1. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2011 by boat as an unauthorised maritime arrival. He had what is called a biodata interview on arrival.[38] He says in his statement that he was asked for his family name, and he chose 'H-i' at that time in honour of his father and grandfather who both had the given name 'H'. He said he did this on the advice of the translator. I reject that evidence as the applicant had already used the surname 'H-i' in his 2007 humanitarian-visa application.
2. The applicant further says in his statement of evidence to the Tribunal that at his entry interview of 29 February 2012, he was advised by both the immigration adviser and the immigration official that he could change his family name. He decided to adopt a different family name of 'S'. He applied for a protection visa under this new surname, and therefore changed the surname, 'H-i', that he had earlier adopted in the biodata interview. Why he would do that remains unclear. I found his explanation that he had decided to honour his town of birth unpersuasive.[39]
3. The applicant gave his date of birth in his subsequent protection-visa application[40] as 31 December 1976. He dated the application '13 March 2012'. He correctly identified his age as 35 given the date of birth he had listed and the date of execution of the application. In the supporting statutory declaration, he wrongly refers to himself as being 36 years of age (and not 35) but I do not think anything turns on that minor discrepancy.
4. The statement was signed by the applicant, and although it is in English the contents of the statement are expressly recorded as having been faithfully translated to him by a person who was proficient in Hazaragi, which was the applicant's first language according to the form.[41] The applicant refers to 'a wife, children, parents, and two brothers and sisters living in Pakistan'.
5. The applicant put forward a year of birth on this occasion that was not the year of birth he now says he has.
6. The applicant details his reasons for fearing return, and importantly, the applicant proceeds to list his relatives. Ms Q D is not mentioned as a sister although a number of siblings and stepsiblings are. The applicant omitted mentioning her as a blood relative who was resident in Australia. If Ms Q D is in fact the applicant's sister, it is a significant omission in all the circumstances: I find the omission of her name very troubling.
7. The applicant did not explain to me in a convincing way why he described himself as a 36-year-old male with a birth date of 1976 when he now maintains the best estimate of his year of birth is 1980. His clear statement to me was that his father had told him he was born approximately two years after the death of a President Khan of Afghanistan (which makes 1980 the year of birth as President Khan died in 1978). He said that he understood this to be the case when he applied for his taskera in 2008.
8. In his most recent statement,[42] the applicant says that when he was seven years of age, in 1983, he left Afghanistan for Iran;[43] but this is consistent with a birth date in or around 1976, not 1980. So, his latest statement is also unclear and contradictory.
9. There is also a record of the applicant having given inconsistent information in respect of his grandfather's name. In his biodata interview on arrival, he said the given names of his grandfather were 'G H'[44] but in his entry interview apparently said the given names were 'A H'. The applicant offers the explanation that the error was due to his confusion and exhaustion on arrival,[45] and that, I accept, may well be the case. I am not prepared to say it is not the case; but equally, I do not have much confidence in the reliability of the applicant.

1. I turn now to weighing all this evidence. I bear in mind that my task is not to decide which of a number of hypotheses may be the most plausible. Rather, I am to ask myself whether I am satisfied of the applicant identity. If I am to set aside the decision under review, I must be satisfied of that fact because of the mandatory terms of s 24(3) of the Act. I earlier adverted to the difficulties that an applicant can face where unsatisfactory evidence is given by him or her or where a witness has provided unsatisfactory declarations to the Department.
2. I have found the applicant a very unreliable witness. I have rejected his statement that he was unaware of his offshore humanitarian visa application. I believe he made that application and signed it. That is an important matter.
3. The applicant maintains that the taskera he obtained in 2008 is genuine, and that it proves that he was born in 1980. His statement to the Tribunal was that he had made inquiries of his father who had told him that he was born approximately two years after the death of President Mohammed Khan (who died in April 1978).[46] He indicated in that statement that he had indicated to the taskera authorities that he was born approximately two years after President Khan's death.[47] They did not take him at his word but an age-determination officer's examination of him estimated his approximate year of birth as 1980 in any event.[48] The applicant claims, therefore, that he was born in 1980 or thereabouts and that the date of December 1974 that appears in some documents is incorrect.
4. I accept that in Afghan society, dates in the course of a year may not be considered particularly important, but I do not accept that years are unimportant. The applicant's father apparently told the applicant that he was born two years after the death of President Khan, for example, and he communicated this information to the Taskera authorities.
5. The applicant simultaneously maintains, however, that he was seven years of age in 1983 when he left for Iran, and in his application for a protection visa in 2012 he describes himself as a 36-year-old male. This version of events is inconsistent with the taskera and the applicant's evidence to the Tribunal that he was born in 1980.
6. I note further that the taskera does not indicate the correct birthplace of the applicant. I accept that it is apparently the case that a person's actual birthplace may not 'necessarily' be used and that an applicant's forebears' birthplace may often be used instead.[49] So I do weigh that in as a possible explanation. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the taskera refers to a different birthplace than the one the applicant has given.
7. The applicant's application for citizenship gives a date of birth of 31 December 1974. The applicant had earlier applied for a protection visa giving a birth year of 1976. His citizenship application notes falsely that he has never had a different year of birth to 1974 although he maintains the taskera is accurate in estimating his year of birth as 1980. His offshore humanitarian application also gives a birth year of 1980.
8. Importantly, Ms Q D is not listed as a sister in the protection application. I find that omission troubling in terms of placing Ms Q D within the applicant's family. Ms Q D was called to give evidence that she is his sister, but her omission from the form is troubling.
9. I did not find Ms Q D's statutory declaration from 2019 satisfactory. I did not find her evidence that the documents he said she prepared which omitted a number of siblings names and which wrongly listed the applicant's father as deceased was persuasive. There is no plausible explanation in my view as to why she would list her own father as deceased when that is not the case (on the applicant's case to the Tribunal).
10. It is apparent that this case fairly bristles with inconsistencies and uncertainties. I am not persuaded that Ms Q D is his sister. She may be, but I am not satisfied that is the case. The applicant has given different birth years at different times. I cannot say that I am satisfied one is more accurate than another or that any one of them is necessarily accurate. These different dates called for a persuasive and candid explanation. The only explanation that was given by the applicant at the hearing involved a misunderstanding by the interpreter. But that can hardly be the case given the contents of the statutory declaration which refer to the applicant being 36 years of age, and which imply a birth year of 1976.
11. I am also concerned by the submissions made in respect of the applicant's family name. The applicant chose to give a surname of 'H-i' in his offshore visa application. When he first arrived in Australia, he said he gave this same name 'on the advice of his translator', which is simply not the case. During a later interview a few months later, he said he was told by the translator and immigration officials that he could change his family name and 'it would create no issues'.[50] For this reason, he opted for 'S' a name that honoured his place of birth. I accept the submission that in Afghanistan there are no surnames as such; but this does not explain why an assumed surname would be changed within such a short time. As I have earlier said, I found the explanation that he had decided to honour his town of birth unpersuasive.[51]
12. I accept that it is the case that taskeras routinely misdescribe the holder's birthplace (by automatically defaulting to an ancestral village or town) but the evidence before me suggests only that this may be the case; not that it is always the case. Presumably, there are also cases where the true place of birth is correctly recorded.
13. Of some concern, moreover, is the applicant's family composition. In 2007, He claimed his father was dead, but he now says he is not.[52] In 2007, he claimed that Ms Q D was his sister, but he omitted all mention of her from his protection-visa application.
14. It is, I accept, possible to construct a version of events that explains these troubling aspects of the applicant's case. But that is not my task. I must ask myself whether I am satisfied of the applicant's identity on the totality of the facts known to me.
15. At the risk of some repetition, my critical findings of fact in summary are as follows. The applicant was unreliable in denying his knowledge of the offshore humanitarian visa application he signed. The applicant maintained in that application that his father was dead, but now says he is alive. The applicant gave an incomplete family composition in his protection-visa application. Ms Q D was inexplicably omitted from the family composition in that application, suggesting she is not in fact his sister. On arriving in Australia, the applicant adopted the family name 'H-i', but changed it to 'S' a few months later for a reason I found unconvincing. The applicant has given various years of birth in various applications.
16. The taskera does not record the applicant's stated place of birth, and an estimate of the applicant's age is inconsistent with the age given in his protection visa application, although it is consistent with the offshore humanitarian visa application. Ms Q D's statutory declaration of January 2019 was unreliable, and parts of it effectively were retracted by her in her evidence to the Tribunal.
17. All in all, it is sufficient for me to note that, wherever the truth lies in this matter, I remain unimpressed by the evidence of the applicant; and I have found QD's statutory declaration in 2019 unsatisfactory.
18. In all of this, I must also weigh that there is a great deal of forgery and corruption in the production of taskeras according to the report submitted by the applicant.[53]
19. I should also say that I did not accept the reliability of the written report tendered on behalf of the applicant in support of the validity of this taskera.[54] I was surprised the document was authored by an anthropologist, not by a person trained in recognising forgeries.[55] I do not accept that she had the requisite expertise to provide the opinion she did. I note further the statements that were tendered by the applicant from his asserted brother and stepbrother.[56] They are largely in the same terms, although there is a discrepancy in that one deceased sibling and one living sibling from the second marriage are not referred to in the stepsibling's statement. That is more of a minor matter, but it illustrates a lack of care in the presentation of evidence to the Tribunal. I did not find their statements overcame the serious doubts arising from the other unsatisfactory evidence I had before me.

1. I return to the question that I am tasked to determine in this application and that is whether I am 'satisfied' of the identity of the applicant. I have decided that I have been left with such serious doubts about the identity of the applicant for the reasons I have given that I am not 'satisfied' of his identity. Section 24(3) of the Act prevents a grant of citizenship in these circumstances.

1. I shall, accordingly, affirm the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding seventy-one (71) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Manetta.

...................................................................

[1] See Joint Hearing Book ('HB'), 235ff.

[2] What follows in this paragraph is a series of observations I routinely make in respect of the Tribunal's review function.

[3] See, for example, Khalil v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] HCA 33 at [16] and [18]-[19].

[4] When he was the President of this Tribunal's predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He subsequently became the inaugural President of this Tribunal.

[5] See [2023] AATA 3245 at [21] and [26] - [27].

[6] [2023] AATA 3245 at [22] - [23].

[7] [2023] AATA 3245 at [23].

[8] [2023] AATA 3245 at [10].

[9] [2022] AATA 175.

[10] [2021] HCA 1.

[12] The High Court's footnote is: George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 at 113,115.

[13] [2021] HCA 1, [36].

[14] The High Court's footnote is: Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 361.

[15] The High Court's footnote is: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 532 [73]; Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor (2001) 207 CLR 391 at 447 [167].

[16] [2021] HCA 1, [38].

[17] Cf GJDB [2023] AATA 3245 at [15].

[19] This given name 'S' was the not same as the family name 'S'.

[23] Landinfo, Country of Origin Information Centre, Report Afghanistan: Tazkera, passports and other ID documents 22 May 2019: HB, 40.

[24] I deal further with this issue below.

[27] That is, the surname is the same as the given name 'H' with a suffix of 'i'.

[49] Landinfo, Country of Origin Information Centre, Report Afghanistan: Tazkera, passports and other ID documents 22 May 2019: HB, 32ff. See HB, at 41.

[55] Although the author refers to training she had recently received, but no details are given: HB 108 [14] and [19].