1. By letter dated 2 May 2013 an officer of the Department requested the applicant to provide "a detailed statutory declaration that outlines the circumstances of [the] offence" of which he was convicted in 2005 (T19), and by a further letter of the same date the officer requested the applicant also to provide a "Change of Name Certificate that shows the change of your name from Sam Regan to Ali Al Temimi" (T20).
2. In response to the firstmentioned letter of 2 May 2013 the applicant wrote a letter, dated 10 May 2013, to the Department as follows:

" My name is Ali Al Temimi, I had a criminal background in the past. I was what you call a fraud. I was given a payslip and I handed it in to buy a car. So I was convicted of making a payslip. This happened because I wanted to buy a car and did not know what a payslip was because I haven't seen one before. I just thought it was a simple paper. So I asked someone what a payslip was and he said I will make you one. So I didn't know if it was legal or not. I did not know the law properly. So I took the paper he gave me and took it to buy a car. So I bought the car. After that they took me to the court and the judge asked me some questions and answered him. The judge told me that you didn't know because you are not Australian and do not know the law. He told me not to do it again and released me. The judge told me for two years you are not to make any issues/problems with the law and I didn't do anything wrong after that. That's all. I was unaware of the effect of my actions to my surroundings. I truly regret what I had done in the past. I have changed since then and will not do anything that is against the law.

I am truly sorry for what I have done and wish to forget my past mistake, so that I can move on. My criminal background has haunted me and has affected me today. I wish that I had not done what I did in the past, so that it would not affect my life in this way. I hope that you can see that I have changed for good and will be a good Australian citizen, who will always do what is best for this country. I would be very happy if I was given the chance to be part of Australia and to be a citizen of Australia.

..." [sic] (T21)

The applicant did not provide to the Department the Change of Name Certificate requested in the other abovementioned letter of 2 May 2013.

1. On 28 May 2013 a delegate of the respondent refused the applicant's application for Australian citizenship on the grounds that:
   • the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the "good character" requirement in s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) ("the Act");
   • the delegate was not satisfied of the applicant's "identity" for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act. (T2)

1. Division 2 of Part 2 of the Act contains the following relevant provisions:

" Subdivision B - Citizenship by conferral

...

20 Requirements for becoming a citizen

A person becomes an Australian citizen under this Subdivision if:

(a) the Minister decides under subsection 24(1) to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen; and

(b) if the person is required to make a pledge of commitment to become an Australian citizen − the person makes that pledge.

Note: ...

21 Application and eligibility for citizenship

(1) A person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.

Note 1: ...

Note 2: ...

General eligibility

(2) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:

(a) is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and

(b) is a permanent resident:

(i) at the time the person made the application; and

(ii) at the time of the Minister's decision on the application; and

(c) satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and

(d) understands the nature of an application under subsection (1); and

(e) possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; and

(f) has an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and

(g) is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and

(h) is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.

...

1. Minister's decision
   • (1) If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

Note: ...

(1A) The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).

(2) The Minister may refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen despite the person being eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (7).

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

1. The Australian Citizenship Instructions ("ACI") published by the Department, dated 1 January 2013, relevantly state:

" CHAPTER 5 - CITIZENSHIP BY CONFERRAL

...

5.7 Good character

The Act requires that applicants aged 18 years and over be of good character. See Chapter 10 - Character, for further information on the assessment of good character.

Decision makers must also ensure there are no prohibitions on approval - see section 5.27.1 Minister's decision (s24).

...

5.27 Decision making

5.27.1 Minister's decision (s24)

An application for citizenship by conferral must be approved or refused.

If an applicant meets the eligibility requirements and there is no prohibition on approval, the person would generally be approved to become an Australian citizen. ...

...

There are a number of circumstances where an application for citizenship by conferral must not be approved. These relate to:

• identity
• national security
• when the applicant is not in Australia at the time an application is to be approved
• where a person is or has been subject to court proceedings for an offence and
• cessation of citizenship.

Identity (s24(3))

Section 24(3) requires that the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied of the identity of the person. In addition to being a legislative requirement under the Act, the Australian community expects that decision makers will not approve a person for citizenship if they are not satisfied of the person's identity.

...

CHAPTER 10 - CHARACTER

...

10.2 Good character requirement

10.2.1 Overview

The term 'good character' is not defined in the Act. Decision makers must therefore be guided by the ordinary use of the words in making assessments.

If a decision maker is not satisfied that an applicant is of good character at the time of decision the decision maker is to refuse to approve the applicant becoming a citizen. There is no legislative provision under the Act to defer a decision.

...

In most cases, evidence that an applicant is not of good character would be in the form of a criminal record. However, general conduct and associations may also be relevant. If there is evidence to suggest that an applicant may not be of good character, the applicant must be given the opportunity to respond to the adverse information. An applicant's behaviour does not have to be faultless, but the aggregate of their qualities must be weighed against ordinary community standards of behaviour.

...

Assessing good character involves:

• establishing whether or not an applicant has a criminal record, and the nature of that record, if any
• establishing whether or not an applicant may have been involved in crimes against humanity, without having criminal convictions, through having undertaken military or similar service or having held a position of authority in a country that has experienced conflict and serious human rights abuses
• establishing whether or not there is other information relevant to the issue of character
• according procedural fairness to the applicant where there is credible, relevant, and adverse information which the decision maker intends to take into account and
• considering the full circumstances relating to the relevant matters, including any comments by the applicant, character references, and other evidence of the applicant's behaviour.

A list of factors to which consideration should be given is at section 10.3 Character summary. They include:

• the seriousness of any offences against ordinary community standards:
  • crimes of violence, sexual abuse, drug trafficking, major fraud, harassment, stalking, armed robbery, crimes against children and other crimes which have incurred a prison sentence or sentences totalling 12 months or more are ordinarily considered to be serious and should be given due weight in an assessment
  • alternatively, less serious offences would be reflected by the leniency of a sentence and, possibly, in the remarks of the sentencing Judge. Decision makers may wish to obtain the comments made by the Judge in sentencing the applicant
  • association with persons or organisations alleged to have committed crimes against humanity
  • offences committed prior to the grant of a permanent visa that wee concealed from the visa decision maker should not normally be given less weight. The fact of deliberate concealment may be an indicator of a continuing lack of good character.
• whether or not an offence(s) committed overseas would be regarded as an offence in Australia. For example, a person charged with political offences in one country may not be considered guilty of a crime in Australia.
• whether there are any on-going obligations in relation to the sentence received, such as a good behaviour bond. Section 24(6) provides that an application for citizenship by conferral must not be approved during such periods.
• whether an offence was a one-off occurrence that can now be considered 'out of character', or part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour which would suggest that the applicant is not of good character. Where the offence was not out of character, consider whether the applicant has been rehabilitated (see below).
• whether there were any extenuating circumstances relating to the offence. For example, an offence committed under periods of temporary psychological disturbance (including involuntary effects of medication, post-natal depression, battered wife syndrome) or under duress may be given less weight than if these circumstances did not exist. The onus is on the applicant to provide evidence supporting a claim of extenuating circumstances.
• the applicants age at the time the offence(s) were committed. If the applicant committed the offence(s) at a young age, they may be given less weight depending on the nature of the crime and the applicant's subsequent record. It may be possible that the person has matured and become more law-abiding than as a youth, and that offences from that period in their life are less indicative of their current character than their actions as an adult.

A person's behaviour as evidenced by a criminal record is relevant to the assessment of character. Appropriate weight must be given to a person's behaviour immediately prior to the making of a decision.

A reasonable amount of time will need to have passed since the applicant has been free of obligation to the court to establish a pattern of good behaviour and thus justify a conclusion that a person is now of good character.

The applicant's behaviour since commission of a serious crime can in part be evidenced by the existence or otherwise of subsequent convictions. Other relevant factors that may be taken into account include whether or not the applicant has stable employment, their status in the community, involvement in activities indicating contempt/disregard or respect for the law or human rights.

The applicant's present reputation in the community should also be considered. The applicant could demonstrate a good reputation in the community by providing references from reputable Australians, particularly employers (but not family members), attesting to their good character and whether they support the application for citizenship.

Decision makers are entitled to give substantially more weight to statutory declarations than to other statements. Declarations from character referees that acknowledge the person's criminal background, and attest to a change in character since, should be given considerable weight.

..." (original emphasis) (T4, pp 49, 74-75, 99, 100-101)

Although the ACI do not have the force of law and the Tribunal is not legally obliged to apply them, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to have regard to their contents in making its decision.

1. The applicant confirmed that the contents of his statement dated 3 February 2013, his statutory declaration dated 13 February 2013, and his letter to the Department dated 10 May 2103 (set out in, respectively, paragraphs 11, 12 and 14 above) are true and correct.
2. In cross-examination the applicant gave evidence to the following effect:
   • he arrived in Australia under the name "Ali Al Temimi" which is his birth name;
   • on 7 November 2003 he changed his name by deed poll from "Ali Al Temimi" to "Sam Regan";
   • he did this because it would have been dangerous for him to visit Iraq under the name "Ali Al Temimi" because of the Saddam Hussein regime but when that regime collapsed there was no need for him to use the name "Sam Regan" anymore;
   • he did not subsequently change his name from "Sam Regan" back to "Ali Al Temimi";
   • he recently made enquiries about changing his name from "Sam Regan" but was informed that the registration department had been abolished and that they had no records regarding the name "Sam Regan";
   • when he changed his name to "Sam Regan" he only used that name on his driver's licence but otherwise he continued to use the name "Ali Al Temimi";
   • he was convicted of fraud on 8 March 2005 under the name "Sam Regan" because he gave his driver's licence in that name to the police;
   • when he went to change his name at Births, Deaths and Marriages, Western Australia in 2012 he did not inform them that he had previously been known as "Sam Regan" because he had forgotten about it as he never used that name;
   • also, the document about changing his name to "Sam Regan" was "missing at the time", but later, when he was asked about it in relation to his application for citizenship, he "started looking for it and [he] found it".
3. The applicant was referred to a copy of the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (WA) "Application to register a change of name" form (Exhibit R2) and, in particular, to question 17 in that form which asks:

" Have you previously changed your name (legally) in Australia or overseas (including marriage)?"

The applicant said that he answered "No" to that question. It was then put to him that that answer was not correct and his evidence was as follows:

" INTERPRETER: I thought that's correct actually because I wasn't known by another name, that's what I thought.

MR GERRARD: But you had changed your name to Sam Regan.

INTERPRETER: Yes, that's correct, but I thought actually because I never changed my names with Immigration Department or other departments, they'll still actually be using the same, Ali Al Temimi, after there's no use, actually, to tell, you know, I changed their name because this - I don't use it.

MR GERRARD: But it had been on your driver's licence and you had been convicted under that name.

MR AL TEMIMI: Yes.

INTERPRETER: Yes, actually, it stay in my driving licence but I didn't know how - you know, change it back to Al Temimi and if he go to change their name they need actually documents to prove, actually, to check, to change it and I don't have any documents at that time to prove my name is Sam Regan.

MR GERRARD: Well you had the document that you provided to department.

INTERPRETER: Which document?

MR GERRARD: The document at page 136. [The Deed Poll set out in paragraph 8 above]

INTERPRETER: Yes, actually, I didn't change those documents because they're still my name, my real name still there.

MR GERRARD: The time your legal name was and still is Sam Regan.

INTERPRETER: I don't know actually my real name was actually Sam Regan, I thought just - you know - that's the stupidity of me actually. I never thought if you changed your name I have to go, you know, through all of the departments and to change them, so actually Immigration Department, driving licence and all these things. That's what - I could - and that's changing the name, but I didn't do it, because I didn't know that.

MR GERRARD: Well it does say on this form that 'You must provide details below of each name used in evidence of how you changed your name. Failure to list all previous names may result in your application being declined'.

INTERPRETER: I don't know, I didn't read that one actually, just I found actually yes or no, I answered. I didn't read that one." [sic] (Transcript, pp 19-20)

1. The applicant was asked to describe the circumstances of the fraud offence of which he was convicted in March 2005. His evidence was as follows:

" INTERPRETER: I wanted to buy a car and they told me actually I 'have to provide payslips' and I didn't know what the payslips are. And I won't actually ask, you know, a person about the payslips at the time because I don't know anything about payslips and what is actually payslips. He said to me 'give me some money and I'll do payslips for you'. He, I give him some money and he provide me payslips and I took the payslips and I bought the car. I took the car. After, you know, after the police came in and because actually the car, I bought it by finance at the time, I couldn't pay actually the money for the car at the time because actually the value of the car at the time, I don't know, 16,000, 17,000 at the time. He took me to the court and actually I wanted a lawyer for me. I explained, you know, the situation to him and I said - and I pleaded guilty and I explained everything to him and what happens and he said, and I remember very well what he said, and what she said to me, 'you are not Australian and you don't know anything about the law or you have any awareness about the law and these people, they are like a shark' and she said to me 'go and don't do it again'. And after that actually I got to this department and they asked me just about my psychological conditions, that's all. And I go to them every time for two years.

MR GERRARD: So it doesn't sound to me that you accept that you were dishonest in this behaviour.

INTERPRETER: Not - because not, actually - I didn't defraud it, I didn't take it and I apologise to them and I said this is actually behaviour I don't do anything against but I didn't make the fraud. And tell me now, actually, since that case until now, have I committed any offences? And I wrote declaration apologising to them and actually - and confirmed the amount to be actually (indistinct) and explained the situation and never do it again. And the case has been actually for many years back.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Just coming back to that, so you said you'd 'pleaded guilty'?

MR AL TEMIMI: Yes.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Why did you plead guilty?

MR AL TEMIMI: She told me I 'have to say guilty'. She said to me 'if you want to stay longer or I want to finish it quickly'. I said that 'I want to finish it quickly because I'm actually a sick person, I don't have much actually for this cases and come to the court every time'. She said 'just say guilty and it will be, the case will be finished and you will go' and this I did, I said 'I'm guilty'." [sic] (Transcript, pp 23-24)

1. The applicant was also referred to the "Application for Australian citizenship" form and the "Declaration of service" form in each of which he had answered "No" to the question "Have you been known by any other names?" (See paragraphs 5 and 6 above). His evidence was as follows:

" MR GERRARD: Well you had said that your full name is 'Ali Abdul Amer Abdullah Al Temimi' and you have been asked 'have you been known by any other names' and you had been known by at least 'Sam Regan'.

INTERPRETER: Because I never used it, that's the reason actually I didn't mention it. My real name, Ali Abdul Amer Abdulla Al Temimi, and this is another name, you know, will go on missing. I never used it. I didn't know anything about it. How can I mention it?

MR GERRARD: So on three occasions in the space of about a year, you told the department twice that you hadn't been known by any other name and in changing your name at the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registrar, you didn't tell them when asked that you would change your name or you had been known by Sam Regan.

INTERPRETER: I didn't tell you about him because I didn't use it and secondly, when I didn't mention, what do you mean, which occasions I didn't mention it?

MR GERRARD: All right, well when you applied to change you name from 'Ali Al Temimi' to 'Ali Abdul Amer Abdullah Al Temimi' at the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, you were required to advise of any change, any former names that you'd been known as, and you didn't. And then on two occasions when you completed your application for Australian citizenship and then later when you were completing the declaration of service, when you were asked a direct question, 'Have you been known by any other names', you ticked 'no', and it wasn't until the Department wrote to you and said 'we have information that you've been known by other names'. It was only then that you provided the evidence of changing your name to Sam Regan in Queensland and changing the name from Ali Al Temimi to Ali Abdul Amer Abdullah Al Temimi.

INTERPRETER: Yes, actually, but I have notified the Immigration Department of changing my name already and when I fill in form 80 other time, which one belonged, this form 80, to Immigration Department or somewhere else? I have notified Immigration Department about it. When I changed my name actually I took in those documents to prove changing my name and to Immigration Department and they give me a copy of the Visa under my name, my new name that time and they stick it on in my own passport. But that's - and I thought it's going to change it but they wouldn't - and assist them. Why should I actually tell the Immigration Department every time about it? I tell them and they put it in their system already. What's the benefit actually to put sometimes actually Sam Regan or sometimes not putting Sam Regan, what's the benefit of that, what's the purpose of that? That is - that means, actually, I don't understand or what.

MR GERRARD: The concern is, or the concern of the department is that you have a history of conviction for a dishonesty offence and the circumstances of that offence, you say, are that you needed a payslip so you found a guy who would give you a payslip if you gave him some money in order to get that car. So Mr Al Temimi, I want to make one further point for you to comment on. That, you say, is a mistake, but here we are, very recently, and you want to change your name to Ali Abdul Amer Abdullah Al Temimi and you don't tell the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages that you have changed your name before to Sam Regan and you don't tell the Department of Immigration that you have changed your name, or have been known previously as Sam Regan, on two occasions. The Department's concern is that that is evidence of a pattern of dishonesty on your part.

INTERPRETER: Okay, that's correct, why actually take me to the hospital and under the medical treatment and all these things? And was the hospital here next to the - in the - next to the University. He asked me what was the name of the hospital over there. I lost all the reports and asked actually about Dr Yusuf about my health condition and asked my colon conditions is torn actually now too much of - it's a bleeding , bleeding and bleeding because actually of my psychological conditions. I don't know where the reports are with him but just go to the hospital and ask about Ali Temimi and get all the reports about him. And the doctor, his name, Dr Yusuf and he is treating me now, he has been treating me for three years and four years and I'm seeing him from time to time. I don't know actually, when I'm having one tablet, I get dizzy, I can't - I don't know what - I do not see it. Are you actually judging me because actually I forget? I forgot. What kind of - I didn't do it, actually, intentionally, that's the reason. It doesn't actually mean I do this one, you know, to harm myself, no, I don't.

MR GERRARD: Mr Ali Al Temimi, it's very difficult to credit you that you just forgot about changing your name to Sam Regan in an application to change your name to something else.

INTERPRETER: What do you want now from me actually, what can I do?" [sic] (Transcript pp 27-28)

1. Finally, it was put to the applicant that he had falsely answered "No" to the question "Have you been convicted of, or found guilty of, ANY offences overseas or in Australia ...?" in the "Application for Australian citizenship" form (see paragraph 5 above). The applicant said that he misunderstood that question and that he also wrongly answered "yes" to the question "Have you been confined in a prison ... in connection with criminal proceedings overseas or in Australia?". He pointed out that in that form he did refer to his conviction in Western Australia in 2005.
2. In response to questions from the Tribunal the applicant gave the following evidence:

" DEPUTY PRESIDENT: ... as Mr Gerrard [for the respondent] has mentioned and as you have admitted, in recent years you have provided false information to both the Immigration Department and to the WA Births, Deaths and Marriages so - and Mr Gerrard has submitted that even though you may not have committed any other - or have been convicted of any other offences, that shows that you are still being dishonest, because you're giving false information, you're still showing that you are dishonest, so what do you say about that?

MR AL TEMIMI: I didn't mean it. Sometime, I forget, sometime my condition is very bad.

INTERPRETER: It's out of my hand, it's out of my control because I did it intentionally because it's actually because of my medication, my health issues, it makes me forgetting to do that, but it's not my hands. Because actually the circumstances I had since actually 1999 and to 2011, I remained here in Australia, I didn't go outside of Australia, I feel like it's being in prison. In the circumstances actually my father died. I couldn't go to attend and my mother died as well and I couldn't go to see her. And my eldest son, I don't know where he is now, actually. Plus adding to all these things actually the delay of issuing my Visa, my permanent Visa from 1999 until 2011 created a lot of psychological problems to me and plus, actually, my father's got eight children, here, and all of them Australian, and this children actually this Australian population and this actually, they are actually eligible for the vote and elect and all these things. And they have arrived on Australian lands because actually I'm their father as well.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: ... When you filled out these forms, the citizenship application form, the declaration of service form, they were the two documents that you filled out for the immigration, and also, when you filled out the application for change of name for Births, Deaths and Marriages, did you have anyone helping you? Because you may not have understood the question because your English is not the best. Did you have anyone assisting you to fill out those forms?

INTERPRETER: No, just me, nobody else.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Well why not? Because these are important documents. Why did you not have someone help you make sure you gave the right answers?

INTERPRETER: What I can't take them actually, you know, I don't see anybody who knows about them. I thought they are easy about this, just yes and no, and I answered, that's it.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: All right. But you could have got someone to help you, couldn't you? Did you - I think I've read somewhere some of your children were school teachers or something like that, is that right?

INTERPRETER: Yes.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: So you could have easily got someone, one of your children to help you could you not?

INTERPRETER: Children have school teachers and one of them, she's in medical school.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: But you decided you didn't need help, is that right?

INTERPRETER: I do, for me I do everything by myself, actually, I don't rely on other people.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Did you want to ask any questions arising out of that, Mr Gerrard?

MR GERRARD: Just one. Mr Al Temimi, did anyone help you complete your statutory declarations or the letters that you sent to the department?

MR AL TEMIMI: Yes.

MR GERRARD: Who was that?

MR AL TEMIMI: My daughter, she wrote, because this English is very well. I can't read, but not all English, because maybe you sometime you can't - if I tell you some word, you have to ask somebody for spelling. I am not English, English 100 per cent. My daughter know, teacher, 100 per cent. She wrote this one for me, one letter for me. It is here. And other friend, he - - -

INTERPRETER: And others, actually, wrote by other friends by their own hands and they wrote by themselves for themselves not just for having me." [sic] (Transcript, pp 40-42)

1. The T Documents include:
   • copies of various identity documents provided by the applicant to the Department with his application for Australian citizenship, namely, an identity document issued by the General Department of Nationality and Civil Affairs, Republic of Iraq, a Synergy account, Travel Document (issued by the Department), Medicare Card, Centrelink Pensioner Concession Card, ANZ Bank Card (T7, pp 118-121);
   • copies of three character references provided by the applicant to the Department in February 2013 (T14, T16, T17);
   • a copy of a letter from a Community Corrections Officer, Department of Corrective Services, Western Australia, dated 6 November 2006, addressed "To Whom it may concern", which states as follows:

" Regarding:

Sam Regan

...

Progress whilst subject to community supervision

I am writing to advise that Mr Reagan [sic] was subject to an Intensive Supervision Order on 8th March 2005 for a period of two years for an offence related to false pretences in order to gain profit. This Department has been working with Mr Regan for a lengthy period of time and found his compliance whilst subject to his Order to be exemplary in regard to his reporting obligations and open and approachable attitude in order to address the triggers for his offending. Mr Reagan [sic] has met the requirements of his Order, completed a program in financial management in order to assist him in the area that resulted in his offending and now reports on a two monthly reporting regime. His Order is due to expire on the 7th March 2007 and it appears at this juncture most unlikely that he would re-offend in a like manner in the future.

The writer is able to confirm that his life is currently stable in regard to his relationship, commitment to his children and efforts to manage his ongoing serious health issues. Mr Reagan [sic] explained that he would present his Police Clearance and medical report in accompaniment with this letter in order to be open and transparent regarding his current situation." (T5)

1. The applicant also tendered in evidence the following documents;
   • character reference (undated) signed by 6 persons, filed by the applicant on 5 August 2013 (Exhibit A1);
   • Australian Red Cross Blood Service Donor Attendance Sheet, dated 30 September 2010 (Exhibit A2);
   • report of Dr A Kumar, Rehabilitation Medicine, Royal Perth Hospital, dated 23 July 2008 (Exhibit A3);
   • letter from Dr Behzad Alizadeh, dated 27 October 2010 (Exhibit A4).

1. The two issues for the Tribunal's consideration and determination are:
   • whether it is satisfied that the applicant fulfils the "good character" requirement in s 21(2)(h) of the Act; and
   • whether it is "satisfied of the identity" of the applicant, within the meaning of s 24(3) of the Act.

1. In the respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions, dated 5 September 2013, filed and served in this proceeding, the following contentions are made in relation to this issue:

1. More fundamentally, the respondent contends that the applicant clearly has not provided sufficient information to establish his identity. The applicant failed to disclose any prior names despite being asked to do so in both the application and declaration of service. Once it was put to him that he held prior names he provided two certificates demonstrating a change of name from Ali Al Temimi to Sam Regan in 2003 and a change of name from Ali Al Temimi to Ali Abdul Amer Abdullah Al Temimi in 2012.
2. Critically, there is no explanation of the change from Sam Regan to Ali Al Temimi. Neither is there any evidence in respect of the other aliases recorded in the criminal record. Given the applicant has provided no evidence of changing his name from Sam Regan it is unclear whether the 2012 change of name is in fact valid.
3. Ultimately the Tribunal is faced with an application where it cannot be certain of the applicant's identity. The applicant has provided identity documents which indicate his name is either Sam Regan or Ali Abdul Amer Abdullah Al Temimi. It is not clear whether there is any legal force to the later name change. There are other listed aliases in the applicant's criminal history which remain unexplained.
4. The Instructions state that '[i]n addition to being a legislative requirement under the Act, the Australian community expects that decision makers will not approve a person for citizenship if they are not satisfied of the person's identity'. Furthermore, a Certificate of Australian Citizenship is a legal document of considerable significance. The Tribunal should not countenance an outcome which could lead to a certificate being issued in circumstances where, as here, the identity of the applicant is far from clear."
5. At the hearing the respondent requested leave to file and serve written submissions addressing the issue of the legal status of the Change of Name Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (WA) on 10 February 2012 (referred to in paragraph 8 above). The Tribunal made directions for the respondent and the applicant to file and serve written submissions addressing that issue. The respondent subsequently filed and served such submissions but the applicant did not avail himself of that opportunity. The respondent's submissions state as follows:

1. Section 50 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 [sic](Cth) (the ACA) provides that a person commits an offence if they knowingly make, or cause to be made, a false or misleading statement or representation for a purpose of or in relation to the Act. The penalty is imprisonment for 12 months.
2. Similarly, section 59 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act [sic] 1998 (WA) (the BDMA) provides as follows:

A person must not make a false or misleading representation in an application or document under this Act, knowing it to be false or misleading.

Penalty: $10,000

4. Section 62 of the BDMA relevantly provides:

(1) The Registrar may revoke the registration of a registrable event if it appears that the registration was obtained by fraud or improper means.

1. A 'registrable event' is defined in the BDMA as a birth, death, marriage, change of name or an adoption or discharge of an adoption or the making or discharge of a parentage order as defined in the Surrogacy Act 2008 (WA).
2. The applicant has admitted that when he completed his application to register a change of name he answered 'No' to question 17: 'Have you previously changed your name (legally) in Australia or overseas (including marriage)?' The application form also stated:
3. You must provide details below of each name used and evidence of how you changed your name. Failure to list all previous names may result in your application being declined.[sic]
4. The application form also states on its covering page:

Proof of any previous legal name change must be presented (eg marriage certificate, name change, deed poll, citizenship certificate)

1. As the applicant did not disclose that he had previously changed his name to Sam Regan and did not present the evidence of his change of name in the Supreme Court of Queensland he made a false or misleading statement in contravention of section 59 of the BDMA.
2. Accordingly, the Registrar may revoke the registration of the change of name certificate issued on 10 February 2012 pursuant to section 62(1) of the BDMA.
3. There is no evidence that the Registrar has been made aware of the fact that the applicant's change of name certificate was obtained after the applicant had provided false and/or misleading information. Thus it is unlikely that the Registrar has been in a position to consider revoking the registration of the change of name.
4. Noting that the provision of false and misleading information is an offence under both Acts, the respondent contends that it would be contrary to the scheme and intention of both the ACA and the BDMA for the Tribunal to find that the applicant has satisfied the identity requirement."
5. The Tribunal notes that the respondent's submissions do not ultimately question the validity of the abovementioned Change of Name Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (WA) on 10 February 2012. Those submissions go no further than to submit that the registration of the change of name, referred to in that Change of Name Certificate, is liable to be revoked by the Registrar, pursuant to s 62(1) of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1998 (WA) ("BDMR Act"), by reason of the applicant's having made a false or misleading statement in his application for registration of the change of name.
6. The Tribunal notes, furthermore, that the BDMR Act also relevantly provides:

(1) The Registrar must maintain a register or registers of registrable events (the Register).

(2) The Register -

(a) must contain the particulars of each registrable event required under this Act, or any other written law, to be included in the Register; and

(b) may contain further information if its inclusion is considered appropriate by the Registrar.

..."

"57 Issue of certificate

(1) On completing a search of the Register the Registrar may issue a certificate -

(a) certifying particulars contained in an entry; or

(b) certifying that no entry was located in the Register about the relevant registrable event.

...

(3) A certificate under subsection (1)(a) is admissible in legal proceedings as evidence of −

(a) the entry to which the certificate relates; and

(b) the facts recorded in the entry."

1. On the basis of:
   • the Change of Name Certificate issued by the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (WA) under s 57(1) of the BDMR Act on 10 February 2012 certifying that the applicant's change of name from Ali Al Temimi to Ali Abdul Amer Abdullah Al Temimi was registered under the BDM Act on 10 February 2012 (T11, p 137);
   • the various identity documents provided by the applicant to the Department with his application for Australian citizenship, referred to in paragraph 25 above (T7, pp 118-121); and
   • the identity declaration made by a registered pharmacist included in the "Application for Australian citizenship" form lodged by the applicant on 2 August 2012 (T6, p 112);

the Tribunal is "satisfied of the identity" of the applicant, within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 24(3) of the Act. Specifically the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is the person whose name is "Ali Abdul Amer Abdullah Al Temimi".

Is the applicant presently a person "of good character"?

1. In Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered the meaning of the phrase "good character" in the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994. Davies J (with whose reasons R D Nicholson J agreed) said (at 425):

" ... the term 'good character' is not precise in its denotation. In one sense, it refers to the mental and moral qualities which an individual has. In another sense, it refers to the individual's reputation or repute: see The Oxford English Dictionary_, meanings 11, 12 and 13;_ The Macquarie Dictionary_, meanings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Necessarily, when decisions are made in Australia under the Act in relation to persons who are overseas, greater attention tends to be given to objective facts and to reputation or repute rather than to a detailed analysis of the person's inherent qualities. I do not suggest that, in the context, 'good character' refers to reputation and repute as such. It does not. But criminal 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."_

" 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 whilst 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." (citations of authorities omitted)

1. In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 73 FCR 187 the Full Federal Court said (at 197):

" The words 'good character' in the section should, as Lee J pointed out in Irving (at 431−432), be understood as 'a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person'. Conduct may make those qualities visible, but it should never be confused with them. In each case, having had regard to the conduct, the Minister or other decision-maker must still come to a further conclusion, whether or not to be satisfied that the person is of good character."

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal which indicates that the applicant was not a person of good character prior to his commission of the offence of fraud of which he was convicted on 8 March 2005. In the Tribunal's opinion, however, the applicant's commission of that offence indicated that he was not a person of good character when he committed that offence.
2. The question for the Tribunal's determination is whether it is satisfied that the applicant has subsequently - more specifically, in the period since he became "free of obligation to the court" (see section 10.2.1. of the ACI), namely, the period from 8 March 2007 to date - reformed such that the Tribunal can be satisfied that he is now a person "of good character" within the meaning of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.
3. It is common ground that the applicant has not been convicted of any offence since the abovementioned fraud conviction in March 2005, and that that conviction constitutes his entire criminal record in Australia. The Tribunal notes the positive comments made by the Community Corrections Officer, in her letter of 6 November 2006 (set out in paragraph 25 above), regarding the applicant's progress under the 2-year Intensive Supervision Order which was imposed upon him on 8 March 2005 by reason of his conviction for fraud. There is, furthermore, evidence before the Tribunal regarding the applicant's contribution to the community by way of making a total of 8 donations of blood to the Australian Red Cross Blood Service in the period up to 30 September 2010 (Exhibit A2). The Tribunal has also had regard to the character references which are in evidence (T14, T16, T17 and Exhibit A1) in support of the applicant's application for Australian Citizenship, although the weight which the Tribunal gives to those references is somewhat limited because of their relatively brief, general and informal nature. In particular, the Tribunal gives limited weight to the (undated) letter filed by the applicant on 5 August 2013 (referred to in paragraph 26 above) jointly signed by 6 persons in their capacity "as an Iraqi community [who] have known Ali Al Temimi for a couple of years ...".
4. The Tribunal, on the other hand, regards it as a matter of serious concern that, in recent years, the applicant has, on his own admission, made false statements to government agencies in Australia, including the Department itself, namely:
   • his falsely answering "No" to the question "Have you been known by any other names?" in the "Application for Australian citizenship" form which he lodged with the Department on 2 August 2012 (see paragraph 5 above);
   • his falsely answering "No" to the question "Have you been known by any other names?" in the "Declaration of service" form which he lodged with the Department on 16 December 2012 (see paragraph 6 above);
   • his falsely answering "No" to the question "Have you previously changed your name (legally) in Australia or overseas (including marriage)?" in the "Application to register a change of name" form which he lodged with the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (WA) and which resulted in the registration of the change of the applicant's name to "Ali Abdul Amer Abdullah Al Temimi" on 10 February 2012 (see paragraphs 8 and 20 above).
5. The Tribunal, furthermore, has serious reservations regarding the candour of the applicant's evidence (under affirmation) when cross-examined about his making the abovementioned false statements.
6. As regards the statement which he made to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (WA) to the effect that he had not previously changed his name (when in fact he had previously changed his name to "Sam Regan"), the applicant said that he had forgotten about it because he had never used that name and he thought that he was not known by another name, whereas he acknowledged that his driver's licence had been in the name of "Sam Regan" and that he had been convicted of the fraud offence in March 2005 in the name of "Sam Regan". The Tribunal, furthermore, does not accept the applicant's evidence, as regards the reason that he did not change his name from "Sam Regan" back to "Ali Al Temimi", to the effect that he had made enquiries about doing so but was informed that the relevant agency in Queensland had been abolished and that there were no records regarding the name "Sam Regan". In fact, the applicant himself had a copy of the Deed Poll which he had lodged with the Registry, Supreme Court of Queensland on 7 November 2003 whereby he had changed his name to "Sam Regan", and he provided that document to the Department on 7 November 2012 after he was informed by the Department, by letter dated 5 November 2012, that the Department had information that he had changed his name to "Sam Regan" in 2003 (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above).
7. Likewise, in the Tribunal's opinion, the applicant gave unsatisfactory evidence when questioned about the false statement which he made to the Department in both the "Application for Australian citizenship" form and the "Declaration of service" form to the effect that he had not been known by any other names (see paragraph 22 above).
8. The Tribunal notes the applicant's evidence (set out in paragraph 24 above) regarding his "psychological problems" which he attributed to the delay, from 1999 to 2011, in granting him a permanent visa, and his filling out the "Application for Australian citizenship" form, the "Declaration of service" form and the "Application to register a change of name" form without assistance. As regards the applicant's "psychological issues", the Tribunal notes that the report of Dr Kumar, dated 23 July 2008 (Exhibit A3), refers to the applicant's depression and anxiety and that the letter from Dr Alizadeh, dated 27 October 2010 (Exhibit A4), refers to the applicant's suffering from "severe depression and anxiety". However, both of those documents refer to the applicant's psychological condition in the period before the grant of his permanent visa in 2011 (which event was expected to alleviate his psychological problems), whereas the abovementioned forms were filled out by the applicant in 2012. As regards the applicant's filling out those forms without assistance, according to his own evidence it was his choice to do so without availing himself of the assistance of his daughter (which was readily available to him) and, in the Tribunal's opinion, he must accept full responsibility for the statements made by him in those forms.
9. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant made the abovementioned false statements to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (WA) and to the Department, knowing them to be false, and, in the Tribunal's opinion, it is reasonable to infer that he did so for the purpose of promoting his application to register a change of name, and his application for Australian citizenship, respectively. In the Tribunal's opinion, the applicant's knowingly making those false statements, and his lack of candour in his oral evidence under cross-examination in relation to his making those false statements, are inconsistent with the qualities of truthfulness and honesty which are elements of good character.
10. Having regard to:
    • the fact that in March 2005 the applicant was convicted of a crime involving dishonesty;
    • the Tribunal's finding that in 2012 he knowingly made the abovementioned false statements to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages (WA) and to the Department for the purpose of obtaining a benefit or advantage; and
    • the Tribunal's serious reservations regarding the candour of his oral evidence at the hearing in December 2013 regarding his making of the abovementioned false statements;

the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is yet rehabilitated to the extent that he can now properly be regarded as a person of good character.

1. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant "is of good character" within the meaning of s 21(2)(h) of the Act.

1. Because the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant "is of good character" within the meaning of s 21(2)(h) of the Act, the applicant is not "eligible to become an Australian citizen" under s 21(2) of the Act. It is common ground that subss (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of s 21 of the Act are inapplicable in this case.
2. Pursuant to s 24(1A) of the Act, therefore, the applicant's application for Australian citizenship under s 21 of the Act must not be approved.

1. For the above reasons the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 48 (forty -eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President S D Hotop

...........[sgd D Brodie..................................