1. The applicant has an impressive record of study and work. Prior to his offending, he completed a Bachelor of Arts in literature and geography and completed postgraduate work and study in environmental science and geology. He came to Australia on a scholarship to complete study in geology. In Australia, he owned and operated 2 food businesses in Queensland, which employed a number of people. He was generous in his business endeavours, donating food for the homeless and offering free coffee on ANZAC Day.[53]
2. I have had regard to all of the character references put forward by the applicant.[54] His referees include friends, neighbours, customers of his businesses and his life coach. I accept the authors of the character references think highly of the applicant. I have taken them all into account. Reference is made therein to the applicant's kindness including in hiring local community members and distributing food to his community, his hardworking nature, dedication to his family, loyalty as a friend, commitment to personal growth and development, enthusiasm and dedication, helpfulness, approachability, friendliness, maturity, resilience, reliability, supportiveness, his responsible and dependable nature, his respectfulness, and willingness to help others.
3. However, in this proceeding, the applicant chose not to call any witnesses. It is unclear the extent to which some referees know about the applicant's offending; some do not mention the applicant's offending at all.[55] Some references are provided on a clear misunderstanding of the situation; for example that if the applicant had legal representation no conviction would have been recorded,[56] that his offending was an 'unfortunate misunderstanding'[57], or that the applicant has taken full responsibility for his past actions.[58] The applicant is further referred to as a 'victim', having been 'manipulated' or 'taken advantage of' in the references.[59]
4. Whilst I have taken the applicant's references into account, I have given them less weight than I otherwise would have if the referees had given evidence under oath or affirmation and their opinions were tested (as was submitted by the Minister[60]). They must also be considered along with all of the other evidence.

1. At the hearing, the respondent sought to ask the applicant questions in relation to uncharged allegations against the applicant which were obtained under summons from Queensland Police.[61] After being advised of the privilege against self-incrimination, the applicant declined to answer questions on that basis. The respondent submitted, very fairly, that no weight should be given to the allegations. Based on the evidence before me, I am unable to come to any conclusions about those allegations and I have not given them any weight in my assessment.

1. In this proceeding, I am to consider all of the evidence and determine whether I am satisfied that the applicant is of good character at the time of my decision.
2. In this case, there are some matters that weigh in favour of being satisfied that the applicant is of good character. These include the fact that the applicant disclosed his offending, the length of time since he offended, the applicant's behaviour both before and since the offending and changes in his life (including his admission as a lawyer), and the evidence of community support and from character references.
3. However, I have also had regard to the applicant's offending and its serious nature, the impact upon the victim, the fact it was not a one-off (although it was one offence), that there were no extenuating circumstances, and that he was an adult at the time of the offence. Further, I have had regard to my findings about the lack of acceptance of full responsibility and remorse.
4. Whilst a significant period of time has passed since offending, which I have taken into account, I am troubled by the applicant's lack of acceptance of responsibility and remorse for his offending. These matters, together with the serious nature of the offence, weigh significantly in my assessment.
5. Based upon all of the above, and notwithstanding the favourable aspects discussed above, I am not satisfied that the applicant is of good character at this time. In the circumstances, I must affirm the decision under review.
6. The decision under review is affirmed.

[1] Under s 52 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

[2] The applicant for review was filed on 27 July 2025. The applicant has been granted an extension of time to bring the application for review under s 19(2) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth): HB12, 16.

[10] Including with respect to 'overt threats': see Respondent's supplementary submissions, [7].

[11] Applicant's submissions in reply dated 1 April 2026, [1c], [2].

[12] At 431-2. See also BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574, [51] (O'Bryan J).

[13] GJDB and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2023] AATA 3245, [19]-[28] (Kyrou P), distinguishing Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645.

[17] VFWQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 230, [42] (Banks-Smith J).

[24] Applicant's submissions in reply dated 1 April 2026, [5a].

[27] HB167. 'The' rest appears to be reference to rape and sexual offences which Dr Kumar was charged with on 23 March 2018: HB443.

[48] Applicant's submissions in reply dated 1 April 2026, [4d].