Taskera which he has already provided.[37]
7. On 22 January 2020, the Applicant sponsored his wife on a Combined Partner (subclass 309/100) visa.[38]
8. On 22 March 2024, the Applicant was invited to attend a Department interview and citizenship test to be held on 19 April 2024.[39] He attended that appointment and passed the citizenship test.[40] On 8 and 10 July 2024, he emailed the Department seeking an update on his application.[41]

Invitation to comment on discrepancies ('natural justice letter')

1. On 13 August 2024, the Department invited the Applicant to comment on adverse information it had received, namely discrepancies relating to his identity and family composition.[42] The letter outlined the Applicant's previous undeclared visa applications:

**_(a) On 24 November 2004, the Applicant was a dependent on a Global Special Humanitarian (Offshore) (XB 200) visa, lodged by his 'mother' FH and proposed by his 'brother' MHH.[43] This application was refused on 25 November 2004.[44]

(i) In this application, the Applicant was known by the name GMH with a different date of birth, different parents and different siblings.[45]

(b) On 10 November 2005, the Applicant was sponsored for an Orphan Relative (Offshore) (AH 117) visa by his 'brother' MMH.[46] This application was refused on 3 February 2007 as the delegate was not satisfied the Applicant was orphaned as claimed.[47] On 9 April 2008, the AAT affirmed the delegate's decision.[48]

(i) In this application, the Applicant was known by the same name as his Humanitarian visa (GMH) but with a different date of birth.[49] He declared the same parents and siblings as above but noted that they were either deceased or missing.[50]

_**

Known visa applications and application for citizenship

(c) On 6 July 2012, the Applicant lodged a Protection visa application which was granted on 10 September 2012.[51]

(i) In this application, the Applicant used the name MNH with the date of birth AB and identified his parents by different names and stated that his father was missing and his mother was deceased.[52] He declared three siblings which were not previously named.[53]

(d) On 15 July 2017, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship.[54]

(i) In this application, the Applicant used the name MNH with the date of birth of AB. He used the same parent and siblings' names referred to in the protection visa application but declared they were not deceased.[55]

(e) On 22 January 2020, the Applicant sponsored his spouse for a Combined Partner (subclass 309/100) visa.[56]

(i) In this application, the Applicant used the name MNH with the date of birth AB. His wife declared in a statement to the Department that the Applicant's paternal uncles are HH and GM and his grandmother is FH.[57]

(ii) This raised concerns for the Department because the Applicant previously applied for the Special Humanitarian visa and Orphan visa as GMH. In those applications, HH and FH were declared to be the Applicant's parents.[58]

1. The Applicant was also invited to comment on the following documents that had been provided to the Department:

(a) For the Global Humanitarian visa: > > > (i) an Afghan passport for the name GMH, with a different father; > > (b) For the Orphan Relative visa; > > > (i) an Afghan passport for the name GMH, with a different date of birth, with the same father as the Global Humanitarian visa; > > > > (ii) a Taskera for the name GMH with the same date of birth and same father as above; and > > > > (iii) a letter from the Consulate General of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan dated 14 April 2006 issued to GMH with the same date of birth and same father as above. > > (c) For the citizenship application: > > > (i) a Taskera for the name MNH and date of birth AB with a different father.

1. On 10 September 2024, the Applicant's representative provided a response and some further documents.[59] The Applicant admitted the following:[60]
   • He was born GMH in Afghanistan;
   • His parents are GH and HM. Both of his parents are still alive and reside in Afghanistan;
   • MHH is his paternal uncle and is an Australian citizen residing in Melbourne. MHH is the son of FH.
2. The Applicant's representative also provided a family chart, a copy of the Applicant's Titre de Voyage issued 17 July 2018, a copy of the biodata pages of the Applicant's parents' Afghanistan passports (for GH and HM).[61]
3. The family chart contained details of the Applicant's parents and siblings. According to this document, the Applicant has five brothers (KM, BM, MA, ASH and EH) two sisters (SOH and SHH).[62]
4. The Applicant requested further time to provide additional documents, which was granted by the Department.[63]
5. On 19 September 2024, the Applicant's representative provided further documents across two emails namely:[64]
   • Biodata page of the Applicant's parents' Afghanistan passports (these were the same documents as provided on 10 September);[65]
   • Biodata page of BM's Afghanistan passport (brother);[66]
   • Biodata page of SOH's Afghanistan passport (sister);[67]
   • Biodata page of SHH's Afghanistan passport (sister);[68]
   • Biodata page of ASH's Afghanistan passport (brother);[69]
   • Biodata page of EH's Afghanistan passport (brother);[70]
   • Biodata page of YHs Afghanistan passport (wife);[71]
   • UNHCR Card - KMH (brother);[72]
   • MA's Taskera (brother);[73]
   • GH's National Identity Card (father);[74]
   • HH's National Identity Card (mother);[75]
   • KM's Taskera (brother);[76]
   • BM's Taskera (brother);[77]
   • MA's Taskera (brother);[78]
   • SOH's National Identity Card (sister);[79]
   • SHH's National Identity Card (sister);[80]
   • ASH's National Identity Card (brother);[81]
   • EH's National Identity Card (brother);[82]
   • YH's Taskera (wife);[83]
   • Applicant's Australian Titre De Voyage issued 17 July 2018;[84]
   • Applicant's Medicare Card;[85]
   • MHH's Victorian Driver's Licence (uncle);[86]
   • MHH's Australian Passport and Victorian Driver's Licence (different version to licence referred to above);[87]
   • Applicant's Victorian Driver's Licence;[88] and
   • Photographs from Applicant's childhood and wedding.[89]
6. On 21 September 2024, the Applicant's representative provided further documents namely a Statutory Declaration from the Applicant dated 21 September 2024 and a copy of the Applicant's Taskera issued 12 October 2014 (which was already provided at the time of the citizenship application).[90]
7. The Applicant's Statutory Declaration stated the following:

(a) He was born in 1987 in Afghanistan.[91] > > (b) He was born with the name GM but never had any Taskera issued with that name.[92] The Taskera he does have was issued with the name he uses in Australia - MNH.[93] He admits that he has not previously advised the Australian Government that he has used two names.[94] > > (c) His Taskera was issued in 2014, at his request, when his brother BM applied for it.[95] The document accurately records his place of birth, year of birth, father, grandfather and other details.[96] > > (d) His uncle MHH is the blood brother of his father.[97] The Applicant stated that he did not know about the attempts MHH made to bring MHH's mother (FH) and the Applicant to Australia.[98] He was not aware of the application made in 2004.[99] He was a minor when the visa applications were lodged.[100] > > (e) The names that MHH listed as the Applicant's siblings are actually the Applicant's uncles and aunts.[101] > > (f) He said his wife was not aware that he was also known by the name GM.[102] > > (g) When he was travelling to Australia, he was provided with a Pakistani passport in the name of JK. This passport was thrown into the sea by the smugglers while they were travelling to Australia.[103] > > (h) When he came to Australia, he gave incorrect information about his parents and siblings, because he was given advice from the people smugglers that if he declared large numbers of family members they would not be accepted.[104] > > (i) The passports and Taskera identified in the natural justice letter (being the two passports and Taskera provided for the Global Humanitarian visa and the Orphan Relative visa (referred to in paragraphs 37(a) and (b) above) are not genuine.[105] > > (j) The only genuine Taskera is the Taskera issued in 2014 in the name of MNH.[106] > > (k) He did not declare the same siblings as previously mentioned in those visa applications because those are not his siblings. They are the siblings of his father and uncle.[107] > > (l) He deeply regrets that so many applications made on his behalf and by him with so many varied and confused details.[108] He is deeply sorry he did not reveal the correct details of his family members before this.[109] > > (m) He knows he has been untruthful in the past, but he is fundamentally an honest person.[110] He is glad he has been able to set the record straight and set out his true identity.[111]

8. On 1 October 2024, the application for the Combined Partner (subclass 309/100) visa was granted.[112]

1. On 25 October 2024, the Applicant's application for Australian citizenship was refused on the basis the delegate was not satisfied of the Applicant's identity pursuant to s 24(3) of the Act.[113]
2. In refusing the application, the delegate noted the following:

(a) The applications for the Global Special Humanitarian visa and Orphan Relative visa were made in different names to his Protection visa application. Each of these three applications had different dates of birth.[114] > > (b) The details of his parents and siblings also vary between these applications.[115] > > (c) The Applicant's biometrics have been associated with a number of completely different identities, none of which have been supported by reliable documents or explanations.[116] > > (d) The Applicant's family chart document outlines a new family composition which is different to the information previously contained in the Special Humanitarian visa and Orphan Relative visa.[117] There is also disparity in his previous life story regarding his previous country of residence (Pakistan) as his Orphan Relative visa states he lived in Pakistan for two years or more, but his Protection visa application states he illegally stayed in Pakistan for 15 days.[118] The Statutory Declaration stated he lived in Pakistan from 2004 to 2007 and returned to Pakistan for 15 days in 2011 to transit to Australia.[119] The delegate noted there the Applicant did not explain why he didn't have any documents from his time in Pakistan.[120] > > (e) The delegate noted that the Applicant confirmed that his previous Taskera and two Afghan passports were not genuine documents.[121] These documents contain the Applicant's birthname.[122] > > (f) The Applicant has provided a Taskera with the new name he adopted in Australia, following the grant of the Protection visa (with that new name).[123] The Applicant claims this is a genuine document as it includes his date of birth, his father's name and grandfather's name. The delegate placed very little weight on this document as it was likely issued as a result of self-reporting.[124] > > (g) The delegate noted that the Applicant did not reveal his true family composition until he was served with the natural justice letter in August 2024.[125] > > (h) The delegate placed minimal weight on the Applicant's Australian issued documentation such as his driver's licence, Titre de Voyage and Medicare card when assessing the Applicant's identity.[126] The delegate found the issuing of these documents would have almost certainly relied on feeder documentation issued by the Department after the grant of his permanent Protection visa, which contained false and unreliable self-reported information.[127] > > (i) The delegate also noted that the Applicant was not truthful with the Department and did not seek to rectify the incorrect information during his citizenship application which was lodged in 2017.[128] > > (j) After considering the three pillars of identity including biographical information, life story and documentation provided, the Department was not satisfied of the Applicant's identity and was therefore prohibited from approving the application under s 24(3) of the Act.[129]

1. The Applicant applied for review of the decision on 9 November 2024.[130]
2. The Tribunal hearing was held on 29 January 2026. A summary of the evidence of the witnesses follows.

1. Prior to giving evidence, the Applicant was informed about his privilege against self-incrimination. He indicated to the Tribunal that he understood that privilege. The Applicant gave evidence with the assistance of a Dari interpreter.
2. He said at birth he was given the name GM. He said he was given a false passport by people smugglers which contained another name (JK), but those passports were thrown into the sea. He said he asked his family to obtain his current Taskera which was issued in 2014 and he provided that document to the Department.
3. He confirmed that the information in his family chart is true and correct. He said he adopted a new name when he came to Australia. He said he was given that name by the people smugglers. He provided that new name to the officers at Christmas Island.
4. He was a minor when the other visa applications were made in his birth name. He doesn't blame his uncle for trying to bring the Applicant under that name as he was trying to save him from danger in Afghanistan. He said he is willing to undergo a DNA test to confirm that he and his uncle are related.
5. He continued to use his new name in Australia because it was easier to pronounce than his birth name. He said he was scared and frightened at the time he came to Australia and just followed the directions of the people smugglers.
6. It was put to the Applicant that he only adopted the new name when he arrived in Australia because he was aware that his birth name had been associated with two previous failed visa applications. The Applicant denied this and said he just wanted to leave Christmas Island. He denied using the new name to increase his chances of obtaining a visa.
7. The Applicant confirmed that when he applied for Australian citizenship he had lived in the Australian community for five years. He was asked why he used a false name to apply for citizenship. He said he wasn't aware that it would cause so many problems. He said when he received the natural justice letter in 2024, he wanted to explain the truth.
8. He acknowledged that he previously signed a declaration to be truthful in his Protection visa application, but he said that was signed whilst he was in a detention centre with lots of paperwork, and in a busy environment. He said the interpreter told him to sign the document. He also acknowledged that he declared to tell the truth in his citizenship application but also provided a false name. He applied for citizenship in that name because his Protection visa was in that name.
9. He said his Taskera was issued in 2014 with that name in his absence. Although that is not his real name, the Taskera contains the correct name of his father and grandfather. His brother was able to apply for a Taskera on his behalf because they have the same father.

1. The Applicant's uncle was informed about his privilege against self-incrimination. He indicated to the Tribunal that he understood that privilege.
2. The Applicant's uncle confirmed he is an Australian citizen. The Applicant is his nephew, being the son of his brother. He said that he knows the Applicant by his birth name, as does his whole family. He said they call him by his birth name, whereas the Applicant refers to himself by his new adopted name.
3. He agreed that he listed the Applicant as his brother when he sponsored him for a visa. He sponsored the Applicant under his birth name. He agreed that he previously appeared as a witness in a previous Tribunal proceeding where he declared the Applicant was his brother for the purposes of his Orphan Relative visa.[131] He said that was a different situation, and his family were only on temporary visas at the time. He said that was in the past and now he is telling the truth. He agreed that he promised to tell the truth to the Tribunal in 2008. He said whilst he was in detention, he mentioned the Applicant was his brother. However, within his family it doesn't matter whether someone is your nephew or brother, as they are all family. He said the Applicant was his brother because the Applicant was underage and the situation in Afghanistan was very bad and chaotic. He agreed he lied about this in the past but is telling the truth now. He said in his culture it doesn't matter whether you are a son or brother. He has no reason to lie about this now.

1. The Applicant's cousin was informed about his privilege against self-incrimination. He indicated to the Tribunal that he understood that privilege.
2. The Applicant's cousin is an Australian citizen. He said the Applicant is known in Afghanistan by his birth name and adopted name. He doesn't know why the Applicant didn't provide his birth name when he applied for citizenship. He has always known the Applicant by his birth name.

1. The Applicant accepted that he gave a false name when he arrived in Australia and continued to use that false name, however submitted that a person's identity is more than a name. He is the same person, regardless of which name he has used. The Taskera issued in 2014 is the correct document which establishes the Applicant's identity. His life story has been consistent and as he has told it. He was fleeing from Afghanistan at the time, and his uncle was motivated to help him. His uncle admitted he lied, but to him it didn't make much difference because they are still family. The Applicant is known by his birth name and adopted name, but he is the same person. He has now sought to correct the record, and the Tribunal should accept he is the same person and should be satisfied of his identity.
2. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant has not used his correct name in Australia. It is not disputed that the Taskera issued in 2014 contains his adopted name, but it is submitted he was never known by this name in Afghanistan. The Taskera has been completed using details which have been self-reported. The person identified by the adopted name in the Taskera is not known in Afghanistan. The Respondent accepted he may have been under some pressure to provide a name when he applied for his Protection visa application because he was in detention at the time. However, he was under no such pressure when he applied for his citizenship. The Applicant's identity throughout his various visa applications has been inconsistent and, on these grounds, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of his identity.

1. CPI 16 sets out the process of reasoning to be applied when considering whether an applicant has satisfied the identity requirement of s 24(3) of the Act. The Tribunal has considered the Applicant's evidence against the three pillars of identity identified in the CPI.

1. The Applicant's facial image has been linked to two previously undeclared visa applications, namely the Global Special Humanitarian visa and the Orphan Relative visa. These visa applications were made in a completely different name to his Protection visa application. The two previous applications were supported by bogus Afghan passports and Taskera.
2. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant was a minor when those two applications were made on his behalf. The Tribunal accepts that his uncle lodged the visas on his behalf, and his uncle was motivated by a desire to ensure his nephew could come to Australia from Afghanistan. This doesn't explain however why the Applicant didn't declare he was known by his birth name in his Protection visa application or in his citizenship application. His biometrics have been linked with three previous visa applications (only one of which was declared). The applications contained different names, different dates of birth and different family compositions. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant is now motivated to tell the truth about his identity but is concerned that this information wasn't forthcoming until the Applicant was provided with the natural justice letter in 2024, noting that he made his application for Australian citizenship in 2017. This affects the weight to be attributed to the Applicant's claims that he is now motivated to tell the truth about his identity.
3. The biometric information uncovered has linked the Applicant with two identities. The first identity ('the birth name') was supported by bogus documents. The second identity ('the adopted name') was supported by a Taskera that was issued in 2014 on self-reported information. This is explored further below.
4. In summary, the biometric information does not assist the Tribunal in establishing the Applicant's identity.

1. On the Applicant's own admission, his previous undeclared and unsuccessful visa applications were supported by two bogus Afghan passports and one bogus Taskera.
2. He claims that the Taskera issued in 2014 in his adopted name is genuine. This document was issued following the grant of his Protection visa application in his adopted name. The Tribunal has had regard to the Applicant's evidence that the Taskera was obtained on his behalf by his brother, and that his brother was able to obtain the Taskera because they share the same blood father. However, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant had never been known in Afghanistan by the new adopted name. From the new adopted name, the Applicant has been able to obtain Australian identity documents in that name and has therefore relied upon those documents in support of his citizenship application. At the time he applied for his Protection visa, the Applicant had no identity documents at all with the new adopted name or his previous (undeclared) birth name.
3. The Tribunal has therefore given little weight to the Taskera issued in 2014. This document does not reflect the Applicant's identity in Afghanistan before he came to Australia. The information contained within it is self-reported. The Tribunal also acknowledges the general unreliability of foreign-issued identity documents from Afghanistan.[132] The DFAT Country Information Report states that:[133]

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.

4. Considering all of these factors, the Tribunal places little reliance on the Taskera which has been issued in the adopted name. The Australian issued identity documents were almost certainly based on feeder documentation issued by the Department when the Applicant applied for his Protection visa in his new adopted name of MNH.[134] The Applicant does not have reliable documents which establishes his identity as GM or MNH. This pillar does not provide assistance in establishing the Applicant's identity.

1. The Applicant has provided inconsistent and incomplete life story information to the Department. The Global Special Humanitarian visa and Orphan Relative visa were made in the Applicant's birth name and contained different dates of birth. They also included the names of different parents and siblings.
2. The Tribunal has taken into account the evidence of the Applicant and his uncle regarding the circumstances in which those applications were made. The Tribunal accepts those applications were made by the Applicant's uncle in circumstances where he was attempting to bring the Applicant to Australia from Afghanistan. The Tribunal accepts the difficult circumstances that confronted the Applicant and his uncle at the time. The Tribunal also notes the Protection visa application was made at a time when the Applicant was in detention. He claims to have adopted the new name because it was easier to pronounce and because that was what was recommended by the people smugglers. Even if this evidence was accepted, it doesn't explain why the Applicant declared a different date of birth, with different parents who were declared as missing (in the case of his father) and deceased (in the case of his mother). He only declared three siblings which was not accurate.
3. The application for citizenship (which was made in 2017) did not declare or mention the Applicant's birth name.[135] He declared his parents were alive and declared the same siblings in his Protection visa application.[136] The Department requested further identity information from the Applicant in 2018 and 2019. In 2019, the Applicant declared the same parents and siblings in a Form 80 returned to the Department.[137] He again stated his father was missing and his mother was deceased.[138] He failed to declare in this form that he had been known by any other names, including his name at birth.[139] He signed a Statutory Declaration in 2019 that he had no other identity documents from Afghanistan apart from the Taskera he had already provided in his adopted name.[140] He failed to mention in this document that he had been known by another name in Afghanistan.
4. In response to the natural justice letter, which was issued in August 2024, the Applicant declared to the Department for the first time that he was born by another name at birth but is now known by his adopted name.[141] The Applicant also provided a family chart with additional siblings than those previously declared.[142] The Applicant also provided the bio data pages of various Afghan passports belonging to his family members and their Taskeras. The Taskeras belonging to the Applicant's brothers record the same father and grandfather as the Taskera that the Applicant provided in 2014. However, it is noted that the Applicant was never known by his adopted name in Afghanistan. In other words, a person with that name was not known to be the son of GH or the grandson of MH. The information in this Taskera is self-reported and the Applicant has no other Afghan documents bearing his adopted name.
5. From the information he provided in the Protection visa application, he was able to obtain Australian issued identity documentation. He also obtained the 2014 issued Taskera. From the adopted name provided in 2012 at the time of his Protection visa application, all other information regarding his identity flowed. He did not avail himself of the opportunity to correct the record or declare his true identity at the time of his citizenship application in 2017 or in the years following. He did not declare his true identity until he was confronted with the adverse information in the natural justice letter in 2024. The adverse information did not relate just to a name, but to family composition, life story, documents and previously undeclared visa applications.

1. The Act does not define identity for the purposes of satisfying s 24(3) of the Act. The Tribunal has considered the three pillars of identity as identified in CPI 16 to guide its consideration of whether it can be satisfied of the Applicant's identity.
2. The biometric information has established that there were two previous visa applications made on the Applicant's behalf. These were not declared to the Department. The applications were made in a different name, with a different date of birth and with different family composition details. The Tribunal has accepted the difficult circumstances in which those visa applications were made and the fact that they were made on the Applicant's behalf when he was a minor. However, that doesn't explain why the Applicant did not declare until September 2024 that he was born with another name, and that name provided in those failed visa applications, was his actual birth name. The Applicant did not declare this name at all in his Protection visa application in 2012, in his citizenship application in 2017, or in any interactions with the Department until confronted with this information in 2024.
3. The Applicant has provided an inconsistent life story which differs from his previous visa applications, his Protection visa application, his citizenship application and his recent response to the natural justice letter. The Applicant has admitted to providing bogus documents to the Department previously in regard to his identity. The Applicant was not truthful in his citizenship application when he declared he had not been known by any other names. He acknowledges he was untruthful in the past, but he is fundamentally an honest person and wants to set out his true family details, his true identity and set the record straight.[143]
4. The Tribunal has placed little weight on the Taskera issued in 2014 with the Applicant's adopted name. That document bears the Applicant's self-reported identity he has established in Australia. Although it purports to contain the name of his father and brother, the Applicant was not known by his adopted name in Afghanistan. The name on the Taskera is completely self-reported.
5. There is a high degree of uncertainty regarding the Applicant's actual identity. It has varied between visa applications, the citizenship application and finally in his most recent documents. Previous iterations of his identity have been based on untruths and bogus documents. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence currently before it establishes that the Applicant is who he says he is.
6. Based on the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied of the Applicant's identity. It follows that s 24(3) is not satisfied.

[4] BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865 [32] (Mortimer CJ) ('BQG21').

[5] GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 3245 (11 October 2023) (Kyrou P) [12] ('GJDB').

[6] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645

[8] Ibid [23], [26] (citations omitted), (emphasis added).

[22] Ibid 22, 705. The date of birth is anonymised to 'AB' but is as stated on the Protection visa application at p 705. Where this date of birth occurs in the documents, it will be referred to as 'AB.'

[131] This evidence appears at p 687-9 of the Joint Tender Bundle being a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal dated 19 March 2028.

[132] As noted at paragraph [37] in the Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions at p 821-2 of the Joint Tender Bundle which cited the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Country Information Report - Afghanistan, 27 June 2019 at [5.54]-[5.55].

[133] DFAT Country Information Report - Afghanistan, 27 June 2019, at [5.54].