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

1. Section 52 permits a person to make an application to the Tribunal for review of the decision under section 24 to refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
2. The key issue that arises for the Tribunal relates to the Applicant's identity. The term 'identity' is not defined in the legislation. Part 4.4 of the Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) 16 refers to the 'three pillars of identity' as a methodology of assessing identity. The three pillars are biometrics, documents and life story.
3. A helpful summary of relevant consideration when dealing with identity assessments is set out in GJDB v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[1] at [8].

The word 'identity' is not defined in the Act and it does not have a single meaning, as its meaning can vary according to the statutory or other context in which it is used. In some contexts, 'identity' may have a broad meaning which incorporates a person's views of themselves and their cultural attributes. In other contexts, 'identity' may have a narrower meaning which focuses exclusively upon physical traits - such as those found in DNA or fingerprints - that are unique to each individual. > > Dictionary definitions of 'identity' tend to incorporate a spectrum of meanings, including those referred to above. For example, one of the definitions of 'identity' in the Oxford English Dictionary is: 'The sameness of a person or thing at all times or in all circumstances; the condition of being a single individual; the fact that a person or thing is itself and not something else; individuality, personality'. All but the last two words in that definition may be seen to reflect the concept of permanent sameness, whereas the last two words may be seen to reflect a broader concept of outward expression of a person's character.' > > In my opinion, section 24(3) of the Act uses the word 'identity' in the sense that the person seeking citizenship is the human being that they claim to be. Identity involves a continuum: a person remains the same human being from the moment they are born until the moment they die. In between these times, many attributes associated with them - such as their name, physical appearance (such as their height, weight and the colour of their hair), personality, gender, nationality, languages spoken, manner of speaking and religion - and their life experiences and fortunes may change, but they will remain the same human being.__[2] Whilst each of these matters may assist in ascertaining a person's identity, it is of fundamental importance that, for the purposes of section 24(3), they are not confused with, or treated as equivalent to, a person's identity.

4. The Tribunal has also had regard to the reasoning in BWS22 v MICMA.[2]

1. The following is the summary of the information obtained from the primary decision and the reasons for the delegate's decision to refuse the application for Australian citizenship by conferral.

1. The delegate noted that the Applicant travelled to Australia in June 2010 without identity documents and claimed to be CSVW , Afghan citizen born in Afghanistan in January 1991. The Applicant was granted a Humanitarian Stay visa in March 2012, and in October 2012 he was granted the protection visa.

1. In May 2016 the Applicant sponsored Ms B for a Prospective Marriage visa. That application was withdrawn in October 2020. In March 2017 the Applicant applied for the Australian citizenship. The delegate subsequently wrote to the Applicant seeking his comments on the following information:

1. The Applicant had provided two tazkeras in support of the Citizenship application. These were both issued on 23 July 2007 and were identical except that they had two different registration numbers and one referred to and the other to KRA. In Dari, both tazkeras showed the same registration number.
2. When applying for the protection visa, the Applicant claimed that he was born in Afghanistan and lived there until 2010 when he came to Australia. However, when sponsoring Ms B, the Applicant stated that he lived in Pakistan from at least 1997 where he first met his fiancé.
3. When applying for the protection visa, the Applicant stated that his father was killed in 2005. However, when sponsoring Ms B, the Applicant stated that he asked his parents to speak to her parents about the marriage and the Applicant stated that both of his parents live in Afghanistan.
4. The Applicant had shared multiple residential addresses with the S family between 2013 and 2022. Financial analysis revealed that AS used the Applicant's mobile number to make remittances overseas. The Applicant also made multiple remittances, referenced as 'family support' to AJS's father in Pakistan, DWS and to MS who shares the residential address in Pakistan as DM. The delegate notes that AJ declared that his first wife passed away but the photographs in Ms B's application indicate a resemblance between Ms B and AJ's deceased wife and, further, AJ had made regular financial remittances to Ms B. The delegate suggested that Ms B may actually be married to AJ and that the Applicant attempted to sponsor AJ's wife as his fiancé.

1. The delegate invited the Applicant to provide comments on the above information. In his response, the Applicant provided a number of documents and statements confirming his identity and the death of his father.

1. In his declaration dated 5 September 2024, the Applicant submitted that one of the tazkeras was the original one which he held prior to his arrival in Australia and the other one was arranged after his arrival in Australia, as the Applicant was required to provide a surname and adopted the surname CSVW. He asked a relative to obtain a new tazkera where his surname was hand-written on the original tazkera. The Applicant states that the new tazkera was issued with the amended name and a cross-reference to the original tazkera but due to a clerical error, the surname was not recorded on the new tazkera. The delegate notes that the Applicant did not comment as to why the two tazkeras have the same issue date.

1. The Applicant stated that he did not reside continuously in Pakistan from 1997 but travelled there for periods of time. The Applicant confirmed that he resided in Pakistan until 2010. The Applicant stated that he did not refer to his trips to Pakistan in his own application due to an unintentional mistake.

1. The Applicant confirmed that his father MIdied in 2005, and he provided a photograph of a gravestone and the father's family tazkera, as well as several witness statements confirming the father's death in 2005. The Applicant states that MIis a common name, and his remittances were to another person in the village for charitable reasons.

1. The Applicant states that his mother re-married DMIin 2011 and the Applicant considered him as his own father. The Applicant states that when he referred to 'parents' in his sponsorship of Ms B, he was referring to his mother and stepfather.

1. The Applicant stated that MS is his stepfather's first wife. The Applicant stated that he is not familiar with DMS and has no information about AJ's father.

1. The Applicant stated that he lived with the S family in the past and helped them secure accommodation.

1. The Applicant stated that financial remittances from AJ to Ms B were made on his request as he himself was not financially stable at that time. The Applicant stated that AJ's ex-wife was from Afghanistan while Ms B is from Pakistan and AJ's ex-wife is not the same person as Ms B.

1. The delegate has considered the Applicant's explanations. With respect to the two tazkeras, the delegate found the Applicant's explanation 'completely implausible'. The delegate notes that the second tazkera which the Applicant claims was subsequently issued to record his adopted surname is an exact copy of the earlier tazkera and both are hand-written and have the same issuance date. The delegate considered it likely that one of these documents is a digitally altered copy of the other. The delegate referred to the country information indicating the authenticity of Afghan identity documents is low, and that Afghanistan's administrative culture is strongly characterised by bribery and corruption, making it easy to obtain all types of forged documents and valid documents with incorrect information from authoritative bodies. As such, the delegate did not place any weight on the Applicant's tazkeras as evidence of his identity.

1. With respect to the Australian identity documents, the delegate noted that these would have been issued on the basis of self-reporting the family information to the Department upon the Applicant's arrival in Australia and these documents have no value ion demonstrating the Applicant's identity since birth.

1. With respect to biometrics, the delegate accepted that the photograph on the citizenship application was the same as the photographs held by the Department.

1. The delegate has also considered the Applicant's claimed life story. The delegate noted that

1. during the protection visa application and the citizenship application the Applicant stated that he was born in Afghanistan where he lived until 2010 before coming to Australia. However, when sponsoring Ms B, he claimed to have met his fiancé as a child in a small village in Punjab, Pakistan where they were neighbours. This would suggest that since 1997 the Applicant resided in Pakistan. The delegate notes that in his response to the natural justice letter, the Applicant claimed that he did not reside in Pakistan but travelled there for periods at a time and, if true, that would suggest that the Applicant tried to mislead the Department when sponsoring Ms B as he claimed he and Ms B were neighbours in Pakistan since 1997.

1. With respect to the Applicant's father, the delegate noted that the Applicant declared that his father MI was killed in 2005, but when sponsoring Ms B he stated that he had asked his parents to talk to her parents. The delegate accepted the Applicant's explanation (set out above) and did not make any negative findings in relation to this issue.

1. In relation to the Applicant's family composition and interactions with the Sfamily, the delegate found it implausible that the Applicant did not have a familial relationship with the Sfamily as claimed. The delegate noted that Mariam S was claimed to be his stepfather's first wife, so that the Applicant's stepfather may also be known as DMS (AJ's father) to whom the Applicant had made financial remittances. The delegate found that the Applicant had not provided a complete and plausible account of information surrounding his relationship with the S family, given their lengthy residence together and financial remittances.

1. The delegate noted the character references but determined that the referee did not know the Applicant before his arrival in Australia and had no knowledge of his past identity.

1. The delegate found that the Applicant had offered implausible explanations regarding the two tazkeras and his relationship with the S family. The delegate found that there was no reliable documentation regarding the Applicant's claimed identity while aspects of his life story raises further doubts about his claimed identity. The delegate determined that there is no reasonable level of satisfaction with respect to the Applicant's identity.

1. In his SOFIC, the Applicant raised a number of concerns with the delegate's decision. He refers to the delegate's failure to consider legal and factual matters, unreasonableness and breach of procedural fairness. Whether or not such concerns are made out (and the Tribunal has not undertaken any assessment of these claims), the Tribunal conducts a review de novo and any breaches of the nature identified by the Applicant would not invalidate the primary decision, nor the validity of the present review application.[3]

1. The Applicant claims that he has provided substantial documentary evidence to corroborate his identity, including a birth certificate, school and employment records, a statement from his mother and documents from family members. The Applicant notes that his mother in her declaration outlined his background and family history and the reasons for the family's trips to Pakistan and the Applicant's travel to Australia. (A copy of Ms H's statement is before the Tribunal.)

1. The Applicant refers to humanitarian and family considerations, including the length of his presence in Australia and community ties, his mother's health condition and the circumstances of his family in Afghanistan. However, the Tribunal is mindful that the Act does not offer any waiver provision in relation to the identity requirement on the basis of humanitarian or other considerations. The decision - maker must be satisfied as to the Applicant's identity before the Applicant may be assessed as being eligible for the Australian citizenship, irrespective of his or the family's circumstances. The Tribunal is also mindful that, whether or not the Applicant is able to be granted the Australian citizenship, nothing precludes his ongoing residence in Australia as a holder of a permanent visa.

1. The Respondent submits there needs to be an affirmative belief as to the Applicant's identity and in this case, there are a number of factors due to which the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant is who he says he is. The Respondent refers to

1. The absence of reliable documents, noting that the presented documents reflect self-reported information the Applicant has given to the Australian government since his entry to Australia. The Respondent:
   1. refers to the discrepancies in the two tazkeras which bear the same registration number in original but different names. The Respondent submits that the Applicant's claim that the later tazkera was issued to his relative due to him adopting a different name is 'completely implausible' and fails to explain why the two documents are exact copies of each other.
   2. refers to the country information which suggests that it is easy to obtain forged tazkeras and even official documents do not always have the correct information. The Respondent notes that these documents have not been verified as authentic and do not establish the Applicant's identity, particularly as these were issued when the Applicant was 16 years old.
   3. notes that the Applicant presented a birth certificate issued in October 2024, contradicting his earlier claims that he was not issued with a birth certificate at birth and the Applicant failed to provide evidence about the process of obtaining that document.

1. Inconsistencies with life story and residential history. The Respondent
   1. submits that the details of the Applicant's life story prior to his arrival in Australia are too limited to allow a clear identity picture and aspects of his story are vague, such as information about his travel to and residence in Pakistan.
   2. refers to lack of evidence to corroborate the Applicant's claims about his travel to Pakistan and lack of evidence from people in Pakistan who may have knowledge to the Applicant prior to his arrival in Australia.
   3. refers to the DFAT assessment that undocumented Afghanis in Pakistan face a high risk of discrimination, suggesting it would be unusual for the Applicant to travel to Pakistan undocumented.
   4. notes other discrepancies in the Applicant's life story, for example his employment reference claims he left work in August 2009 while the Applicant's evidence is that he left Afghanistan in April 2010, leaving a 7-8 month gap which is unaccounted for.

1. Unclear family composition. The Respondent submits that the Applicant had failed to adequately explain his relationship with the S family and it is plausible that the relationship is familial in nature. The Respondent notes the concerns raised by the delegate, such as residence at the same address as members of the S family between 2013 and 2022, the use of the Applicant's mobile to make financial remittances, and the physical resemblance in the presented photographs. The Respondent submits that it is implausible that the Applicant does not have a familial relationship with members of the S family and there are no statements from members of the S family to corroborate the Applicant's evidence.

1. The Tribunal has been provided with the DFAFT Country information report on Pakistan, a Netherland Foreign Affairs report on COI Afghanistan and a Landinfo report concerning identity documents in Afghanistan.

1. The Applicant told the Tribunal he was born and lived in Afghanistan until he came to Australia. The family made a 'couple of trips' to Pakistan for his mother's treatment. He completed his schooling in Afghanistan and once his father passed away, he found work and looked after the family. The Applicant states that his mother and siblings remain in Afghanistan. The Applicant described his life in Afghanistan and referred to his employment in an office and states that once he received threatening letters from the Taliban, he quit and left Afghanistan.
2. The Applicant states that he travelled to Pakistan with his family around 1997 and stayed with his father's friends. They travelled a few times and once the treatment had finished, the family returned to Afghanistan around 2000 or early 2001. He would spend no more than three weeks in Pakistan at a time. The Applicant states that when he stayed in Pakistan for his mother's treatment, Ms B was a neighbour and they met there through their study at the mosque. They continue to be in contact and in a relationship but he withdrew the sponsorship because he was incorrectly advised that he had limited rights as an IMA.
3. With respect to tazkeras, the Applicant states that after he came to Australia, he did not have a surname, and he was told he needed a surname. He had a tazkera and asked his family members to get another tazkera with the surname of CSVW, which he chose as his surname. The Applicant states that his uncle went through the 'legal channels' to obtain the new tazkera. The Applicant states that in 2015, his uncle was given two tazkeras but he does not know the reason why. The Applicant stated that he was first issued with the tazkera in 2007 with the help of his grandfather, and he was sent this document when he was asked for it after arriving in Australia.
4. The Applicant told the Tribunal that his birth certificate was issued in Australia after he provided his and his parents' and grandfather's tazkeras. He never had a birth certificate previously. The Applicant states that to get the tazkera, his uncle approached the authorities and proved their relationship. He asked his uncle to get a new tazkera with the name CSVW and the document was issued.
5. The Applicant stated that he did not have identity documents when he travelled to Australia. He claims the people who hosted his family in Pakistan are no longer available. When asked about the discrepancies in his own application and his sponsorship of Ms B, the Applicant explained that his papers were prepared by someone else and may have contained mistakes which he did not recognise due to his limited English. He also stated that his citizenship application was completed by a friend and there may be mistakes about his past travel to Pakistan. The Applicant conceded that there were several errors in his citizenship application (about family composition, travel etc) because English was not his first language and he made mistakes.
6. The Applicant spoke about his interactions with the S family stating that they lived together. The Applicant denied sending money to the members of the S family but said he had asked for others to send money to his fiancé when he was not employed. The Applicant generally repeated the information in his written statement.
7. The Applicant's uncle Mr I spoke about the family living together or close to each other in Afghanistan and the Applicant's growing up, attending school and working. Mr I told the Tribunal that he has not kept in touch with the Applicant since he came to Australia and last saw the Applicant about 20 years ago.
8. The Applicant submits that he has provided a consistent and credible life study which is supported by family members. The Applicant concedes there are discrepancies in the various documents he submitted but he states that English is not his first language and he completed the forms to the best of his ability, he did not seek to mislead the Department. The Applicant submits that the Tribunal can be satisfied that he is who he claims to be.
9. The Respondent submits that identity is not a trivial issue and refers to Departmental guidelines about the aims of identity requirements. The Respondent refers to the "3 pillars of identity" With respect to documents, the Respondent submits that
   1. there are inconsistencies in relation to the Applicant's life story and residential history, lack of clarity relation to family composition and connections to the S family and lack of identity documents.
   2. With respect to the tazkeras, the Respondent submits that it remains unclear how the inclusion of the surname 'CSVW was achieved and there is no evidence as to how the Applicant's uncle was able to apply to insert that name into the tazkera. The Respondent submits that the evidence about how the first tazkera was obtained and whether it was emailed to the Applicant after he came to Australia or was obtained by the uncle remains unclear.
   3. The Respondent submits that the Applicant's Titre de Voyage and various Australian documents cannot be considered reliable. With respect to the birth certificate, the Respondent notes that it records the Applicant's surname (CSVW) which he did not use in Afghanistan
10. With respect to the life story, the Respondent submits that

1. There are deficiencies in the Applicant's evidence concerning his travel to Pakistan. There are also inconsistencies and deficiencies in evidence concerning his meeting with Ms B, as the Applicant claims to have spent no more than 3 weeks in Pakistan but he also referred to attending the local mosque and studying in Pakistan and he claims that during these trips he met Ms B with little detail of how the relationship developed. The Respondent notes that there is no evidence from Ms B and no documentary evidence concerning the Applicant's trips to Pakistan. (The Applicant's representative told the Tribunal that a statement from Ms B was received late and was not provided to the Tribunal.)
2. The Respondent refers to the vagueness in Mr I's evidence and their lack of contact for 20 years, rendering Mr I'S evidence unhelpful.
3. The Respondent submits that the relationship with the S family is relevant to the Applicant's life story and the Tribunal cannot have a clear picture of the Applicant's identity.

1. The Respondent submits that the Tribunal must have a full picture of the Applicant's identity, and the life history presented by the Applicant is a 'disjoint' history.

Is the Tribunal satisfied of the identity of the Applicant?

1. Before dealing with the specific issues put forward by the parties, the Tribunal makes the following observations.
2. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent's submission that the Australian identity documents issued to the Applicant are of little or no probative value as evidence of his identity because these were issued without any independent verification of the Applicant's claims and would have been largely based on self-reported information. The delegate noted that the Applicant travelled to Australia without identity documents and in the absence of any continuity of documentary evidence relating to identity, the Tribunal finds the Australian issued identity documents unhelpful as evidence supporting the Applicant's claimed identity.
3. Much consideration has been given to the Applicant's interactions with the S family. The delegate refers to the use of common addresses, financial transactions by the Applicant to members of the S family, facial similarities between Ms B and another person. The Applicant denies any relationship and has offered explanations for his links with the S family as being primarily supportive and friendly rather than familial. The Tribunal finds such explanations unpersuasive, given the significant degree of intertwining (at least financial and residential). However, the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to positively determine whether there is a familial link between the Applicant and the S family. It is entirely possible that the Applicant has not been truthful in his evidence concerning his links to the S family and that he has sought to hide the connection with that family. In the Tribunal's view, that does not necessarily affect the issue of the Applicant's identity. Even if members of the S family are related to the Applicant (and there has never been any suggestion of a close familial relationship), it is unclear how such a relationship, and the Applicant's denials of it, can help determine the Applicant's identity.
4. The Tribunal has the same concern in relation to the Applicant's past residence in Pakistan. It appears that when seeking the Australian visa, the Applicant claimed to have been a resident in Afghanistan while in his sponsorship of Ms B, he claimed at least periods of residence in Pakistan, which he now claims to have been short. The Applicant concedes that he failed to mention the residence in Pakistan when applying for the Australian citizenship. Again, it is possible that the Applicant had not been truthful in his claims when seeking the Australian visa or the Australian citizenship. He may have been residing in Pakistan for longer periods, or permanently prior to travelling to Australia, or he may have been visiting for short periods for medical reasons as he now claims. The Applicant's past residences, and even his country of nationality, do not necessarily define his identity.
5. The evidence before the Tribunal suggests that there are issues concerning the veracity of the Applicant's claims made in his protection visa application that need consideration. Some of the evidence in the protection visa application appears inconsistent with the information supplied when sponsoring Ms B. Consideration may be given to whether the Applicant had complied with section 101 of the Act when seeking his visa. This is not a matter for the present Tribunal and, importantly, these are not necessary matters that go to the Applicant's identity.
6. The Tribunal will now turn to the issue of the Applicant's identity. First, the Tribunal has considered the issue of the identity documents.
7. The Applicant provided a copy of his birth certificate but the Tribunal considers it to be of little probative value, as it was issued only recently and the Applicant's own evidence is that there was no official birth record at the time of his birth. The Applicant has not offered an explanation of what checks, if any, had been carried out before the birth certificate has been issued other than to state that he had to provide his and his father's and grandfather's tazkeras. In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider the birth certificate to be a probative record of the Applicant's identity.
8. The main concern for the Tribunal is the Applicant's tazkera, which is the main identity document in Afghanistan and which he presents as the primary evidence of his true identity. There are a number of concerns with respect to that document. Notably,
   1. The Tribunal is concerned with the fact that the Applicant was able to obtain the Tazkera with the new surname which was not a surname that he or his family members had previously used. The Applicant explained that he was required to provide a surname in Australia and chose the surname CSVW because he was stressed and under pressure. The Applicant was then able to obtain a tazkera with that surname, despite it having no link to his family and no prior use. (The Applicant concedes he had never used the surname CSVW while in Pakistan). It would suggest that the authorities would have issued a tazkera to the Applicant in any name that was chosen by him. In such circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider the identity information recorded in a tazkera to be necessarily accurate or probative of the Applicant's identity.
   2. As noted above, there are discrepancies in the two tazkeras as both contain the same reference number and the same issuance date, despite one having a surname of CSVW and the other not. The Tribunal is unpersuaded by the Applicant's evidence that there were alterations to his earlier tazkera because he adopted the surname as this explanation does not explain why the two would have the same date or the same number. At best, this shows that the tazkeras are unreliable. At worst, this may indicate that the documents had not been officially issued or had been altered by a person without authority.
9. The Tribunal does not consider the tazkeras to be a reliable evidence of the Applicant's identity.
10. The Tribunal has considered other evidence of identity, including statements from various family members. In the Tribunal's view, these are of limited value because they may be self-serving and because the Tribunal has not had a chance to test the witness's evidence. Overall, the Tribunal has formed the view that the documents that have been provided in support of the Applicant's identity claims are of little probative value. In the absence of other concerns, these documents may have been given greater probative value but not in this case where other concerns have been identified.
11. The second 'pillar' of identity is the life story. Two significant concerns have been identified by the delegate in relation to the Applicant's life story, his relationship with the S family and his residence in Pakistan. As noted above, the Tribunal is not convinced that the Applicant has been entirely truthful when he denied any relationship with the S family but the Tribunal does not consider that evidence to be necessarily contradicting the Applicant's claims regarding his identity. It does however raise concerns about the Applicant's overall credibility.
12. The Tribunal acknowledges the evidence from the Applicant's uncle, a statement from his mother, the Applicant's own evidence and other information concerning his life story.
13. The Applicant's evidence concerning his residence to Pakistan remains problematic in the Tribunal's view. While the Tribunal acknowledges statements from third parties, including the Applicant's mother about the purpose of these trips, it is of concern that the Applicant failed to mention these trips in his own applications and the Applicant concedes there had been errors in the various forms he has completed. The fact that English is not his first language and that he relied on others to complete the forms does not detract from the fact that the Applicant was responsible for the content of any document he had submitted, or that was submitted on his behalf. The Applicant's present claim is that he had made only short trips to Pakistan while the implication in Ms B's application is that they were neighbours in Pakistan (suggesting longer term residence). In the absence of any supporting evidence concerning the Applicant's trips to Pakistan (for example, evidence of crossing the border, statements from those who hosted the Applicant's family, statements from the mosque where the Applicant claims to have studied while in Pakistan etc.) the Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant presented a truthful account of his residence in Pakistan. That raises concerns about his life story.
14. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's life story supports, but only to a limited extent, the Applicant claimed identity, given the deficiencies noted above.
15. No concerns have been identified about the biometrics and the delegate noted in the primary decision that the photograph of the Applicant in the citizenship application was the same as was held by the Department. As there are no biometrics collected prior to the Applicant's entry to Australia, the consistency of the photographic evidence indicates that the Applicant used the same identity since his arrival in Australia, not necessarily that he is who he claims to be overall.
16. The Tribunal has considered the totality of the evidence before it. Given the discrepancies and deficiencies identified above, the Tribunal cannot be positively satisfied as to the Applicant's identity. The Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant meets the requirements of section 24(3). It is open to the Applicant to make another application for the Australian citizenship in the future and it may be advisable to do so once he is able to obtain additional supporting evidence concerning his identity.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Ms Catherine Coleman, Catherine Coleman Immigration Lawyers

[1] [2023] AATA 3245

[2] [2024] FCA 387

[3] See, for example, Zubair v MIMIA (2004) 134 FCR 344 at [28]-[32], applying Collector of Customs v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 24 ALR 307, Yilmaz v MIMA [2000] FCA 906; (2000) 100 FCR 495 and Thayananthan v MIMA (2001)

[2001] FCA 831; 113 FCR 297.