1. The applicant stated that he was a Tibetan citizen. He said he was born on a date unknown to him. The date of 6 July 1945 became his birthdate because it was the Dalai Lama's birthdate which his friend Carol Davis, a director of Free Tibet, had advised him to adopt when later he was in prison.
2. The applicant's parents had called him Tenzin, a very common name in Tibet. He became known as Tenzin Dhayakpa (or vice-versa), signifying he was Tenzin born from the village of Dhayak in the region of Kham, the letters 'pa' meaning 'from.'
3. The applicant was the third son of his parents, Tempa Tsering and Tsering Dolkor. His siblings were Tsering Thanduk, who became a monk; Tsering Thala, who joined with his father as a freedom fighter when the Chinese incursion into Tibet became more aggressive; and two younger sisters and a brother - Tashi Lhamo, Tsering Chodon and Tsering Santem.
4. The applicant's father was a merchant who travelled widely. For the applicant that meant walking many miles with mules or other animals to carry the produce. His lifestyle as a child was nomadic. He worked with a Yak herd and was associated with a small monastery. He did not go to the language school although his brother had done so. Nevertheless he learnt to speak hundreds of different dialects and the Lhasa national language.
5. Life changed gradually as the Chinese came to Tibet. Everything came to a head when the Chinese requisitioned their house and in doing so killed his two grandparents. It was agreed that the applicant's mother and the three younger siblings together with the applicant should travel from the village to India to escape the oppression of the Chinese.
6. This was at the time of war between the Tibetans and the Chinese in 1957-58. His father and second brother had formed part of a guard to escort the Dalai Lama to the Indian border.
7. After seven to eight months the applicant arrived in a refugee camp in Buksa. His mother died on the trek and a younger sister died soon afterwards. He set out towards Tibet and on the way was told by Tibetans his father and others in his family were dead. He did not continue and went back to India.
8. Around 1959 he became a member of the Tibetan armed forces in the 22nd Tibetan Regiment. He was based with the armed forces in India. After 8 months or so he joined the Special Frontier Force for 3-5 years. His commanding officer was Jampa Kalden. He learned Hindi. The Forces were sent to Bangladesh. However, because he only wanted to fight against the Chinese, he left the Army in 1972-3. He did not take any documentation with him. He was promoted to the rank of Sergeant but later demoted and then reinstated. He received badges for his uniform and later a medal for bravery against the Chinese. Inquiries had been made to the Indian Armed Forces for records but no response had come back.
9. In the Army the applicant had documents which described him as Tenzin. But he had left the Army without any documents. He did not have a passport. All he had were Army discharge papers.
10. By now he could read or write a little bit of English, Hindi, Nepalese and Tibetan. He had nowhere to go, so travelled in the mountains.
11. He then met a well-educated lady Lhakpa Kyepa and they married. They lived in India and Nepal. They settled in a small hut.
12. His wife was born in Nepal. Her parents were wealthy. He and his wife established a small 4 seater restaurant in his wife's name and it grew to have sixteen seats.
13. He and his wife had four children. The eldest daughter Tsering Lhamo was born in Nepal in 1977. Their son Tsering Tashi was born in 1978. Their second daughter Tsering Wongmo was born in 1982 followed by the third daughter Tashi Wangmo in 1983. There had not been any inquiries for a record of these events there.
14. His wife got asthma. She got sick from moving and passed away in 1984-1985.He did not have any documents regarding his marriage.
15. After his wife's death the applicant could not think properly. His stepbrother Tashi Norbu, a waiter, assisted with the children. Life was not good; the applicant had nowhere to go.
16. The restaurant having been closed, the applicant became involved in buying rugs and other things across the border. He opened a small antique shop and found items for sale in Nepal and Tibet. Tourists had given them drugs and for 6-7 months he taken them without knowing what they were.
17. After struggling for some time the applicant placed his remaining children in a boarding school in Kalimpong.
18. On 6 July 1987 the applicant arrived in Australia using a Nepalese passport in the false name of Ramesh Sherestha. In statements provided to the Department he later admitted that the reason for his visit was to import heroin into Australia. In his testimony to the Tribunal the applicant said that the envelope he carried was 'something bad' but did not know whether it was heroin or cocaine. The applicant admitted that at that time he was not a person of good character.
19. On 5 March 1989 the applicant returned to Australia again as a mule using a Nepalese passport again in the false name of Ramesh Sherestha. He was arrested at Perth International Airport accused of importing prohibited items. Before the trial he told the Police and the Department of Immigration of the true position. He denied cross-examination on this based on the findings to the contrary of the trial judge when he was sentenced. He was taken by the Police to Sydney where they sought to catch the people to whom he was delivering the drugs, but that proved unsuccessful.
20. On 11 October 1989 he was convicted and sentenced to a total of twenty seven years for possessing prohibited imports (seven years); importing prohibited imports (seven years) and conspiring to import a prohibited import (twelve years). He appealed this last sentence, which was reduced to 9 years. He said that he was told that if he carried out this second assignment he would be paid Rs 200 000 as well as Rs 100 000 for the first assignment. He has not been paid for either. The applicant again admitted that at this point in time he was not a person of good character. As to his knowledge of what he carried to Australia, he said that when he was told it was heroin he accepted that description, the implication being that he did not know of his own knowledge what the substance was.
21. In prison he had met Carol Davis of the Free Tibet Association. She reconnected him to Buddhism. He was visited by monks. He received lessons in numeracy and literacy. He cooked for prisoners (receiving $38 per week), did laundry; worked in the library (receiving $25 per hour) and undertook road cleaning. He sent some money to his children and saved other money. He gave $2000 to an appeal by a Catholic father in the newspaper but this money was spent on the priest's summer holiday.
22. He was allowed a one hour telephone call to his children and second wife every month. He had ascertained from a call with a daughter, that the second wife was 'no good.' Now the children have married.
23. On 17 June 1993 the applicant was released from prison and transferred to Immigration detention. He was released from detention on 16 December 1994.
24. The applicant lodged an application for refugee status. This was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 21 September 1993. The applicant sought review. This was refused on 21 October 1994, whereupon the applicant lodged an appeal to the Federal Court. On 12 December 1994 and periodically thereafter a Bridging visa E was granted to him. On 9 November 1995 the Federal Court upheld the decision to refuse the refugee application. The applicant appealed to the Full Federal Court. On 25 March 1998 the Full Court remitted the application for reconsideration by the Department.
25. On 5 October 2000 the application was reconsidered and refused. The applicant applied to this Tribunal for review, which resulted in the decision for refusal being affirmed. This continued on into the Federal Court where the Tribunal decision of refusal was upheld on 7 April 2004.
26. When the applicant was out of custody or detention he had no money. He stayed with a family in Daglish. He secured work at Fast Eddys.
27. Every Saturday or Sunday he cooked for the monks. He was not paid for his work as a volunteer for the Tibetan community.
28. He assisted another former prisoner by offering him accommodation for which the applicant was paid $100 a week.
29. His work for the Tibetan community continued for 15 years.
30. Under the terms of the Bridging visa, the applicant was unable to obtain remunerated work. However, he applied for and was granted the right to work. Work he undertook was:
    • A restaurant in a hotel in Moora in 1995/6;
    • Ingham Chicken, briefly;
    • Part-time cleaning for West Hotels until the end of 1998;
    • At Cullies Tea House in 1999 and 2000, where he was paid $400 per fortnight;
    • At the Sail and Anchor Hotel in 2001 and 2002;
    • At Homeswest in South Fremantle since 2000;
    • At the Golden Mile Village, Kalgoorlie in 2003; and
    • At Piccobellos in 2004, where he was paid $163 per month from which he purchased a car for $13 000.
31. He also received social security benefits. He was paid under the name Tenzin Dhayakpa and then Dhayakpa Tenzin. He told them these were the one person.
32. He did not disclose to the Social Security Department that he had received his earnings from Cullies. He did tell Homeswest of his earnings with the consequence his rent from them went up to $275 per week, which he could not pay. When he received $38,000 in superannuation he had paid Homeswest. He did not inform the Department of these matters.
33. On 6 July 2005 the applicant was convicted of knowingly obtaining payment that is not payable. He was sentenced to ten months imprisonment but was released on a good behavior bond for eighteen months, fined $200 and ordered to pay reparation of $14, 855.42. The applicant did not recall if he had made any payment towards that amount.
34. On 17 July 2006 the applicant was convicted of failing to comply with conditions of a court order.
35. Given the problems with his finances in December 2006 the applicant applied for and obtained a declaration that he was bankrupt. He now does not engage in remunerated work and does not have a credit card.
36. Back on 9 December 2004 a letter was sent to the Department on the applicant's behalf requesting Ministerial Intervention. Additional Bridging visa E's were granted as necessary.
37. On 9 August 2007 the Minister exercised his right under s 417 of the Migration Act to grant the applicant a Refugee and Humanitarian Subclass XB-202 permanent visa.
38. On 8 August 2008 the applicant lodged an application for Australian citizenship. It was refused on the ground he did not meet the residential requirements.
39. On 29 August 2011 he lodged another application for Australian citizenship. To a question in it whether he had been guilty of any offences overseas or in Australia, he had ticked the box stating 'no.' Yet he ticked 'yes' to a question whether he was under a probation or order or like proceeding. The form had been made out by a person whose identity he now does not know. Nor did he check the form after its completion. He denied doing this to mislead the Department. He said that was not possible because his entire record is in the Department's computer. A national Police check carried out consequently disclosed the applicant's convictions in 2005 and 2006. On 1 May 2012 the applicant attended the Departmental office and confirmed his alias names, military history and advised that he had never been to prison.
40. On 18 November 2013 the applicant's full criminal history appeared on the national Police check, disclosing five Australian convictions between 1989 and 2006.
41. The applicant gave evidence identifying his son in law, daughters, grandchild and son. He also purported to identify himself in a photograph taken during the Bangladeshi war.
42. He testified that he went with a friend Kevin Francis to a prayer meeting and followed on by mediating arguments between others there for 6-7 months.
43. Many women had sought to marry him but he had refused and had not remarried. He had entered into a few relationships. He lived with a Vicki but she never worked. She had access to his visa and bankcard. It was the reason his indebtedness had risen. He had only himself to blame.
44. The applicant stated that he now meditates every day at 4am. He is very sorry for the victims of his bringing drugs into Australia. He tries to help people in Fremantle to avoid drugs. He would not now take money to supply drugs. Around 2000 he had returned a sum of $68,000 he had found to a Chinese man because he did not want money which he had not earned.
45. As to his health, the applicant said he is diabetic; has high blood pressure; also problems with his liver; his hand and knees shake; he has difficulties with his eyes.
46. On how he feels about Australia, the applicant states he would be 'the best Australian.' The reason he wants citizenship is so that he can move from place to place, specifically to see his children and grand-children.
47. His present financial position is that he now owes nothing; he receives his disability benefit; and he does not work. He will never sign a hire purchase agreement again.
48. The applicant was asked in cross-examination how the Tribunal could have confidence that if he got into some difficulties again he would not do something dishonest. His response was that he just will not get into that situation again. He stays in his room. He will never get into a bad situation.

1. Scott Marsh is a self-employed communications field engineer and company director of Stressless Communications Pty Ltd. He has known the applicant for ten years. He was aware of the applicant's history and has a further briefing from the applicant's counsel. The following is a summary of points he makes in his declaration on 17 July 2014:
   • He has known the applicant for approximately ten years;
   • Being fully briefed on the applicant's criminal record, in the time he has known the applicant he has never known him to use, or be involved with, illicit drugs in any way or to participate in any criminal activity whatsoever apart from the misunderstanding involving benefit payments;
   • He considers the applicant to be an honest and thoughtful man, actively involved with the community who uses the lessons of his chequered past for the greater good by advising and mentoring young people;
   • He knows of several times where the applicant housed and fed people who were down on their luck, at his own cost, he always being willing to help those less fortunate than himself, despite his limited finances;
   • The applicant long ago made a conscious decision to change his ways and act for positive change. He is one who stays firmly on the right side of the law and hopes to help others, where possible, to do the same for the greater good of the entire community;
   • The applicant still struggles with the harm he could have caused by his past actions. He now takes every opportunity to assist those less fortunate as a way to repay the assistace he has been given and to some extent make good his past actions; and
   • The applicant poses absolutely no risk to the community and is a positive and peaceful man with much to offer Australia.
2. A declaration dated 17 September 2014 was filed by Paul Kapsia and Linda Hartley, each of South Fremantle, in which they stated:
   • They have been fully briefed on the applicant's criminal history;
   • They are self-funded retirees who had worked their entire lives;
   • They did not lightly decide to assist the applicant, having a particularly harsh view of those who deal in any illicit drugs due to the damage they cause the community;
   • They have known the applicant since he worked for Cullie's Tea House where they observed his persistent and regular generosity giving away food without asking anything in return. They have observed the way in which he interacts generally with those in the community;
   • It is clear to them that the applicant is well liked, that he conducts himself in a seemly fashion and that he has done much to change himself from the person that he once may have been; and
   • Their view is that the applicant has done much to wipe away the stain of his earlier conduct.
3. A declaration of Mr C Gibbons dated 17 September 2014:
   • The deponent is a Disability Support Worker of Fremantle;
   • He was briefed on the applicant's criminal record;
   • He has known the applicant since his release into the community;
   • He regards the applicant as generous in his willingness to assist and support others who seek to make a positive contribution to the community. He considers that the applicant seeks through his conduct to repay to the community the damage he has caused through previous conduct; and
   • He also regards the applicant as a person who continues to grow in a positive way and considers this is consistent with his spirituality and good character.

APPLICANT'S EVIDENCE: DECLARATION OF TSHERING LHAMO AND ORAL EVIDENCE

1. The deponent states she is the daughter and eldest child of the applicant and Lhakpa Kyepa. She thinks she was born in 1978 and believes it was in Nepal but does not know either as a fact. In her oral evidence given by telephone the deponent testified that she has always known the applicant as her father.
2. She grew up with her family in Nepal, having a younger sister and brother, a further sister having died not long after the death of her mother in 1985. Her father looked after them and after a while her Uncle Tashi Norbu came to live with them. They were then placed for a time in a boarding school in Kalimpong.
3. When the applicant went to Australia in 1989 life became very difficult for them. The uncle was not very reliable and many times they were forced to move house when the rent could not be paid. They lost personal possessions which may have included family photographs.
4. In 1992 in Darjeeling they lived for a while with a woman and her son, their stepbrother, with whom their father had a relationship after the death of his wife. They attended the Central Tibetan School. Later the woman and her son departed, leaving them to care for themselves.
5. Sometime later they received Rs 22,000 from the local bank, said to have been sent to them by the applicant.
6. When the money ran out the brother went to Nepal to look for work. Having not heard from him the deponent left her sister with a friend and set out to Nepal. There she found her brother living with the former wife of their Uncle, Tashi Norbu, having remarried. They were eventually joined there by their sister.
7. Sometime later the new uncle came up with a marriage proposal for the deponent. Thinking that marriage would enable her to support her brother and sister the deponent agreed and married a Nepalese, Mr Hari Ghale, on 30 September 1996.
8. The deponent was then able to acquire Nepalese citizenship, which she did on 20 April 2005. Her certificate names the applicant as her father.
9. In 2002 contact was made with Dechen La and her husband Kevin, who knew the applicant in Australia. They took photographs of the deponent, her husband and daughter, her siblings. For a time Dechen La would visit the family when she came to Nepal. Then contact with her father was lost.
10. Contact was renewed when the deponent received an email from the applicant's lawyer. He arranged a Skype session between the deponent and her family with her father, the applicant.

1. Guidance can be found in the Australian Citizenship Instructions ('the Instructions') which state that an applicant of good character would:

Respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries.

Be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay their taxes, and not be in dishonest receipt of public funds).

Be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or the other governments and organisations, for example:

providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications.

....

concealment of convictions that could lead to the cancellation or refusal of a visa or citizenship

involvement in Centrelink or Australian Tax Office fraud

giving false names and/or addresses to the police

not be violent, involved in drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without license or insurance)

1. Paragraph 10.5.2 of the Instructions provides that a relevant factor to be taken into consideration when assessing whether or not a person is of good character is whether the applicant has committed an offence which is serious or minor. Serious offences relevantly include:
   • drug trafficking (including importation and supply)
   • fraud (including identity fraud)
   • breaches of immigration law, including those that resulted in removal or deportation from Australia or another country
2. The terms 'good character' is not defined in the Act. The decision maker should have regard to the ordinary meaning of the words in assessing good character: see Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 663; (1996) 139 ALR 84 where Lee J noted at [94]:

Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words 'good character' should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact while the latter is a review of subjective public opinion: see Clearihan v Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers in the Australian Capital Territory (1994) 122 ACTR 25 ; 117 FLR 455 per Miles CJ at FLR 459-60; Plato Films Ltd v Speidel [1961] AC 1090 per Lord Radcliffe at 1128-9, Lord Denning at 1138. A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character: see Re Davis [1947] HCA 53; (1947) 75 CLR 409 per Latham CJ at 416; Clearihan per Miles CJ at FLR 461. Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.

1. The existence of criminal convictions is clearly relevant in determining good character. Davies J in Irving (supra) stated at [87]:

[C]riminal convictions or the absence of them and character references are likely to be an important source of primary information. If there is a criminal conviction, the decision-maker will have regard to the nature of the crime to determine whether or not it reflected adversely upon the character of the applicant. If the conviction was in the past, the decision-maker will turn his attention to whether or not the applicant has shown that he has reformed. If persons speak well of the applicant, the decision-maker will take that into account.

1. In Kakar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 132, Deputy President Wright stated at [14]:

When criminal offences have been committed by an applicant they will obviously be taken into account. The extent to which the existence of criminal conduct will weigh in the scales against a finding of good character will depend upon many things including the seriousness of the crime, the length of time since its commission and the degree of rehabilitation of the offender.

1. The objective fact of a criminal conviction carries more weight than a review of subjective public opinion on an applicant (Re Mlinar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 48 ALD 771).
2. In Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 where Deputy President Breen stated at [8]:

The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home... The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts. It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of State. The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few years' time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.

1. In Magni Rala Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326, Deputy President McDonald stated at [7]:

A decision about whether a person is of good character requires a consideration of an aggregate of qualities. It is true to say, however, that, despite the many good qualities possessed by a person, those qualities can be outweighed by a single adverse incident if it is of sufficient weight and seriousness.

1. In Assafiri v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 35, the Tribunal stated (at [64], [67] and [71]):

There is no formula for determining how much is sufficient time to be satisfied that a person is of good character.

...

It is submitted for [the applicant] that sufficient time has now passed for him to be considered of good character. I am not satisfied that is so. Time of itself is not enough. The "enduring moral qualities" of which good character speaks must be demonstrated objectively over a sufficient period. How long that will be will depend on all the circumstances of the case.

...

I accept that absence of offending is itself an indicator of a person's rehabilitation, and more so, as time passes. It counts in [the applicant's] favour that nearly six years have passed without any further offences. However, there is not in my view sufficient objective evidence yet of his good character.

1. The respondent accepts that there are two bases for the refusal of the application by the applicant for citizenship. The first is whether the applicant satisfies the good character requirement in s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth). The second is whether the Minister can be satisfied of the applicant's identity pursuant to s 24(3) of that Act.

1. The respondent states the applicant's first convictions were the most serious. Even though one sentence was reduced to 9 years, it was still a significant prison term falling within par 10.5.2. of the Australian Citizenship Instructions. They establish that the applicant was not of good character at the time of these offences. The applicant accepts this view.
2. That position is reinforced by the fact the applicant accepts he engaged in migration fraud in entering Australia on a fraudulent passport.
3. It is compounded by the commitment of the 1987 trafficking and migration fraud.
4. The applicant has also admitted to use of drugs on other occasions preceding the above offences.

Elapse of time since drug-trafficking convictions

1. The respondent accepts that the passage of time without incident is a relevant consideration.
2. The applicant relies upon the lapse of 25 years since the offences.
3. The respondent submits that the Tribunal has consistently taken the view that the time to take into consideration in assessing good character is the time since a person is free of obligation to the court. In the applicant's case, that was in 1998, a period of sixteen years.
4. There is no evidence of formal rehabilitation provided to the Tribunal.
5. The applicant's expressions of remorse are brief and directed more to the situation in which he finds himself.
6. Most critically, says the respondent, the applicant was again convicted in 2005 and 2006, although not on the same magnitude. This is 8 - 9 years ago.

2005 conviction for knowingly obtaining a benefit that is not payable

1. The respondent further states a ten months sentence is only two months short of a serious prison sentence. It is an offence of dishonesty. It was significant fraud. It was a deception of dishonesty.
2. This was committed only 10 years ago. It occurred only 5-6 years after 1998.
3. Fraud is serious. It involved continuation of dishonest behaviour with the Australian government.

1. In the respondent's submission the applicant has not expressed remorse over this conviction. Failure to make reparation is indicative of poor character.
2. At the time the applicant had an outstanding debt to the Commonwealth of $4,959 of which only $100 was ever recovered.

1. The first fake answer was his answer to whether he had been convicted of, or found guilty of, any offences overseas or in Australia.
2. The second was when he responded that he had not been known by any other names in Australia.
3. The respondent invites the applicant to find that the applicant did complete the applications himself or, at the least, was aware of the contents including misleading statements.
4. Therefore, it is said by the respondent the Tribunal should be cautious about making a finding that the applicant has reformed his character.

Significant discrepancies in the applicant's evidence

1. The applicant claimed he had tried to tell the authorities that Ramesh Shrestha was not his real name. He had told a Departmental Officer on 2 August 1993 that he had deliberately chosen to use the name in order to avoid facing additional charges.

The applicant's evidence on his awareness of what he was bringing into Australia contradicts the evidence and findings to the Supreme Court.

1. It is submitted by the respondent that these instances lay the character of the applicant bare.

1. Neither the applicant nor the Tribunal can select a name or date of birth. What is required is that the Tribunal is satisfied of the identity.
2. The respondent submits here there is no official or reliable evidence of identity.
3. Further, the respondent says the picture from the evidence on identity is too murky to allow satisfaction on identity.
4. In the respondent's submission, the sole basis of the applicant's claim is that he has always been known as Tenzin Dhayakpa. However, he was known as Ramesh Shrestha. Also, the Tribunal has previously found that evidence of using a name in the local community is insufficient to enable the Minister to properly form an opinion as to the identity of a person: Confidential v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] AATA 144. In that case, the Tribunal also found that where the Minister has not been provided with any documentation to enable the Mi8nister to form an opinion on the identity of an applicant, an application is properly rejected.
5. The evidence of Tsering Lhamo is no more than anecdotal evidence about community use in Nepal and India.
6. A certificate of Australian citizenship is an extremely important identification document. The respondent argues it is not to be issued on a 'best guess' basis and doubts about a person's identity, particularly where that person has a history of making fraudulent statements and been known by other fraudulent identities.

1. I have read the applicant's written submissions and his submissions in response. As appropriate I propose to rely on those in what follows both in relation to character and in relation to identity.
2. I agree with the respondent in relation to his submissions concerning the trafficking offences in 1987 and 1989. So does the applicant's case.
3. I also agree with the submission of the respondent that the elapse of time in assessing good character is the time since the person in issue is free of obligation to the court. That seems to me to be accepted for the applicant in the present reliance on the passage of sixteen years or the lesser period of approximately ten years.
4. As to the issue of remorse, while they may only be limited expressions, they seem to me to lie at the heart of the applicant's response to his criminal convictions and his assumption of a determination to improve himself.
5. The offences in 2005 and 2006 are correctly considered as serious. They expose the applicant as a person in desperate financial circumstances without any understanding how his conduct may affect his life. Absent any abiding education, he has lacked skills which may protect him from becoming engaged in the manner shown by these offences. They importantly raise the question whether the applicant lacks good character because when difficult issues arise he is prepared to take the wrong way forward.
6. The false answers in the citizenship applications show the applicant not to have the skills to lead him to be cautious and careful.
7. The significant discrepancies in the applicant's evidence on which the respondent relies are mostly part of the most serious time of the applicant's life, namely when he committed the offences in 1987 and 1989.
8. Turning to the Australian Citizenship Instructions:
   • The applicant has learnt to respect the law and has resolved to abide by it. However, it is apparent to him as to others that he does not have the education to ensure he will always understand the legal implications of what he may choose to do. That is not a limitation of character but rather of opportunity in the past.
   • The applicant has so resolved to be honest and financially responsible that he has removed himself from any need or activity which may entail financial commitment, beyond the basic sustenance of his life.
   • As to being truthful and not practicing deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian or other governments, the applicant has failed in the past on these matters and now keeps himself away from anything which may involve such possibilities. I do not accept that the errors in his citizenship application were the product of deception or fraud; rather they are evidence of a lack of competence on the part of the applicant.
   • As to not being violent, that is not a possibility for the applicant. He also has not and will not involve himself again in drugs. There is no evidence of his involvement in any unlawful sexual activity.
9. Even given the applicant's criminal convictions in the past, his case that he now is a person of good character is nevertheless supported by his evidence and the uncontested evidence of referees on his character. I accept the submission for the applicant that:

"the applicant has been on an evolutionary journey in relation to his character since his first incarceration in Australia. The road has not always been upwards but it has been persistently so for extended periods of time and most recently for a period of 10 years. There is corroborated and uncontested testimony before the Tribunal that the applicant is accepted as a man of good character within the community."

1. In my view the applicant is a person who has faced his criminal past and steered his life, on the whole, away from engagement in any area that may be likely to endanger him. He has in addition sought to be of wide assistance to persons in need in his community. That is, he has reformed and shown himself now to be of good character.

1. Section 24(3) of the Act relevantly provides that the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person.
2. I am satisfied that the identity of the applicant has been established as being that of Tenzin Dhayakpa, a Tibetan refugee.
3. The applicant's evidence and the evidence of Tshering Lhamo support this finding.
4. It is true, as the respondent contends, that the applicant has not been able to produce one official document which recognises his identity save the reference to him in the Nepalese citizenship certificate of Tshering Lhamo.
5. The evidence of the applicant explains why this is the case. He became caught up as a Tibetan in the Chinese takeover of Tibet. He and his family fled Tibet and lost their possessions. His declaration and that of Tshering Lhamo attach what photographs are now available to the applicant. It is apparent that the applicant has very limited sources of evidence to produce.
6. The applicant holds a "Green Book" being a form of identity document issued by the Tibetan Government in exile. However, it was issued in Australia on the basis of the information provided by him. He had at least three prior Green Books issued to him before he came to Australia. His legal representative corresponded with the Central Tibet Administration in an unsuccessful attempt to secure copies.
7. Neither the Act nor the common law requires that identity can only be established by the production of documents appropriate to an established or undisturbed society. The decision in Confidential is not an authority that documentation is a requisite for the Minister to be satisfied as to identity. I accept the submission for the applicant that the case merely stands for the proposition that where an applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist and which he has been advised to secure, the application ought to be rejected. The question here is whether the identity can be established to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.
8. I am satisfied as to his identity. In my view in the most unusual circumstances of the applicant's life, he has established it to the best of his ability.
9. It is also the name under which he holds a humanitarian visa entitling him to reside permanently in Australia.
10. It was not put to the applicant in cross-examination that the name Tenzin Dhayakpa was a false name.
11. The choice of his birth date casts no doubt on the evidence concerning the applicant's name. The evidence of Tsering Lhamo and general knowledge concerning the conditions prevalent in Tibet both prior and subsequent to its annexation by China suggest that it is a common practice to 'decide' on a date of birth. Such a system has also been applied in Australia to 'decide' birth dates for Aboriginal persons born on a date unknown and is accepted by courts in the course of litigation on Native Title.

1. For these reasons I consider that the decision under review, being the decision of the Tribunal on 14 January 2014, should be set aside. The Tribunal will remit the decision for reconsideration in accordance with a direction that the applicant is of good character as required by s 21(2) (h) of the Act and has established his identity as made necessary by s 24(3) of the Act.

1. I certify that the preceding 122 (one hundred and twenty two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon. R Nicholson, Deputy President

....(Sgd) A Tran ....................................................................