1. Applicant attended an Entry Interview with the Respondent's Department.

3. The Applicant identified themselves as Sayed Abdul Rauf SEKANDARI, and stated that they were approximately 55 years of age.

The Applicant stated that his Taskera, which was issued in Jaghori (Afghanistan), was missing.

Applicant lodged a Form 866B - Application for a Protection (Class XA) visa.

The Applicant provided a signed Statutory Declaration (also dated 8 October 2010), accompanying that application, which stated:

"I do not know my age exactly. All the dates and ages I have given in my application for Refugee Status Assessment are approximations as I am illiterate and I do not know these things."

Independent Merits Review examination conducted by the Respondent's Department.

The delegate finds that the Applicant meets the definition of a refugee.

Applicant is granted a Protection (subclass 866) visa.

Applicant submits an FOI amendment request to change their date of birth from 31 December 1955 to 12 May 1945 stating "Our clander (Afghanista) is different to Australia. I miss understood" (sic).

The Respondent's Department refused the Applicant's amendment request.

The Respondent's Department notifies the Applicant in writing that it has refused his request to amend his date of birth in the Department's records.

The Applicant sponsored his spouse and their three children for a combined Partner (subclass 309/100) visa.

The Applicant lodged an application for Australian Citizenship by conferral (Citizenship Application).

On the Form-1290 for this application, the Applicant declared their date of birth to be 12 May 1945 claiming that it was "mistakenly written wrong during migration process".

• an Afghan Taskera (number 732446, issuance date not listed) and a certified translation of the Taskera; and
• a certified translation of an Afghan driver license (number AA7536, issued on 23 December 2007)

The Applicant also provided Australian identity documents in support of this application.

The Respondent's Department sent the Applicant a request for further information in support of the Applicant's Citizenship Application.

The Applicant provides the Respondent's Department with a completed Form 80. The Applicant provides, as part of that form:

• Letter from Badri Panta (Refugee Health Nurse) dated 25 September 2017; and
• Letter from Dr Peter Nicolaai dated 19 July 2017.

The Respondent's Department sent a request for Population Registration Directorate (PRD) for review of the Applicant's Taskera.

The Respondent's Department received the result of the PRD review of the Applicant's Taskera.

The PRD Review concluded that "the information of this Tazkira is not corresponding to the PRD Records, the mention TAZKIRA is not been issued by PRD."

The Respondent's Department sent, to the Applicant, an invitation to comment on adverse information in relation to date of birth inconsistencies and Taskera concerns.

• Statutory Declaration of the Applicant dated 16 December 2024; and
• Statutory Declaration of Mr Badri Panta, Refugee Health Nurse, dated 12 July 2024;

in support of the Applicant's Citizenship Application

Statutory Declaration of Susan Jaraba (Refugee Health Nurse) provided in support of the Applicant's Citizenship Application.

Statutory Declaration of Dr Peter Nicolaai provided in support of the Applicant's Citizenship Application.

A delegate of the Respondent made the Reviewable Decision, and refused the Applicant's Citizenship Application on the basis that the delegate could not be satisfied as to the Applicant's identity.

The Applicant applied for review of the Reviewable Decision in the Tribunal.

1. The Tribunal (as the Minister) must not approve a person's application for citizenship unless satisfied of the identity of the person, pursuant to s 24(3) of the Act.
2. As the Respondent identifies and the Tribunal accepts:[1]

The Respondent's Department has issued the Citizenship Policy Instructions (CPIs) which contain relevant policy guidance, particularly CPI 16 - Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (CPI 16) in relation to the assessment of a person's identity for the purposes of the Act. The Tribunal ought to consider and apply lawful Government policy in the making of discretionary findings of fact unless there is a cogent reason not to do so.

Paragraph 5 of CPI 16 provides that when assessing a person's identity, the Respondent's Department relies on a combination of three pillars if identity. Those pillars are described by CPI 16 as follows:

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

(b) 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.

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

1. The three pillars are a guide to assist the Tribunal in assessing identity, as the term 'identity' is not defined in the Act. It has been accepted that ""identity" as a concept may involve "examination of the kinds of material set out in CPI 16 and described as "pillars"".[2] The concept may not be limited to these three categories:[3]

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. To be 'satisfied' the Tribunal must consider whether it is persuaded, on the basis of evidence, of a person's identity. In other statutory contexts judges have said the decision maker must feel an actual persuasion of that matter; he or she cannot be satisfied as a result of a "mere mechanical comparison of probabilities independently of any belief in its reality".[4] On the other hand, a decision maker, here the Tribunal, does not require incontrovertible evidence of person's claimed identity to be satisfied of that identity.
2. The Tribunal is to look at the body of evidence before it, both documentary and testimonial, considering the quality, plausibility and relevance of that information, in the context of how it supports or refutes a person's claimed identity. More documents do not necessarily result in better identification of a person. As analysis of the evidence is conducted to see whether the relevant criteria are met, such being set out in the relevant policy, The Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 - Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (CPI 16), which is generally to be applied:[5]

When the Tribunal is reviewing the exercise of a discretionary power reposed in a Minister, and the Minister has adopted a general policy to guide him in the exercise of the power, the Tribunal will ordinarily apply that policy in reviewing the decision, unless the policy is unlawful or unless its application tends to produce an unjust decision in the circumstances of the particular case. Where the policy would ordinarily be applied, an argument against the policy itself or against its application in the particular case will be considered, but cogent reasons will have to be shown against its application, especially if the policy is shown to have been exposed to parliamentary scrutiny.

1. As the Respondent submitted and the Tribunal accepts, the relationship between the determination of identity and the grant of Australian citizenship is of fundamental importance. Substantial significance and privileges are part of such a conferral.
2. The Tribunal has considered the documentary evidence before it contained within the Joint Tender Bundle (JTB) lodged, together with the testimony of the Applicant, the Applicant's wife and two childhood friends of the Applicant, Mr Abasi and Mr Amini. Each witness was cross-examined and questioned by the Tribunal. Save to observe that the Applicant has had significant health challenges for many years affecting his memory, and that his wife also had some memory difficulties, the Tribunal found each to be satisfactory witnesses and the Respondent did not bring the credit of any witness into issue.
3. On such evidence the Tribunal is satisfied of the following aspects of Applicant's life story, as summarised in the Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (ASFIC):[6]

1. The Applicant's name is Sayed Abdul Rauf Sekandari.

1. The applicant was born in Shashpar village, Jaghor district, Ghazni province, Afghanistan.

1. The applicant's mother is Sakina, sometimes known as Bibi Sakina, and his father Sayed Baqir Shah Sekandari.

1. The applicant has been married twice. His first wife, Fatima, is deceased.

1. The applicant's second and current wife is Bibi Laila Hashemi. The applicant and his wife have known each other for as long as they can remember, as they are both from Shashpar village.

1. The applicant worked as a farmer in Shashpar. Later, when a school opened in Shashpar, he worked as a groundskeeper at the school.

1. As a result of his work at the school, the applicant was targeted by the Taliban and was forced to flee Afghanistan. The applicant and his family left Afghanistan for Quetta, Pakistan in 2008.

1. In 2010, the applicant left Pakistan. He travelled to Indonesia before arriving in Australia by boat later that year. Upon arrival in Australia, he stated that his name was Sayed Abdul Rauf Sekandari, and that he estimated that he was approximately 55 years old. He was assigned a date of birth of 31 December 1955 by the authorities.

1. The applicant was initially found by a delegate of the Minister to not be owed protection obligations by Australia. Following reconsideration of that decision, in April 2011, another delegate decided that the applicant was owed protection.

1. Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant and his wife had many children, some of whom are now unfortunately deceased. Three of their daughters are now living in Australia, one in Afghanistan and all their children were born in Afghanistan.
2. The preponderance of evidence including, critically the corroborating testimony of Mr Abasi and Mr Amini, satisfies the Tribunal that the Applicant is who he claims to be, namely Sayed Abdul Rauf Sekandari. The testimony of each witness supports the life story of the Applicant and is also direct unchallenged evidence of his identity.
3. Essentially, the Respondent accepts the life story or the narrative and detail of the origin and identity of the Applicant save that it challenges the anomaly in the Applicant's evidence as to his age and date of birth, together with its valid criticisms regarding Afghan identity documents the Applicant relies upon.[7]
4. The Tribunal accepts, as submitted by the Respondent, that there is inconsistent and incomplete evidence as to the Applicant's actual age and date of birth. This is not assisted by the Applicant's lack of memory in this regard and lack of documentation. The Respondent submits:

35. In relation to the Applicant's date of birth, the Respondent notes the following:

1. During the Applicant's Entry Interview on 13 May 2010, the Applicant claimed he was 55 years of age, which would mean that the Applicant was born in 1955.
2. On 8 October 2010, the Applicant declared that he was 55 years of age, and then explained "I do not know my age exactly. All the dates and ages I have given in my application for Refugee Status Assessment are approximations as I am illiterate and I do not know these things. Some information may differ from my Entry Interview on Christmas Island as I have been in Curtin for approximately 6 months and have trouble remembering my life and the contents of my interview. When I arrived at Christmas Island, I was disoriented and confused.
3. The Respondent's Department assigned the date of birth 31 December 1955, under which the Applicant's protection visa was granted.
4. On 14 October 2011, the Applicant completed a Form 424C (Request for Amendment or Annotation to Personal Records under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)), seeking to change his date of birth to 12 May 1945 (FOI amendment request) on the basis of his Afghan Taskera and his Afghan driver's licence - the original of which was provided to the Respondent's Department. In the form, the Applicant stated "Our Clander (Afghanista) is different to Australia, I miss understood" (sic). The Applicant provided his Afghan Taskera and Afghan driver's licence in support of his claim, and both of these documents listed his date of birth as 12 May 1945.
5. On the Form 1290 for his citizenship application, the Applicant declared the date of birth 12 May 1945, claiming it was "mistakenly written wrong during migration process".
6. By letter dated 26 February 2024, the Respondent's Department asked the Applicant to provide a detailed explanation for the ten year discrepancy in their date of birth, between their Afghan Taskera and the year of birth they had previously provided to the Department.
7. On 16 December 2024, in response to the letter from the Respondent's Department dated 26 February 2024, the Applicant declared: "When I arrived I Australia, I stated that I was 55 years of age, and I worked backwards from the date I arrived in Australia and my approximate age, and hence provide a date of birth 31 December 1955. In actual fact, my date of birth is actually 12 May 1945, which meant that I was 65 years of age when I arrived."

"When I arrived in Australia I provided the incorrect birthdate to the Department for the following reasons:

(a) I was interviewed by the Department on 13 May 2010, only 12 days after my arrival by boat in Australia. I was still deeply traumatised from the journey by boat to Australia, leaving my wife and three children behind in Pakistan without the certainty that I would see them again, the unfamiliarity of Australia and its processes, and the ongoing issues in my home country of Afghanistan. I was unable to think clearly, and remained highly stressed in the interview, and attempted to answer all of the Australian Government's questions as truthfully as I could in the circumstances;

(b) I was and remain illiterate, and when interviewed by the Australian Government upon my arrival I was unable to provide any birthdate at all;

(c) I suffer from several medical ailments, including idiopathic Pakinson's disease, and symptoms of poor memory and recall (page 67-68 BCC2016 416403 - Citizenship File).

(d) The above points have been my consistent life story communicated to the Department since I arrived in Australia, including by way of the statutory declaration I declared on 8 October 2010, provided to the Department alongside my protection visa application...

(e) In my home country of Afghanistan, I grew up with the Persian Solar Hijri calendar, which utilises different years. Therefore, despite being illiterate, I have never heard my birthdate in the Gregorial calendar ever being said orally." (sic)

1. On 16 December 2024, in response to the Department's request for comment on adverse information, the Applicant declared "I acknowledge that I have inadvertently provided inconsistent information to the Australian government with respect to my age and birthdate. This was never intentional or deliberate. This was owing to my confusion upon arriving in Australia after numerous traumatic events, my illiteracy, and my poor health

36. While the Applicant has attempted to explain why he has provided inconsistent dates of birth, the Respondent contends that while specifying the above reasons for providing the Respondent's Department with the incorrect date of birth, the Applicant has failed to:[8]

1. explain how the traumatisation caused by his journey to Australia and his high levels of stress during the interview, rendered him unable to provide the Respondent's Department with his date of birth, according to the Persian Solar Hijri calendar, during the protection visa application process. In this regard, the Respondent notes the Applicant had access to an interpreter;
2. explain how his illiteracy meant that he could not verbalise when he was born, according to the Persian Solar Hijri calendar, through the interpreter that was available; and
3. provide medical evidence as to how his medical ailments - specifically, idiopathic Parkinson's Disease and "symptoms of poor memory and recall" - impacted his ability to recall his date of birth, but not other information provided to the Department. While the Respondent appreciates the Applicant has significant medical conditions and trauma due to their journey to Australia, the Respondent contends that despite these factors, the Applicant has still given some information to the Respondent's Department in a consistent fashion since his arrival in Australia. This includes the fact that he was 55 years of age, and background about his life in Afghanistan and Pakistan (including military service).

1. The Respondent's submissions are valid and following the hearing the inconsistencies remain, however, on balance, such do not fatally detract from the Tribunal's satisfaction that the Applicant is who he says he is.
2. The Respondent also highlights inconsistencies in how the Applicant says he obtained his Afghan documents and challenges the authenticity of those documents themselves, as follows:

38. The Respondent submits that the Applicant has provided inconsistent information about how he obtained his Afghan Taskera and Afghan driver's licence.

39. On 16 December 2024, the Applicant declared (by Statutory Declaration) that:

(a) he has consistently maintained that he did not have any documents to verify his identity;

(b) in his case assessment by the Respondent's Department on 17 June 2010, a case officer from the Respondent's Department noted that he had no identity documents and encouraged him to obtain such documents for identification purposes;

(c) as a consequence of this, the Applicant "applied for my Tazkera from the Afghanistan Embassy in Pakistan, in conjunction with, on 20 October 2011, obtaining my Afghan Driver's licence";

(d) he relied on his family to assist him in obtaining further documents, specifically he contacted his maternal Auntie to ask how old he was, and his aunt informed him that there was two years between the Applicant and her son. Based on this information, the Applicant provided that information to the Afghanistan Embassy in Pakistan;

(e) the Applicant was the person who lodged his application at the Embassy, and he gave them "what he thought to be his correct birthday"; and

(f) the Applicant did not have to provide documents to receive his Taskera and, therefore, "the embassy relied on what he told them".

40. On 27 October 2025, the Applicant declared (by signed statement) that he:

"...might have told (his) lawyer the wrong thing, or (he) might have misunderstood (his) lawyer, or she might have misunderstood me. It is very difficult for me to remember things because of my age and my health conditions. If Department records show that I left the country in 2012, then I believe that I left the country in 2012. It is possible that I asked my family in Pakistan to help me get documents, and that is how I got the documents that I provided to the Department. That would be my best guess, but it is just a guess because I do not remember. I do not know the process by which I got my documents. I have always thought that they were genuine documents."

41. With respect to the above statements, and the evidence before the Tribunal, the Respondent submits that despite the absence of an issue date on the Taskera, the Tribunal should not be satisfied that the Applicant's Taskera was issued in 2011 as a result of an application to the Embassy for the document. This is because:

(a) Country information states that a Taskera is required to obtain an Afghan driver's licence. This means the Applicant would have had to provide an Afghan Taskera before 23 December 2007 in order to obtain an Afghan driver's licence.

(b) The Applicant has provided a copy of their original, untranslated booklet-form Taskera (see Image A below), which matches the exemplars of 'Communist Regime' Taskera (see Image B below). Relevantly, country information about the 'Communist Regime' Taskera states that:

"The Communist Tazkera was issued from 1978 until 1990 or 1991. The outside of the booklet is made of thick, orange paper and the inside pages are white and fairly thin. The stamps in the document will say either "Democratic Republic of Afghanistan" or "Republic of Afghanistan". The serial number of the Communist Tazkera is on the first page of the booklet. The third page of the booklet has basic biographical information, such as name, gender, estimated birth date, father and grandfather's names, place of birth, and marital status. The handwritten information on the seventh page includes the location of the record in the official record books of the government."

(i) Persons requesting a Taskera must provide a copy of the Taskera of one of their paternal relatives, including a father, grandfather, sibling, uncles (father's brothers), aunties (father's sisters) or cousins of the father's side. This contradicts the Applicant's 16 December 2024 declaration that he did not need to provide any documents to obtain his Taskera.

(ii) Residents outside of Afghanistan can submit an application for a Taskera to an embassy or consulate of Afghanistan (referred to as an 'absentee' Taskera), however this process requires the individual to visit the Embassy in person for an interview. In order to get his Taskera, the Applicant needed to attend the Afghan Embassy in Australia (located in Canberra), or an Afghan Embassy office overseas (such as in Pakistan), in person for an interview. Movement records of the Respondent's Department reveal that the Applicant did not travel outside of Melbourne after his first arrival in Australia (in 2010) until 13 January 2012.

(iii) If the applicant of an 'absentee' Taskera fulfills all the requirements and is deemed entitled for a Taskera by ACCRA, they will be issued an Afghan Taskera 'in absentia' and the applicant's representative or relative that is mentioned in the application form can collect the original Taskera from ACCRA in Afghanistan, not the Embassy. This means that in order to have retrieved the original Taskera after applying for the Taskera, the Applicant's representative or relative would have had to attend the ACCRA in Afghanistan in person to collect the Taskera and send it to the Applicant.

(d) In the decision of the Respondent's Department with respect to the Applicant's FOI amendment request, the decision-maker noted "When the PA arrived on Christmas Island he had no personal documents with him. These have been obtained since from his family in Quetta, Pakistan. ...When asked about the new condition of the Taskera, the PA said it had been kept in a box for a number of years." If the Applicant's Afghan Taskera had, indeed, been kept in a box for "a number of years", then would be inconsistent with the Applicant's statements that:

(i) he/ his family applied to obtain his Afghan Taskera in 2011;

(ii) that he had no access to any identification documents after his first arrival in Australia in 2010 and before he/ his family applied to obtain his Afghan Taskera in 2011;

(iii) that his Taskera was "missing", as stated in the Applicant's entry interview on arrival in Australia in 2010.

42. The Respondent contends that in view of the above, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied in respect of the Applicant's life story, having regard to the inconsistencies as they relate to his life story and his claimed Taskera.

43. Further, the Respondent submits that the Applicant could not have obtained an Afghan driver's licence on 20 October 2011, as he claimed, in circumstances where:

(a) the licence has an issue date of 23 December 2007 recorded on it. This indicates that the Applicant was issued with this document prior to his first arrival in Australia;

(b) the Applicant's driver's licence lists the exact biodata as per the Applicant's Taskera, and in circumstances where country information states that a Taskera is required in order to obtain an Afghan driver's licence, the Applicant could not have obtained a properly issued Afghan driver's licence from Afghan authorities, without first providing his Afghan Taskera.

44. Consequently, the Respondent contends that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied in respect of the Applicant's life story, having regard to the identified inconsistencies as they relate to his life story and his driver's licence.

1. The Tribunal accepts that the evidence in respect of the method by which the Taskera and the Afghan Driver's Licence were obtained is inconsistent and finds that it is highly likely that both documents are not legitimate. However, again on balance, despite these valid criticisms, when compared to all of the testimony given at the hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied of the life story of the Applicant and that the Applicant is who he claims to be. The Tribunal notes that there is no biometrics evidence before it and in light of its finding above, there are no "reliable identity documents" to satisfy the Documents pillar of CPI-16. In such circumstances the Tribunal gives more weight to the Life Story pillar which the Tribunal has found satisfied on the totality of the evidence before it.
2. The Tribunal notes that this review application is limited to identity. Whether the Respondent choses to examine the Applicant's citizenship application on 'character' grounds is a matter for the Respondent. The inconsistencies and other evidentiary issues relating to the Afghan identity documents he relies upon as discussed above may be relevant, should the Applicant's "good character" become an issue in the future apropos his application for Australian citizenship, but in that context, they are not relevant to this review application.

1. The correct or preferable decision is that the Reviewable Decision be set aside. Further, the matter is to be remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration with the direction that the Applicant satisfies the identity requirements under s 24(3) of the Act.

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

[1] JTB8, Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions ('RSFIC') p 306 at [8] and [9].

[2] BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 865 at [31] (Mortimer CJ) ('BQG21').

[4] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336, 361.

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

[7] JTB8, 'RSFIC' [21]-[31] and [38]-[43].

[8] JTB8, RSFIC, p 319 at [35] and [36].