1. On 23 October 2025, a Tribunal hearing was conducted by video at the Tribunal's Melbourne Registry. The Applicant was represented by Mr Surendra Man Shrestha from the Australian Immigration and Citizenship Centre. The Respondent was represented by Ms Sarah Lim from MinterEllison. The Applicant was assisted throughout the hearing by a Pashto interpreter.
2. At the outset of proceedings, the parties tendered a number of exhibits.[26] The Applicant's representative indicated that he intended to call the Applicant and the following additional witnesses:

(a) Ms Nikmurgha Jamdar (the Applicant's sister); > > (b) Mr Amad Jamdar (the Applicant's nephew); and > > (c) Ms Nooria Shirzoi (the Applicant's wife).

3. The Applicant had failed to notify the Tribunal or the Respondent that it intended to call the above witnesses. There were also no witness statements from any of these witnesses in the materials. After hearing submissions on the matter, the Tribunal allowed the Applicant an opportunity to obtain witness statements from these witnesses by no later than 29 October 2025. The Tribunal also indicated it would hear from those witnesses at a later hearing to be conducted on 7 November 2025.
4. At the hearing on 23 October 2025, the Tribunal proceeded to hear evidence from the Applicant. Prior to giving his evidence, the Tribunal informed the Applicant about his privilege against self-incrimination. The Applicant indicated that he understood this privilege. The Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal will be summarised further below.

1. On 7 November 2025, the Tribunal hearing resumed by video. The Applicant tendered further material.[27] At this hearing, the Applicant called evidence from the following witnesses:

(a) Ms Nooria Shirzoi (the Applicant's wife); > > (b) Ms SJ (the Applicant's sister-in-law); > > (c) Ms Nikmurgha Jamdar (the Applicant's sister); and > > (d) Ms Kulsum Faqir (family friend).

2. The Applicant's wife and sister gave evidence with the assistance of a Pashto interpreter.
3. The hearing concluded on 7 November 2025 and the Tribunal reserved its decision.

1. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may apply to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. To be eligible, a person must meet each of the general eligibility criteria under s 21(2) of the Act.
2. One of these general eligibility criteria concern a person's good character. Section 21(2)(h) of the Act requires the Minister to be satisfied that a person 'is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.'
3. Section 24(1) of the Act provides that if a person makes an application under s 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
4. Section 52(1)(b) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review decisions made under s 24 of the Act.

Citizenship Policy Statement and Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions

1. The Australian Citizenship Policy Statement ('the Policy') (issued 27 November 2020) and the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions ('CPIs') (reissued 26 February 2021) guide decision makers exercising powers and discharging their functions under the Act. Although such policy is not binding on the Tribunal, decision makers undertaking merits review should generally apply such policy unless it is unlawful or 'there are cogent reasons to the contrary.'[28] The Tribunal has not identified any reason why the Policy and CPIs should not be applied in this case and has therefore relied upon these documents in considering the matter before it.
2. The relevant CPI in this case is CPI 15 which provides guidance in relation to assessing character under the Act.[29]
3. Part 3.3 of CPI 15 states the following in relation to good character:[30]

The term 'good character' is not defined in the Act. The Federal Court (FC) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) have used the ordinary meaning of the words, and made reference to dictionary definitions. Most cases have adopted the definition from the Full FC judgment in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs ((1996) [1996] FCA 663; 68 FCR 422; at 431-432): > > 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 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... 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... Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character. > > The phrase 'enduring moral qualities' encompasses the following concepts: > > • characteristics which have endured over a long period of time; > > • distinguishing right from wrong; and > > • behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society. > > The good character requirement necessitates consideration of an applicant viewed in a holistic way; that is, all aspects of his/her life may be relevant to consideration of character. > > A decision-maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout the time the applicant held a visa, and during the time their citizenship application was lodged and processed. > > Given the significance of the grant of Australian citizenship, the assessment of the applicant's character is an important component in the Minister's decision to approve or refuse the applicant's citizenship application. > > The good character requirement necessitates consideration of an applicant viewed in a holistic way; that is, all aspects of his/her life may be relevant to consideration of character. > > For example, in Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, DP Breen discussed the role of the character requirement in a citizenship application (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.

4. Part 4 of CPI 15 provides guidance on the characteristics a person of good character would generally be expected to exhibit.[31] This Part provides that, as a general proposition, a person of good character would:
   • respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;
   • be honest and financially responsible;
   • not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example:
     • intentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material during visa and citizenship applications;
     • concealing criminal convictions;
   • not be violent, involved in illegal drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct.
5. Part 12.1 of CPI 15 deals with offences disclosed as part of an applicant's criminal record. The CPI invites decision-makers to consider whether the offence committed was a serious offence.[32] Crimes of violence (such as domestic violence, and others) are identified as an example of a serious offence. The CPI also includes examples of minor offences such as 'offences that lead to a finding of guilt but no conviction or sentence.[33]
6. Part 12.2 provides guidance on assessing the relative seriousness of the offence. Factors identified include:
   • Any ongoing obligations such as a good behaviour bond;
   • A consideration of the victims of the offence; and
   • Whether there is a pattern of criminal behaviour.
7. Part 14 provides guidance in weighing information. It provides that that when assessing whether an applicant is of good character, decision-makers should, as a general proposition:[34]
   • Characterise the nature of any offence or behaviour;
   • Consider whether the offence is serious or minor;
   • Consider whether the offence harmed other people, and who were the victims;
   • Whether there is a pattern of behaviour or was it a once off incident; and
   • Whether there were any extenuating circumstances.
8. Decision-makers are also required to consider any mitigating circumstances, such as:[35]
   • Length of time since the offence was committed;
   • Age at the time of the offence;
   • Behaviour since completing prison sentence or obligations to the court;
   • Remorse regarding their offending behaviour;
   • Community support (such as referee reports etc); and
   • Changes in the life of the applicant, such as treatment for addiction or mental illness.
9. Part 14.2 provides guidance in regard to weighing up the evidence.[36] The CPI provides that decision-makers should consider the following matters:
   • Would a person of good character behave the way the applicant did?
   • What evidence is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law?
   • Has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia's community standards, such as obeying the law?
   • Does the applicant share Australia's democratic beliefs and respect the rights and liberties of its people?
   • Has the applicant taken steps to rehabilitate or change their lifestyle and become a person of good character?
   • Are there any other factors that are relevant to an assessment of the applicant's character?
10. Part 14 also provides the following guidance:[37]

The decision-maker must weigh up all relevant factors to decide whether the applicant is of good character. The decision-maker must look holistically at applicant's behaviour over time and reach a conclusion about the person's enduring moral qualities.

1. The requirement for a holistic assessment of a person's character has been previously considered by the Tribunal in Prasad and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs:[38]

'...a decision about whether a person is of good character requires the 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 if sufficient weight and seriousness.'

1. The issue to be determined in this matter is whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at the time of its decision pursuant to s 21(2)(h) of the Act.

1. The Applicant contends that the Tribunal should consider his character as a whole. It is contended that the Tribunal should take into account his medical conditions and his previous personal difficulties which caused his prior bad behaviour, of which he has already suffered the consequences.
2. It is submitted that the Applicant is an ideal candidate for Australian citizenship and that he has contributed to society in the time he has resided here. It is contended in the written submissions that the decision maker should consider the Applicant's enduring moral qualities and adopt a "broader approach" and make a favourable decision relying on the materials provided in support of the Applicant.[39]

1. The Respondent contends that the Applicant's previous family violence offending should be regarded as serious, and such a finding should weigh heavily against the Applicant. It is contended that the Applicant has sought to minimise his offending, by claiming his behaviour was not within his control.
2. The Respondent acknowledges that the Tribunal is not able to have regard to the non-conviction disposition in regard to the theft and obtaining property by deception charges but submits that the Tribunal can have regard to the underlying conduct that forms the basis of the charge.
3. The Respondent further contends that the Applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation as to why he failed to declare his previous conviction in his application form or at his citizenship test appointment. It is submitted that his failure to disclose his previous conviction weighs against a finding that he is a person of good character.[40]
4. It is submitted that insufficient time has passed to enable the Tribunal to conclude that the Applicant is of good character at the time of its decision.[41] There is no evidence before the Tribunal that he has undertaken any rehabilitation to address his previous offending. It is further submitted that the Tribunal should give the written character references limited weight in circumstances where those documents appear to be template documents and none of the authors of those documents were forthcoming about the Applicant's offending. The Respondent contends that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at this time.

1. The documentary evidence the Tribunal received in this matter is summarised at Annexure A of these Reasons. The Tribunal has read and had regard to the evidence tendered by both parties.
2. The Tribunal had concerns about the veracity of some of the documentary evidence relied upon by the Applicant. For example:

(a) A character reference from Ahsanullah Noori, President of the Afghan Islamic Centre and Omar-Farooq Mosque Inc. dated 31 August 2023: > > > (i) This letter was then reproduced word for word (but with a paragraph missing) and re-dated 5 April 2024. The original 31 August 2023 letter was then reproduced in full and re-dated 9 July 2025. > > (b) A character reference letter from Kulsum Faqir dated 15 April 2024: > > > (ii) This letter contains exactly the same content as a separate character reference from a person known as Rafiullah Ashna which is also dated 15 April 2024. > > (c) A character reference letter from 'Arshad' (undated), 'Mustafa' (undated) and Kulsum Faqir (undated): > > > (iii) These three character references are identical in nature. > > (d) Letter from Dr Adisti Adityaputri, General Practitioner dated 7 July 2025: > > > (iv) This letter is identical to a letter from this witness dated 28 September 2023, but the date has been amended.

3. The veracity of these documents was put to the Applicant during his evidence. The weight afforded to these character references has been considered later in these reasons.

1. The Applicant accepted the contents of the National Criminal History Check. In relation to his sentence at the Frankston Magistrates' Court, he said he used someone else's credit card. He said he didn't know it was stolen. He said he accepts responsibility for using the credit card without permission.
2. In relation to the offences for which he was sentenced at the Dandenong Magistrates' Court, he said that incident involved his sister-in-law and was a verbal argument. He agreed that he made threats to her and accepts that the offences constitute family violence. The Applicant said at the time he was on medication for depression. He and his sister-in-law had ongoing issues at the time regarding his drinking. He agreed he posted the contents of the FVSN on the internet in breach of that Order. The Applicant acknowledged that the offending is serious and feels remorseful about it.
3. In regard to an incident reported to have occurred on 2 August 2024, the Applicant agreed he threw a laptop against a wall, and also agreed he was drinking at the time.[42] He also agreed that a Final Intervention Order was also served on him on 30 August 2014.[43]
4. The Applicant agreed he previously had anger management issues which were due to poor mental health. He said he never harmed anyone and has never physically harmed his sister-in-law. He said he is married with a child now and is very happy.
5. The Applicant said he never attended any counselling. He accepted that there was a link between his offending and his prior alcohol use, but he quit drinking alcohol in 2019. He said he spoke to his GP about his alcohol use but never attended any drug and alcohol programs. He said he has remained sober for the past five years.
6. He said his relative filled out his citizenship application for him and must have ticked 'no' to the question regarding prior criminal convictions. The Applicant said his relative must have made a mistake. He said he told his relative he had been to court but doesn't know why this was recorded in the application. He said he declared his previous court appearance at his citizenship test, but that the Department didn't ask him any questions about it. He said he told them that his licence was suspended, but they also didn't record that.
7. The Applicant told the Tribunal that after he had his stroke in March 2021, he started to receive NDIS support. He said prior to this episode, he contributed to Australian society through his full-time employment as an electrical apprentice and as a technician. The Applicant also said he volunteers at his local mosque. He said he volunteers every Friday. He also helps out his neighbours when he can.
8. The Applicant was asked about the character references dated 15 April 2024 from Kulsum Faqir and Rafiullah Ashna. He said those witnesses prepared the documents themselves. He said when the first letter was drafted, he sent the other person the same letter. He said he was not sure whether they copied each other's reference letter. He said both Kulsum and Rafiullah are friends and relatives. The Applicant said the same situation applied in relation to the undated character references from Arshad, Mustafa and Kulsum Faqir. He said he asked them to prepare character references and that is what they provided. He said Arshad and Mustafa are work colleagues, and not related to him though they are from the same district as him in Afghanistan. In relation to the report from his GP, he said his GP gave him the letter and put a new date on it. In regard to the letter from the mosque, he said the witness changed the date on the letter.
9. In regard to the stroke he suffered in March 2021, he said he didn't have any symptoms before that. He said he was on medication in 2017 for his mental health. The Applicant said he still regularly sees his psychiatrist and was regularly seeing a psychologist through 2021 to 2022. He said his life has changed for the better after the birth of his child, and now his focus is on providing for his family.

1. The Applicant's wife gave evidence that she has been married to the Applicant for eight years. They have one son together. She said they met in Afghanistan, and their marriage is an arranged marriage.
2. The Applicant's wife acknowledges the incident that occurred in 2015 and said that people make mistakes, and that her husband regrets his behaviour. She said in the past her husband was not mentally well. She knew her husband received a fine for stealing a credit card. She was also aware of the family violence allegations made against her husband by his sister-in-law. She also knew that her husband failed to disclose these matters on his citizenship application and during his citizenship appointment, but again reiterated that everyone makes mistakes. The Applicant's wife told the Tribunal that her husband is a good person.

1. The Applicant's sister-in-law said the Applicant used to live with her. She said at the time she was worried about his behaviour around her children, and that's why she involved police. She said they have a good relationship now, and everything is going well. She told the Tribunal the Applicant is not the person he used to be.
2. She agreed that the family violence incident happened but stated that the Applicant had severe depression at the time and she wanted to withdraw the complaint, but the police pursued the matter anyway. She said at the time there was a link between his alcohol use and his behaviour, but he is not like that anymore.

1. The Applicant's sister gave evidence that the Applicant has been suffering from depression since their mother passed away. She said the Applicant suffered a brain haemorrhage in the past and has been coping with depression.
2. She acknowledges her brother has done the wrong thing and he feels shame over his actions. She said the Applicant is better now and she has seen him improve a lot, especially since becoming a father.
3. She said the Applicant is not the same person he used to be. He now receives support from his wife and is socialising with friends. She was aware of his past criminal offences. She said the Applicant no longer drinks alcohol. She said she was also sure that the Applicant made the disclosure about his conviction in his citizenship application and appointment. She is confident that the Applicant would have mentioned these things.

1. Ms Faqir stated that she is a friend of the Applicant and that they live in the same neighbourhood. She said she has seen improve as an individual, and she knows him to be very honest and very friendly.
2. She confirmed that she wrote the character reference dated 15 April 2024. She confirmed she also wrote the undated letter. She denied knowing anybody by the name of 'Arshad' or 'Mustafa'. She also agreed that she wrote the character reference on 25 October 2025 and that one version was signed and one was unsigned.
3. She said she knew about the Applicant's prior conviction, but she didn't want to ask the Applicant questions about personal matters. She was not aware that he was previously found guilty of the theft or obtaining property by deception charges or that he was subject to a previous Intervention Order or the FVSN. She was also not aware that the Applicant breached the FVSN. She further wasn't aware that he failed to disclose his previous conviction in his citizenship application form or at his citizenship test appointment. Ms Faqir was asked whether this information changes her assessment of his character. She said it doesn't and she prefers to see whether a person has made a change in their life. She said she is surprised to find out this information and this behaviour sounds unlike the Applicant as she knows him.

1. The Applicant's offending that led to his conviction in 2023 is as follows. At the time of the offending, the Applicant was living with his wife. His sister-in-law (the victim) was residing with her husband and their five children.[44]

1. On 19 October 2020, the Applicant messaged his sister-in-law through his wife's social media account.[45] The Applicant and his sister-in-law exchanged voice messages in Pashto. Throughout these messages, the Respondent was swearing, made numerous threats to throw acid on his sister-in-law and her husband, to cut her fingers off and to rape his sister-in-law and her sister.[46] His sister-in-law became fearful and blocked the Applicant's number before reporting the matter to police. His sister-in-law reported to police that she takes these threats very seriously due to the Applicant's unpredictable behaviour. A FVSN was issued that day.[47]

Charge 2 - Contravene Family Violence Safety Notice

1. On 25 October 2020, the Applicant posted two photos on Facebook of the FVSN which clearly displayed his sister-in-law's personal details.[48] The photos were posted using the Applicant's wife's account.

1. On 28 February 2023, the Applicant was sentenced at the Dandenong Magistrates' Court for the above offending.[49] In respect of both matters, he was convicted and sentenced to a 12-month good behaviour bond.[50]

1. The Applicant has also committed other offending which didn't lead to a conviction. A summary of that offending follows.

1. Between 18 November 2014 and 19 November 2014, the victim's credit card and cash were taken from inside her purse which was in her room, in a share house.[51] The Applicant also resided in the share house at the time.[52]

Charges 2 to 8 - Obtaining property by deception

1. On 19 November 2014, the stolen credit card was used numerous times.[53] Police obtained stills of the offender from CCTV footage. The victim identified the Applicant as the person in the stills.[54]

1. On 20 May 2015, the Applicant was sentenced at the Frankston Magistrates' Court for the above offending.[55] He was fined without conviction an aggregate of $1,000 and ordered to pay compensation of $243 on the Theft charge.[56]

1. The issue the Tribunal needs to consider is whether it is satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at the time of its decision. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at this time. This finding is based on his previous family violence offending, and his failure to declare his conviction in his citizenship application and at his appointment.

1. The Tribunal has considered the conduct that led to his 2023 conviction. That conviction involved family violence. The Tribunal has had regard to the terms of CPI 15, in particular Part 4 which provides that, as a general proposition, a person of good character would not be violent or cause harm to others through their conduct.[57] The Applicant's conduct can properly be regarded as serious. The threats he made on 19 October 2020 were of a serious nature and included threatening to throw acid on the victim, cut off her fingers and to rape her and her sister.[58] The Applicant then posted a copy of the FVSN that was served on him on Facebook, and in the course of doing so, revealed the victim's personal details.[59]
2. The Applicant's conduct was of a sufficient seriousness to warrant the imposition of a conviction and a 12-month good behaviour bond. This good behaviour bond was discharged as satisfactorily completed on 26 February 2024.[60] On 17 May 2024, a delegate of the Minister refused the Applicant's application on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant was of good character at the time of the decision.[61]
3. The Tribunal has had regard to the Applicant's evidence that he was suffering from depression at the time of this offending. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he ceased drinking alcohol in 2019 which is before the offending. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant suffered a brain bleed in March 2021 which required ongoing intensive radiotherapy.[62] As a consequence the Applicant was not able to work and had to attend a psychologist for treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.[63] The Applicant's psychiatrist diagnosed the Applicant as suffering from major depressive disorder with anxiety symptoms in his letter dated 16 December 2021.[64]
4. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant was suffering from depression prior to his medical episode and has taken this into account in assessing the seriousness of his offending. The Tribunal also takes into account the Applicant's good behaviour in the 12 months after his sentence which resulted in the good behaviour bond being discharged in February 2024. The Applicant is seeking assistance for his mental health and is now motivated to change for the sake of his wife and child. However, the Tribunal doesn't consider that sufficient time has elapsed between the end of his good behaviour bond and the Tribunal's decision such that it can be satisfied that the Applicant is of good behaviour. The family violence offending was serious. The Tribunal has accepted the Applicant was suffering from depression at the time, but that doesn't excuse his prior poor behaviour. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's family violence offending weighs heavily against a finding that he is of good character at this time.

1. The Tribunal has considered the underlying conduct that led to his 2015 finding of guilt. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant's account that he was consuming alcohol at the time, and that his behaviour was linked to his alcohol consumption. During his oral evidence, he appeared to minimise his offending by stating that he was using the credit card on behalf of someone else to purchase cigarettes. The Applicant was captured on CCTV using the credit card and was found guilty of the charges.[65]
2. The Tribunal is aware that it cannot regard the Applicant's findings of guilt as a conviction for any purpose.[66] However, the Tribunal has had regard to the underlying conduct that gave rise to the 2015 offences in accordance with the principles in Ngaranoa v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[67] The Tribunal notes that the absence of a conviction does not render the conduct immune from consideration.[68] However, the Tribunal considers that the conduct (which occurred in 2014) is not of a sufficient seriousness to contribute to a finding that the Applicant is not of good character. The Tribunal notes that the conduct occurred over 11 years ago and occurred at a time the Applicant was reportedly suffering from depression and abusing alcohol. That set of circumstances doesn't excuse the behaviour, but it does provide the Tribunal with important context in regard to the Applicant's circumstances at the time. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant's next set of offences occurred in October 2020 which is almost six years after the first set of offending.
3. The Tribunal finds that the conduct that occurred in 2014 does not contribute to the Tribunal's finding that the Applicant is not of good character at the time of its decision.

1. Part 4 of CPI 15 provides that, as a general proposition, a person of good character would not practice deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government or other organisations, by, for example, providing false personal information or concealing criminal convictions.[69]
2. The Applicant failed to disclose the fact of his 2023 conviction when he lodged his citizenship application on 19 June 2023.[70] He also failed to disclose the fact of this conviction at his citizenship appointment on 16 July 2023.[71] According to the file note of the Departmental officer, the Applicant did disclose that his licence was suspended for three months in 2011 for drink driving, but otherwise did not disclose his conviction in February 2023.[72]
3. The Applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that someone helped him with the form, and he is sure he would have informed that person about his conviction. The Applicant also stated that he did mention the conviction at his appointment, but the Departmental officer may not have taken that down.
4. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant told the officer at his appointment about his criminal conviction. The Tribunal finds that the officer would have recorded this fact in the file note, as the officer did record the disclosure of the 2011 drink driving episode.
5. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant deliberately withheld this information from the Department. Even if it were to be accepted that the failure to declare the criminal conviction in his application form was an accidental omission, the Applicant had the opportunity to correct the record at his appointment and in subsequent communication with the Department. The Tribunal has had regard to the considerations at Part 14.2 of CPI 15 and finds that a person of good character would not have concealed their criminal conviction.
6. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's failure to disclose his conviction in his citizenship application and at his citizenship test appointment weighs against him.

1. A final matter for the Tribunal's consideration is the issue of the character references that have been provided by the Applicant. The Respondent raised its concerns regarding the veracity and content of the Applicant's character references in its closing submissions to the Tribunal and in its Submissions in Reply dated 21 October 2025.[73]
2. The following concerns were noted:

(a) Exhibit A9 - Letter from Dr Adisti Adityaputri dated 7 July 2025 (signed): > > > (i) Other than the date, this letter is in exactly the same terms as a previous letter provided to the Department on 28 September 2023.[74] > > > > (ii) This letter refers to the Applicant's medical conditions, but does not explain whether there is any causal link between his conditions and his offending.[75] > > > > (iii) The letter otherwise does not attest to the Applicant's good character.[76] > > (b) Exhibit A8 - Character reference from Ahsanullah Noori dated 9 July 2025 (unsigned): > > > (i) Other than the date and the inclusion of an additional paragraph on page 1, this letter is in exactly the same terms as a previous letter provided to the Department on 19 April 2024.[77] > > > > (ii) The character reference mentions the intervention order "...that his sister-in-law obtained against him, apparently, he threatened to harm her, through a telephone argument."[78] The character reference does not reveal the extent of the threats (that is, he threatened to throw acid on his sister-in-law, cut off her fingers, and rape her and her sister). Nor does the character reference detail the Applicant's contravention of his FVSN for which he was convicted. > > > > (iii) It is submitted that this character reference as a whole should be given minimal weight.[79] > > (c) Exhibit A5 - Character reference for Farid Jamdar from 'Arshad' (undated) (unsigned); Exhibit A6 - Character reference for Farid Jamdar from 'Mustafa' (undated) (unsigned); Exhibit A7 - Character reference from Kulsum Faqir (undated) (unsigned): > > > (i) These three character references are almost identical in nature. > > > > (ii) The character references from 'Arshad' and 'Mustafa' are identical. They each state they have known the Applicant for 10 years. The character reference from Kulsum Faqir states she has known the Applicant for 14 years. Other than that change, the wording between the three character references is virtually identical. > > > > (iii) None of these character references refer to the Applicant's prior conviction. > > > > (iv) The Respondent submits that it can be inferred that these witnesses have no awareness of the Applicant's misconduct at all. It is submitted that these character references should be afforded extremely limited weight.[80]

3. The Tribunal's consideration of these matters follows.
4. The letter from Dr Adityaputri dated 7 July 2025 is identical to the 28 September 2023 letter other than the updated date. There is no update from this witness as to the Applicant's medical conditions in the July 2025 letter. The veracity of this letter was put to the Applicant during cross-examination. He told the Tribunal that his GP amended the date. The Tribunal has considered the September 2023 letter as evidence of the Applicant's prior medical conditions. The purportedly updated letter dated 7 July 2025 contains no new information. The Tribunal gives the 7 July 2025 letter very limited weight in the Applicant's favour.
5. The Tribunal shares the same concerns regarding the character reference from Ahsanullah Noori dated 9 July 2025. This letter is virtually identical to Mr Noori's previous letter dated 19 April 2024. The Tribunal has had regard to the earlier reference so far as it speaks to the Applicant's character and volunteer work. Although the Respondent submits that this reference does not mention the Applicant's offending in detail, the Tribunal does not consider this omission to otherwise impugn the earlier character reference. The Tribunal has however given very limited weight to the later character reference which contains no new information.
6. The Tribunal has considered the weight to be afforded to the undated character references from 'Arshad', 'Mustafa' and Kulsum Faqir. As mentioned above, these character references are virtually identical in nature. Ms Faqir was called to give evidence on behalf of the Applicant and confirmed that she did write this character reference. She said the reference to her knowing the Applicant for almost 14 years was incorrect as she has only known the Applicant for five years. She also confirmed that she wrote the character reference dated 15 April 2024 which mentioned that she has known the Applicant for over 10 years.[81] As mentioned earlier, this character reference is identical to the character reference from Rafiullah Ashna. The Tribunal notes that these character references from Ms Faqir do not mention the Applicant's offending at all and contain information which conflicts with her oral evidence that she has only known the Applicant for five years. The character references of Ms Faqir are given limited weight in these circumstances. The Tribunal also gives the character references of 'Arshad' and 'Mustafa' very limited weight given the Tribunal has no further information on the identity of these witnesses other than a first name. The veracity of the information included in the character references is questionable given they are identical in nature to the reference provided by Ms Faqir.

1. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's family violence offending is serious. The Tribunal notes the Applicant's good behaviour bond ended in February 2024. The Tribunal is not satisfied that sufficient time has elapsed for the Tribunal to be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at this time.
2. The Tribunal has not given weight to the underlying conduct which resulted in the Applicant's non-conviction disposition in 2015 given the age of those matters.
3. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's failure to declare his prior conviction in his citizenship application and appointment weighs against him. The Tribunal has given very limited weight in the Applicant's favour to the character references referred to above in circumstances where those character references contain no new information, appear to be duplicated, or don't reference the Applicant's offending conduct at all.
4. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is of good character at this time. It follows that the requirement in s 21(2)(h) of the Act is not satisfied.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Applicant's exhibits tendered on 23 October 2025:

• Exhibit A1 - Submission in support (undated);
• Exhibit A2 - Photograph of an Afghan passport in the name of Nooria Shirzoi;
• Exhibit A3 - Birth certificate of Wahab Jamdar;
• Exhibit A4 - Photograph of Victorian Learner Permit and Medicare card in the name of Nooria Shirzoi;
• Exhibit A5 - Character reference for Farid Jamdar from 'Arshad' (undated) (unsigned);
• Exhibit A6 - Character reference for Farid Jamdar from 'Mustafa' (undated) (unsigned);
• Exhibit A7 - Character reference from Kulsum Faqir (undated) (unsigned);
• Exhibit A8 - Character reference from Ahsanullah Noori dated 9 July 2025 (unsigned);
• Exhibit A9 - Letter from Dr Adisti Adityaputri dated 7 July 2025 (signed);

Applicant's exhibits tendered on 7 November 2025:

• Exhibit A10 - Statement from SJ dated 24 October 2025 (unsigned);
• Exhibit A11 - Character reference from Jamshed Akbar dated 13 August 2024 (unsigned);
• Exhibit A12 - Character reference from Nooria Shirzai dated 23 October 2025 (unsigned);
• Exhibit A13 - Character reference from Kulsum Faqir dated 25 October 2025 (unsigned);
• Exhibit A14 - Character reference from Nikmurgha Jamdar dated 24 October 2025 (unsigned);
• Exhibit A15 - Letter from Dr Sangeeta Raghav dated 8 August 2024;
• Exhibit A16 - Monash Health Discharge Summary dated 26 October 2025;
• Exhibit A17 - Letter from One Step Care Services Pty Ltd dated 27 October 2025 (signed);
• Exhibit A18 - Letter from Applicant dated 26 October 2025 (signed);
• Exhibit A19 - Letter from Sayed Sayedi, Enable Life Support Services (undated) (unsigned);
• Exhibit A20 - Character reference from Nooria Shirzoi dated 23 October 2024;
• Exhibit A21 - Statement from SJ dated 24 October 2025 (signed);
• Exhibit A22 - Character reference from Kulsum Faqir dated 25 October 2025 (signed);
• Exhibit A23 - Character reference from Nikmurgha Jamdar (undated) (signed).

Respondent's exhibits tendered on 23 October 2025:

• Exhibit R1 - T-documents totalling 246 pages of material;
• Exhibit R2 - Supplementary T-documents totalling 33 pages of material;
• Exhibit R3 - Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 31 January 2025 and Annexure;
• Exhibit R4 - Respondent's Reply Submissions dated 21 October 2025.

[26] Refer to Schedule A of these Reasons.

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

[38] Prasad and Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326, [7].

[66] WKBF v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 465 [5]-[9], citing Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Thornton [2024] HCA 6; (2023) 276 CLR 136 and Lesianawai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 281 CLR 1.

[67] Ngaronoa v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1565 [11], SZRTN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 110 [92].