1. The applicant relies on the written statements of his mother, RS, and MR, RR and KR. The respondent did not require them for cross-examination but made submissions about the reliability of their evidence and the weight it should be given.

1. The applicant's written and oral submissions are relevantly summarised below.
2. The applicant submits that his tazkera, which has been translated into English twice, is the document he brought with him to Australia and he has relied on as his identity document. It should carry weight with the Tribunal and its genuineness has not been impugned. The applicant would not have been able to obtain his tazkera without his father's tazkera,[61] which he has provided a copy of in both its original (paper) and electronic versions.
3. The photographs the applicant has provided of himself as a child are recognisably the same person as in the documents held by the respondent. The applicant's tazkera predates his arrival in Australia and his Australian issued documents show a consistent identity throughout his residence in Australia. The applicant has provided documents from Afghanistan to support his family relationships and the identities of his parents and siblings.
4. It is to the applicant's credit that he owned up and told the Australian authorities in 2025 that his father and brother had not in fact been killed in 2011. He has come clean and he should be regarded as an honest and reliable witness about this, and his evidence to the Tribunal more generally in support of his application. His life story has been generally consistent over time.
5. The information provided about the date of birth of the applicant's mother is relatively consistent in terms of her date of birth or estimated age (born around 1966 or 1967), other than in the information about funds transfers to Pakistan which refers to a date of birth of 1 January 1959 which reflects the date of birth on her CNIC, which is a document containing false information. The consistency of this information should not be adverse to being satisfied of the applicant's identity.
6. The information about the date of birth of the applicant's brother, AW, is also relatively consistent (born around 1998), other than the information about funds transfers to him which refers to a date of birth of 16 September 1986 which, like the applicant's mother, reflects the date of birth on his CNIC which is a document containing false information. The Tribunal should accept the explanation about the false documents used by the applicant's mother and brother in Pakistan, which is consistent with country information about Afghan refugees in Pakistan,[62] and accept that their actual dates of birth are consistent.
7. The Tribunal should accept the applicant's evidence about his misguided attempt to change his date of birth in Australia through the false Afghan driver's licence he obtained and find this does not challenge his identity. He admits the licence was fraudulent and submits the original tazkera is correct. The respondent's officers easily rebutted the validity of the Afghan driver's licence.
8. It is submitted that the applicant arrived alone in Australia as a 15 year old who was traumatised by his journey and did not understand how paperwork was done in Australia or understand the requirement to provide the full details of his family members' formal identities. He provided the best information he could at the time about dates of birth of family members, but he didn't know the exact information. He has used nicknames, such as I, for his brother, AW, but this does not mean he has fake or multiple siblings. He has made errors, but they were not errors to him. The information he has provided about the names of his parents has been consistent.
9. The applicant submits that the continuation of his deception about his father and brother being killed by the Taliban is tied up with the multiple traumas he has faced, including thinking he was responsible for their deaths, being afraid that he would be killed and having to flee from Afghanistan, as well as the trauma he experienced on his journey to Australia. It is submitted that it was mainly the applicant's mother from whom he took counsel about not revealing the truth because she was worried that if he did so, his visa would be cancelled and he would be sent back to Afghanistan where he would face punishment or death. It is submitted that his deception is intimately connected to his trauma and so it is understandable that he continued to listen to his mother and persisted with the deception. However, he has now come forward and corrected the record himself and been honest about what he found out and when.
10. Three Australian citizens (MR, RR and KR) have provided Statutory Declarations as to how they know the applicant well, his identity and his family relationships. They corroborate the applicant's life story. MR states that she has known the applicant since he was a child and is related to him. The applicant submits that while MR knew him, he did not know her until 2011 because she is older, and this is not inconsistent.
11. It is submitted that there is sufficient evidence for the Tribunal to be satisfied as to the applicant's enduring identity and he is the man he has always said he was.

1. The respondent's written and oral submissions are relevantly summarised below.
2. The respondent referred to the 'three pillars' set out in CPI16. The respondent submits that relevant biometric information does not exist and so doesn't assist the Tribunal.
3. The respondent submits that limited weight, if any, should be given to the documents available to the Tribunal and they don't assist the Tribunal to reach an affirmative belief. The respondent submits the Australian-issued documents do not assist the Tribunal because they are not feeder documents, in the sense that they are not identity documents issued by the source country.
4. The respondent submits the applicant's tazkera was issued approximately 15 years after his claimed date of birth, there is no evidence of the supporting documents used or that the Afghan authorities have independently verified the applicant's identity. The applicant said in the hearing he does not know how his tazkera was obtained, but he had previously said a man named J organised it after he fled Afghanistan. It is submitted there is not enough information to give this document enough weight to reach an affirmative belief. The respondent submits that in light of the applicant's admission the Afghan driver's licence was obtained fraudulently, it should be given no weight.
5. In terms of the applicant's life story, the respondent submits that the applicant withheld a significant life event from the Department about his father and brother, he has tried to hold himself out as someone else by changing his date of birth, and there are inconsistencies in his date of birth and those of his family members. The applicant's evidence that his memory has faded with time, such as about the sequence of events when he fled Afghanistan, does not assist the Tribunal in giving weight to his evidence.
6. The applicant only disclosed the information about his father and brother after he was invited by the Department to comment on adverse information and after he had lodged his application for review of the refusal of his citizenship application with the Tribunal. Despite acknowledging the applicant's evidence about why he did not disclose the information earlier, the respondent submits the applicant maintained the falsehood for 13 years, even after he reached adulthood, and he had plenty of opportunities to disclose it. He is now asking the Tribunal to rely on his life story which is problematic. He has also attempted to hold himself out as someone he is not by changing his date of birth to obtain a driver's licence in Australia.
7. The respondent also submitted that there is a number of inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence which are of concern and mean limited weight should be given to his evidence. First, the inconsistency between the tazkera and the Afghan driver's licence, while accepting the driver's licence has an explanation. Secondly, inconsistencies in the dates of birth of family members, which the applicant gave evidence he guessed. While dates of birth do not play the same role in Afghanistan, the applicant is asking the Tribunal to rely on this information when it is inconsistent. Thirdly, inconsistencies in the applicant's story about when he became aware of the deaths of his father and brother, which is problematic when he is asking the Tribunal to give weight to his story. Fourthly, the applicant has declared three different names for his brother, AWS, and given different dates of birth, including compared to his tazkera.
8. Country information[63] indicates that document fraud is widespread in Pakistan, other than for certain identity documents, which raises the possibility that the applicant's mother and brother, who have CNICs, are citizens of Afghanistan who obtained fraudulent documents from Pakistan, or citizens of Pakistan who obtained fraudulent documents from Afghanistan. It is unclear why the applicant's mother and brother have not provided evidence attesting to the applicant's identity and life story.
9. The statements from MR, RR and KR do not assist the Tribunal to reconcile the applicant's life story or corroborate his identity across his life. The applicant's evidence is that he only met them in 2011. Their evidence should not alleviate the Tribunal's concerns. The applicant has given evidence that his mother told him not to disclose the truth and she has actively provided false information to the Department and withheld information from the applicant so he could obtain a successful outcome. Her statement does not corroborate other details of the applicant's life story. The Tribunal should place limited weight on these statements to corroborate the applicant's identity.
10. The respondent submits the applicant's uncorroborated life story contains significant inconsistencies and the applicant has admitted to concealing information not in his interest and providing incorrect information. The respondent submits the Tribunal cannot reach an affirmative belief on the applicant's identity because of the lack of reliable, independent evidence, and it should not put significant weight on the applicant's tazkera.

1. I have evidence before me, including the tazkeras of family members of the applicant and additional written statements, which was not before the delegate. I consider this additional evidence to be relevant and, for the reasons set out below, find it lends weight to me being satisfied of the applicant's identity.
2. The applicant relies on his tazkera as his identity document. I acknowledge the lack of evidence about how this document was obtained, other than the applicant's evidence about it being obtained by a third party close to the time he fled Afghanistan in 2011, and country information about the lack of reliability of Afghan documents, such as referred to by the delegate. However, the genuineness of the applicant's tazkera has not been impugned and I consider that the tazkeras of the applicant's family members, in particular his father, which were not before the delegate, lend significant weight to the accuracy of the information the applicant's tazkera contains. The tazkera of the applicant's father has been provided in its original paper form (issued in 1981) and in its much more recent electronic form (issued in 2022). Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to consider that these documents and the information they contain are false. As submitted by the applicant, access to his father's tazkera for the purposes of obtaining his own tazkera would have been critical.[64] Importantly, the book number, volume number, page number and registration number of the tazkera of the applicant's father, and the name of the applicant's father, are accurately reflected in the applicant's tazkera which has been translated twice into English. This information about the applicant's father and his tazkera is also accurately reflected in the tazkera of the applicant's brother, AW, and in the tazkera of the applicant's mother, R, (listing the information as belonging to her husband, who is not named). The tazkeras of the applicant's brother and mother were issued in 2012, about one year after the applicant's tazkera was issued, and indicate they also relied on the tazkera of the applicant's father. The consistency of the relevant information across these documents, particularly in the absence of any reason to doubt the genuineness of the tazkera of the applicant's father, suggests to me that these documents are genuine, including the applicant's tazkera, and I give weight to the information they contain in support of the applicant's identity.
3. In terms of the photographs the applicant has provided, simply on a visual comparison (which I accept is not scientific), I am prepared to accept that the photograph of the applicant's mother, R, in her tazkera[65] appears to be the same person in the photograph attached to her Contributory Parent visa application[66] and is the same person in one of the undated photographs provided by the applicant.[67] I am also prepared to accept that the young boy in the same undated photograph sitting next to the person I have identified as the applicant's mother, is the same boy in the photograph in the applicant's tazkera issued in 2011.[68] This suggests to me that the boy is the applicant and this photograph shows him with his mother some time before he fled Afghanistan, which lends further weight to his claimed identity. I am not prepared to make findings about any of the other people in the photographs.
4. Neither the applicant nor the respondent have submitted that I should give any weight to the Afghan driver's licence. I agree with this. Clearly, the applicant's attempt to change his date of birth by the provision of a false document has not assisted him in this matter because it added to, rather than reduced, doubts about his identity. He admits this was a misguided thing to do and he has expressed remorse for his actions, and I accept his evidence about this as genuine. I also accept his explanation for why he wanted to try to obtain an Australian driver's licence, which was because he felt under pressure to try to earn money to help his family. In all the circumstances, I find that the existence and provision of this document does not undermine the applicant's claims about his identity to any meaningful extent and I give the document no weight.
5. The respondent doesn't challenge the applicant's Australian-issued identity documents, but submits they have little probative value because they simply reflect the information the applicant has provided to the issuing authorities since arriving in Australia. I accept this.
6. The applicant submits that his life story has been generally consistent over time, it is to his credit that he revealed the information about his father and brother not having been killed, and that he should be regarded as an honest and reliable witness. It is submitted that he arrived in Australia as a vulnerable and traumatised 15 year old and it is understandable that he continued to listen to his mother telling him not to reveal the truth and about his father and brother because this might result in his visa being cancelled and him being sent back to Afghanistan. The respondent submits that the withholding of information about this significant life event for so long, as well as inconsistencies in his evidence about when he found out his father and brother had been killed, raise concerns about how whether the Tribunal can rely on his life story and how much weight should be given to his evidence.
7. I consider that overall, the applicant has been consistent about his life story in terms of where he lived in Afghanistan, the events that caused him to flee and what happened to him and his family afterwards. This is with the exception of the information about his father and brother being killed. I acknowledge the respondent's concern about the applicant being unable to remember whether he was told about his father and brother being killed before or after he fled Afghanistan, given its connection to the decision that he should flee to Pakistan. However, the applicant has given evidence that he was only 15 years old at the time, he was very scared, he was being told information by other people and arrangements were being made for him, his memory has faded with time and the sequence of events is a bit jumbled for him now. I am prepared to accept this. While I acknowledge the applicant has given different evidence at different times about when he found out his father and brother had been killed, I do not consider this inconsistency is so critical that it undermines his claims or his story to any material extent.
8. The fact that the applicant did not reveal for such a long time that he knew his father and brother were in fact alive, and he perpetuated this inaccuracy in documents he provided to the Department in support of different applications, is more of a concern in terms of the reliability and credibility of his evidence and whether he is a person who is prepared to lie to obtain a favourable outcome. I have considered the applicant's explanation in his 2025 statutory declaration and in the hearing that even after being told that his father and brother were alive, he perpetuated the story that they were dead at the urging of his mother because she was worried and so was he, that if he revealed the truth he would be deported to Afghanistan and face harm from the people who wanted to kill him. I have also considered the applicant's evidence that he now regrets listening to his mother for so long and maintaining the falsehood and he understands that providing information and signing declarations that were false and misleading was the wrong thing to do. I am prepared to accept the applicant's explanation for why he persisted with the falsehood for so long and that he regrets his actions and understands that they were wrong. I am satisfied that the applicant was giving truthful evidence about this in the hearing.
9. I accept the evidence that the applicant and the rest of his family are estranged from his brother, DS, who is alive and lives in Iran as far as the applicant knows, and that the applicant's father is alive and lives in Afghanistan but communication with him is difficult and limited because of the circumstances there at present. The applicant's claim that his father is alive is supported by the provision of a copy of his father's electronic tazkera issued in 2022.
10. I have considered the inconsistencies in the names and dates of birth of the applicant's family members. Setting aside the issue with the CNICs, which is considered separately below, I am prepared to accept the applicant's explanation that when he first came to Australia as a 15 year old he did not know the correct or exact dates of birth for his family members and this was not something of particular importance for him to know in Afghanistan, and so he guessed and subsequently found out more accurate information which he provided later. I find that in the circumstances, the information the applicant himself has provided about the age of his mother and brother, AW, has been relatively consistent over time either in terms of their dates of birth or estimated ages and I do not give the inconsistencies great weight in terms of undermining his story. I also find the applicant has been consistent about the names of his father and mother, taking into account the evidence in his 2025 statutory declaration about the adoption and use of a family name, S, and the information in their tazkeras. In terms of the name of the applicant's brother, AW, I am prepared to accept the applicant's explanation that when he initially gave the first name, I, for his brother, he was giving the name his brother was usually referred to by and the applicant did not, at the time, appreciate the importance of giving 'official' names. In the circumstances, I accept that AW, AWS and IS are the same person, namely, the applicant's younger brother.
11. The respondent draws attention to the inconsistent names and dates of birth for the applicant's mother and brother in Pakistan compared to the information provided by the applicant, and submits that the fact they have CNICs potentially casts doubt on their nationality and therefore, the applicant's identity. The applicant's evidence is that his brother, AW, and his mother, live in Pakistan and have CNICs which bear incorrect dates of birth and, in the case of the applicant's brother, a different name, AWK, and it is the information in the CNICs that the applicant needs to use when he transfers money to them in Pakistan so they can collect the money. The applicant's explanation is that the CNICs are genuine Pakistani documents which contain fraudulent information, including false dates of birth, and they were obtained via an agent in Pakistan and enable the applicant's mother and brother to live in Pakistan with fewer problems than they would have as Afghans without such documents. The applicant's evidence is that his brother added the name 'K' to his name to make himself seem more Pakistani, so in Pakistan he calls himself AWK rather than AWS, or AW, and his mother uses the name RL because her husband (the applicant's father) is known as L or AL. Country information indicates that there are millions of Afghans living in Pakistan who have gone there for various reasons over many years. Some are registered and some are unregistered.[69] As referred to above, country information indicates that document fraud is widespread in Pakistan and genuine CNICs can be obtained with fraudulent documents.[70] Country information also indicates that CNIC are required to access a range of services in Pakistan including bank accounts.[71]
12. In all the circumstances, including my other findings above and the country information referred to, I find the applicant's explanation about the fraudulent CNICs and the reason for the differences in the names and dates of birth for his brother and mother in Pakistan, to be plausible and consistent with the applicant's claim that his mother and brother live in Pakistan but his family are citizens of Afghanistan and their true details are reflected in their tazkeras.
13. The respondent submits the Statutory Declarations of MR, RR and KR do not assist me to reconcile the applicant's life story or corroborate his identity across his life, and the applicant's evidence is that he only met them in 2011. However, the respondent did not require these witnesses for cross-examination and so their evidence is not challenged. The applicant submits that just because he did not meet them until 2011 does not mean they did not know him earlier, because they are older than him. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements of MR, RR and KR. MR and RR both state they have known the applicant since he was a child, they know his family who are Afghan citizens, and MR is related to the applicant on his mother's side. They name the applicant's parents and siblings in their statements, as does KR. According to MR, it was through her that the applicant's mother passed on the news about his father and brother still being alive and MR assisted the applicant to make the Contributory Parent visa application and was listed as a 'cousin'. She was his legal guardian while he was a minor in Australia. I accept the contents of their statements about their knowledge of the applicant and his immediate family and find that their statements are reliable and lend weight to the applicant's claims about his identity across his life.
14. While the letter from AWS does not provide a great deal of information, the information it provides is consistent with the applicant's own evidence. The letter from the applicant's mother, RS (or RL), is also fairly brief but consistent with the applicant's own evidence, and she provides additional information about the applicant's father being in Afghanistan and the difficulty in communicating with him. The respondent submits RS's evidence should not alleviate my concerns because RS was complicit in the applicant withholding information from the Department so he could obtain a successful outcome and her statement does not corroborate other details of the applicant's life story. The respondent submits these letters should be given limited weight to corroborate the applicant's identity. Given these letters are not sworn statements, they are not accompanied by identification and the applicant's mother and brother have an interest in supporting the applicant to obtain a successful outcome, I give them limited weight. I accept the evidence about the whereabouts of the applicant's father, and that the applicant's brother, DS, is estranged from the family, and I do not draw an adverse inference from the absence of evidence from either of them.
15. The applicant submits there is sufficient evidence for me to be satisfied as to the applicant's enduring identity and that he is the man he has always said he was. The respondent submits that I cannot reach an affirmative belief about the applicant's identity because of the lack of reliable, independent evidence and I should not place significant weight on the applicant's tazkera.
16. Having considered all the evidence, and for the reasons set out above, I find that the applicant has demonstrated to my satisfaction that he is the human being that he claims to be, which is the person in his tazkera. Expressing my finding in terms of the three pillars set out in CPI16, while there is limited biometric evidence, the documents I have accepted as genuine and the applicant's life story, when combined and tested against each other lead me to be satisfied of the applicant's identity. Accordingly, I am satisfied of the applicant's identity for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the prohibition in s 24(3) of the Act does not apply to the applicant.

Solicitors for the applicant: Mr N Padiya and Ms H Marr

Solicitors for the respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

[1] Hussain Hazara and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 159

[2] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 at [54]- [55]

[3] BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865 at [13] (BQG21)

[4] [2023] AATA 3245 (GJDB)

[8] HB98; UNHCR, Legal Identity and Civil Documentation in Afghanistan (Report, May 2024)

[61] USOFIC at [53] - [54]; UNHCR, Legal Identity and Civil Documentation in Afghanistan (Report, May 2024), p3

[62] European Asylum Support Office, Country of Origin Information Report: Pakistan Situation of Afghan Refugees, (Report May 2020)

[63] DFAT Country Information Report Pakistan 25 January 2022 (DFAT Report).

[64] UNHCR, Legal Identity and Civil Documentation in Afghanistan (Report, May 2024), p 3.

[69] DFAT Report at [3.19] - [3.26],

[70] DFAT Report at [5.36], [5.52] - [5.52].