1. In his Application, Mr Kealy stated that he had been convicted or found guilty of two offences as follows, 'driving under the influence 2019' and 'stalk and intimidate 2019'.[3]
2. The following is a summary of Mr Kealy's prior offending and convictions.
3. On 13 July 2019, Mr Kealy's ex-partner attended Maitland Police Station and made a statement to police regarding a telephone call she had received from Mr Kealy which resulted in her reportedly feeling scared, threatened and in fear that Mr Kealy would act on his threats.[4] The NSW Police Facts Sheet states that Mr Kealy had called his ex-partner about visiting his son that day and became angry and terminated the call when his ex-partner indicated that a different day would be more suitable. When the ex-partner called back, he stated to her 'I'll ... smash ya cars up, and you've all got what's coming to ya's.'[5]
4. That same morning, Mr Kealy was interviewed by police in relation to the allegations. He admitted to making the call and stated that he may have said he would kick the car but denied he 'made any threats to assault' the ex-partner stating that 'he would never hit a woman'.[6] These allegations regarding threats to assault do not appear in the agreed Facts Sheet. An Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) was served on him,[7] and he was charged with 'Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2'.
5. Mr Kealy was found guilty of this offence on 9 December 2019 by Magistrate J Chicken, Maitland Magistrates Court.[8] Mr Kealy was sentenced without a conviction being recorded pursuant to s 9(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW). The Court imposed an 18-month Conditional Release Order (CRO) on Mr Kealy, the condition being that Mr Kealy not commit any further offences.[9]
6. On 7 February 2020 at 3:20am, police observed Mr Kealy drive his vehicle to a closed gas station and exit the vehicle in a drunken state. Mr Kealy registered a positive breath test result and later breath analysis recorded a reading of .144 grams of alcohol in 210 litres of breath.[10] On 29 April 2020, Mr Kealy was convicted of d_rive with middle range PCA-1st offence_ for which he received a 15-month community corrections order (CCO), 6-month driver disqualification and 12-month alcohol interlock program. The offence was committed whilst Mr Kealy was on the CRO. This resulted in a 'call up' of the 2019 offence for breach of the CRO resulting in Mr Kealy being convicted of the Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2 and fined $1200 fine.[11]
7. Mr Kealy has not reoffended since being convicted on 29 April 2020.
8. On 15 July 2024, Mr Kealy was invited to comment on adverse information[12] relating to his Application and was provided with a copy of his Check Result Report[13] which listed the following:

1. Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2

1. Mr Kealy was given 28 days to respond. Mr Kealy did not reply to the Invitation to Comment.
2. On 18 June 2024, Mr Kealy applied for a Return Resident Visa.[14] Mr Kealy was asked if he had ever been convicted of an offence in any country including any conviction which is not removed from official records. Mr Kealy responded 'no'.[15] Mr Kealy was also asked if he had been the subject of a domestic violence or family violence order, of a tribunal or court or similar authority for the protection of another person. Mr Kealy answered 'no'.[16]
3. Mr Kealy also falsely declared on 27 October 2024 and 22 May 2025 on Incoming Passenger Cards that he did not have any criminal convictions.[17]

1. Mr Kealy gave evidence at the hearing and provided two statements and one submission addressing his character and prior offending.
2. First, on 15 November 2024, Mr Kealy submitted a personal statement to the department responding to the invitation to comment on his past offending and his character (2024 statement)[18]:

(a) With respect to the stalk and intimidate offence, Mr Kealy stated that he called his ex-partner on the night of the offence after he had been drinking to discuss visiting his son.[19] While on the call, the parties argued, and the next day Mr Kealy's ex-partner contacted the police and made allegations that Mr Kealy had threatened to harm her and damage her car. He stated that 'the conversation on the phone was heated and things were said that shouldn't have been'. However, Mr Kealy denied threatening her. Mr Kealy claims that a few days later his ex-partner contacted him crying and saying she did not mean for it to 'go that far'.[20] > > (b) With respect to the drink driving offence, Mr Kealy stated that he had been drinking with work colleagues the day before the offence and was informed by his ex-partner that that his son had been diagnosed with autism and would most likely remain non-verbal during his life. Mr Kealy stated that he was shocked and upset by the news and had a few more drinks before going to bed. He woke in the early hours of the morning and made the decision to drive to see his son. Mr Kealy states that he was 'emotional' and 'not thinking clearly' when he made this decision.[21] He stated that it was a 'serious error of judgment'.

3. Second, on 15 August 2025, Mr Kealy submitted an appeal statement to the Tribunal wherein he apologised for his past behaviour that led to his Application being refused (August 2025 statement). He stated that he has taken full responsibility for his actions and the pain and fear he may have caused his ex-partner. He states that he deeply regrets his behaviour and refers to efforts he has made to reform his behaviour.[22]
4. Third, on 6 December 2025, Mr Kealy provided a submission wherein he referenced several earlier Tribunal decisions which he states demonstrate that past offences do not automatically prevent citizenship being approved where an applicant demonstrates remorse, rehabilitation and enduring moral qualities (2025 submission). He submits that 'these precedents confirm that the assessment under s 21(2)(h) is holistic and forward-looking [and his] remorse, rehabilitation, and sustained positive conduct demonstrate that [he is] now of good character. He cites four cases[23] including:

(a) Anuwar and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship)[24] in which the applicant had been convicted of offences committed on 4 November 2021 of destroy or damage property, stalk intimidate intend fear physical harm and common assault. He had also been subject to a provision and final apprehended violence order. Mr Kealy submitted that the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was of good character despite a domestic violence related offence noting that the Tribunal emphasised that the offence was at the low end, significant time had passed, and evidence of rehabilitation and contributions to society outweighed its concerns.[25] > > (b) Jamishi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs[26] to support his submission that his incorrect answers on his RRV application and the Incoming Passenger Cards were not intentional but were due to his dyslexia. In Jamishi, the Tribunal was considering an application for review of a decision to cancel approval of Mr Jamishi's citizenship. Mr Jamishi had provided false information to the Department at his citizenship test when asked whether intervention orders had been made against him. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Jamishi was not of good character. It was satisfied that 'there might well have been a misunderstanding at the time of his citizenship application test both as to the questions posed to him and his responses given'.[27] 'That the applicant would not have deliberately misled the [Department] about the ... intervention order [was] lent credence by the fact that the [department] became aware of the intervention order only be reason of a disclosure by the applicant when seeking a visa.'[28] > > * (c) Arora and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship).[29] In this case, Mr Kealy's stated that Mr Arora's citizenship refusal was set aside because his convictions were over a decade old and he had demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation. He submitted that like Arora, he has shown remorse and taken steps to rehabilitate and demonstrates a low risk of reoffending through years of law-abiding behaviour noting that he has resided in Australia for 15 years. The Tribunal notes that the offending in this case occurred between 15 and 19 years ago.[30]

5. At the hearing, Mr Kealy was taken to his criminal history as set out in Check Result Report (prepared by the New South Wales Police Force) which he agreed was accurate. When giving evidence, Mr Kealy was questioned about his prior offending specifically the 13 July 2019 incident which resulted in him being convicted on 29 April 2020. During cross examination, Mr Kealy denied that he ever threatened his ex-partner despite being taken through the details of the incident which left to him being charged, and the NSW Police agreed Facts Sheet which states that he threatened his ex-partner with the words 'I'll smash ya cars up and you've all got what's coming to yas',[31] and Mr Kealy agreeing that he pleaded guilty to the offence. Mr Kealy was questioned about the redactions in the NSW Police Facts Sheet of which there were many. Mr Kealy could not recall the process which led to the redactions or what had been redacted. He simply continued to state that he did not threaten physical harm to his ex-partner. The Tribunal notes that Mr Kealy has previously denied making threats his ex-partner in both his 2024 and August 2025 statements.
6. Mr Kealy was also questioned about the drink driving offence. Mr Kealy was candid in his evidence stating that he made an error of judgment driving that day.
7. In relation to the non-disclosures, Mr Kealy was questioned about his RRV and the Incoming Passenger Cards. Mr Kealy was insistent that he did not intend to deceive the department, and his errors were the result of him misunderstanding the questions because of his dyslexia. He said because the department knew about his prior offending, he assumed the questions were directed at criminal offending outside Australia and when completing the Incoming Passenger Cards, he panicked. When questioned about the RRV, Mr Kealy conceded that his current partner had assisted him complete the RRV, but he could not recall which parts she had assisted him with or whether she assisted him with the declarations. Mr Kealy also acknowledged that it was his responsibility to fill in the forms accurately and he should have ensured they were correct.
8. In summary, Mr Kealy stated that he has been in Australia for more than 15 years and his offending took place during a very difficult time in his life when his relationship had ended, and he was in a bad way. He has worked hard to get back on track and he has done this with the support of his current partner. He is remorseful and regrets what happened and hopes he is given the opportunity to continue his life in Australia as a citizen.

1. Mr Kealy has submitted four-character reference statements.

1. Frank Moran has known Mr Kealy since June 2022. He is the Managing Director of QMF Construction who is Mr Kealy's employer. Mr Moran is aware and acknowledges that Mr Kealy has had prior convictions arising from two incidents. Based on his interactions with Mr Kealy, he writes that these were isolated incidents and an error of judgment, but he has acknowledged his errors and proved himself to be a respected member of the team and community as a whole.[32]

1. Matthew Stanley has known since May 2020. He is aware of his prior convictions and knows that Mr Kealy is very remorseful. He writes that he has never witnessed any words or actions that would indicate that physical violence against females is normal behaviour for Mr Kealy. He has observed him to be considerate and honest, and when he and Mr Kealy discussed his drink driving conviction, Mr Kealy was 'devastated by his misjudgement.' [33]

1. Ben Phillips has known Mr Kealy since June 2021. Mr Phillips is a Project Manager employed by Keller Civil Engineers and Mr Kealy is employed by their subcontractor in a major infrastructure project. In his statement, he explains that drug and alcohol testing is random and compulsory on the worksite and Mr Kealy has never registered a failed blood alcohol concentration or drug test result. He further states that Mr Kealy is a delight to work with and, among other things, has a strong work ethic.[34]

1. Aaron Worley Glencore is the Project Manager at Coal Assets Australia, Glenmore and has known Mr Kealy since May 2021 as a result of his work on the project. He states that he has personally interacted with Mr Kealy on several occasions and has found him to be polite and approachable.[35]

1. The Minister relies on a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 15 September 2025 (SOFIC).[36] The Minister contends that the Tribunal should not be satisfied that Mr Kealy is a person of good character and should affirm the decision under review.
2. The Minister made the following closing submissions at the hearing:

(a) The Tribunal can and should have regard to the conviction which occurred on 29 April 2020 as well as the underlying conduct which was deemed a verbal threat. This is because Mr Kealy breached his CCO which resulted in his non-conviction for the stalk/intimidate non-conviction being called up and him being convicted. > > (b) Mr Kealy has engaged in a form of domestic violence which resulted in an AVO and convictions. The Australian government takes domestic violence very seriously and it is well accepted that domestic violence does not confirm with the values of Australian society. > > (c) The drink driving conviction is a serious offence and has potential to cause serious harm to Mr Kealy and other members of the community. Mr Kealy has failed to put on substantive evidence on how he would avoid making an error of this kind in the future. In the SOFIC, the Minister contends that proceeding to a conviction and imposing a CCO reflects that the sentencing judge considered this offence to be serious.[37] > > (d) The Minister contends that the Tribunal should find that the Incoming Passenger Cards and failure to disclose criminal convictions in the RRV form amount to dishonest dealings with the department such that the Tribunal should not be satisfied that Mr Kealy is of good character: > > > (i) There is no medical evidence to support the claim that the errors of non-disclosure were caused by his dyslexia, including to verify that he has been diagnosed with dyslexia or the degree of severity of his dyslexia, or the manner in which it might affect his ability to complete a department document. > > > > (ii) There is no medical evidence to assist the Tribunal in determining how Mr Kealy's dyslexia should affect the Tribunal's assessment of his claim. > > > > (iii) Accordingly, less weight should be given to the claim that his failure to disclose his convictions in the Incoming Passenger Cards was caused by dyslexia and associated panic. > > > > (iv) In terms of the RRV, in addition to less weight being given to his claimed dyslexia, more weight should be given to the fact that he was had assistance completing the form, and it was completed onshore, so he had time to complete it and no reason to panic. > > > > (v) The other errors in the Incoming Passenger Cards Mr Kealy states indicate his non-disclosure was inadvertent are largely irrelevant because they are grammatical and do not demonstrate he provided false or misleading information. > > (e) The Minister acknowledges that the offending occurred some time ago, but Mr Kealy has had limited contact with his ex-partner since then, in part because of the AVO. As such, it is unclear how he might react around her particularly noting his intention to pursue legal action for visitation rights in the future. > > (f) The Minister accepts Mr Kealy has put on evidence of his remorse for drink driving, for his criminal offending, his negative comments to his ex-partner and the pain he may have caused her. But, because he continues to deny that he threatened the ex-partner (and thus committed the conduct), it is submitted that Mr Kealy has not taken responsibility or accountability for his actions and cannot be seen to express remorse for the conduct. > > (g) There is no substantive evidence before the Tribunal evidencing the parenting or other course Mr Kealy claims he attended or how they changed his behaviour. There is no evidence in relation to his sobriety or reduced alcohol consumption although the Minister conceded that there have been no further legal issues. Based on this limited evidence, it is submitted that limited weight should be put on rehabilitation. > > (h) None of the character references are from his partner or ex-partner, and do not reference Mr Kealy in a domestic setting. All but one are from professional colleagues and only one stated he was remorseful. It is submitted that limited weight should be put on the references. The Tribunal notes in the Minister's SOFIC, it was contended that the Tribunal should place limited weight on the support letters of Ben Philips and Aaron Worley as these letters do not reference Mr Kealy's prior convictions.[38]

1. Subsection 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
2. Section 24(1A) of the Act provides the Minister must not approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless that person is eligible under one of ss 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8). There is no suggestion in this reviewable decision that any subsection other than

s 21(2)(h) is in issue. 3. Section 52(1)(b) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal to review decisions made under s 24 of the Act. 4. In determining whether an individual is of good character, the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement and the Citizenship Procedural Instructions provide guidance for decision makers. The policy relevant to this application is found in Citizenship Procedural Instruction No.15 ('CPI 15') - Assessing Good Character under the Act. 5. The Instructions reflect government policy and are not binding on the Tribunal. However, it is well established that the Tribunal will apply government policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[39] 6. The applicable legal principles were considered by the predecessor to this Tribunal, as presently constituted, in Dawlatshahi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs[40]. Such analysis is relevant to this application for review and for convenience it is set out below:

4. Pursuant to s. 24(1A) of the Act, the Minister (and hence now the Tribunal) must not approve an application for Australian citizenship unless the applicant satisfies the relevant eligibility requirement under s. 21 of the Act; ... s. 21(2)(h). The Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applicant is of 'good character' at the time of this decision by forming an "opinion requiring an evaluative judgement" and by reaching "an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character" BOY19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCA 574 at [54]- [55].

5. In determining 'good character' the Tribunal is to look holistically at an applicant's behaviour over time to be satisfied of 'enduring moral qualities' within the prospective Australian citizen. Such phrase, as guided by the Citizenship Policy Instruction 15 - Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI), encompasses the following:

(d) Characteristics which have been demonstrated over a long period of time;

(f) Behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.

6. CPI 15 further sets out examples of characteristics of a person of good character and they do not include those who practice deception or fraud in their 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 deception during visa and citizenship applications.

7. Section 50 of the Act provides that it is an offence to deliberately make, or cause to make, a false or misleading statement, or conceal circumstances in relation to an application for Australian citizenship.

8. The Tribunal is to consider a range of events and conduct connected with the Applicant: Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44; (2015) 231 FCR 128 at [60].

9. Justice O'Bryan in BOY19 v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCA 574, engaged in a substantial analysis of the meaning of 'good character' in this context. Since not defined, the Parliament intended the term to be used in a broad way:

(a) One looks to the enduring moral qualities of a person and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community, although the latter may provide evidence of the former;

(b) It does not have a fixed and precise content;

(c) It imports a discretionary value judgement to be made by reference to undefined factual matters confined only by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statutory provisions; and

(d) It requires judgement as to whether any proven deficiencies in the moral qualities of a person are sufficient to deny the person citizenship.

10. Justice O'Bryan accepted that "[t]he subject matter, scope and purpose of the Act is informed by its Preamble which states:

The Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.

The Parliament recognises that persons conferred Australian citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations:

(a) By pledging loyalty to Australia and its people;

(c) By respecting their rights and liberties; and

(d) By upholding and obeying the laws of Australia.

These ideals of diversity, democracy and liberty are to be assessed "by moral qualities that are regarded as a necessary concomitant of Australian citizenship".

11. As to the 'satisfied' requirement in s. 21(2)(h) of the Act, the word:

"is not amenable to the application of an evidentiary burden of proof, such as the balance of probabilities... the decision is an administrative decision to which the rules of evidence are inapplicable, and the evidentiary burden of proof inapposite... the applicant's good character, is not a fact to be proved but an opinion requiring an evaluative judgement. A standard of proof, such as balance of probabilities, is incapable of application to such an opinion".

"The absence of an evidentiary burden of proof does not mean there is an absence of a legal standard of satisfaction. In the context... satisfaction requires that the decision-maker reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character. It is not sufficient for the decision-maker to believe that there is a chance that the applicant is a person of good character; equally, it is not necessary for the decision-maker to have a high degree of confidence that the applicant is a person of good character".

12. The decision-making power is therefore to be exercised reasonably.

13. Part of the task is to assess the relative weight to be given to conduct that reflects positively or negatively on the Applicant's character.

1. As set out in Part 3.3 of CPI 15, Australia adopts a zero-tolerance policy with respect to domestic violence, specifying that:

"domestic violence...in any form is not acceptable in the Australian community. Behaviour that impinges on the safety of, or creates fear in the community, is not acceptable. Persons taking part in, or condoning, such activities do not respect the rights and liberties of others in the community."

• Moreover, Part 4 of CPI 15 sets out the characteristics that are generally expected of a person considered to be of good character, providing that:

As a general proposition, a person who is of good character would:

• respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries;

• not be violent, involved in illegal drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example multiple and/or repeated instances of recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without a licence).

1. Part 11 of CPI 15 provides that decision-makers should consider all of an applicant's interactions with the Department, including visa and citizenship applications, in making this assessment.[41] Decision-makers can also consider whether the applicant has disclosed past criminal offences and can look to visa applications and passenger card declarations to make this assessment,[42] and if an applicant has knowingly presented incorrect information, this may reflect on the person's character.[43]
2. Finally, Part 12 of CPI 15 provides that violent crimes, including domestic violence offences, are classified as serious offences.
3. Ultimately, CPI 15 provides for decision-makers to weigh up all relevant factors to decide whether the applicant is of good character. The decision-maker must look holistically at the applicant's behaviour over time and reach a conclusion about the person's enduring

moral quality. In that regard, the decision-maker is generally to weigh the offending behaviour against any mitigating circumstances which may indicate the person is of good character despite adverse information. This includes the length of time since the offence was committed, whether they have accepted responsibility and shown remorse for their conduct and whether there were extenuating circumstances relating to the offence.[44]

1. The Tribunal has considered the documentary material lodged by the parties (including the character references), the testimony of Mr Kealy, who was cross-examined and questioned by the Minister, the statements of Mr Kealy and the submissions of the parties.
2. Mr Kealy provided character references to support his claim that he is a person of good character. For the Minister it is submitted that the character references provided by Mr Kealy should not be given weight because they do not demonstrate Mr Kealy's behaviour in a domestic setting. The Tribunal agrees that they should be regarded with caution because of the tendency for friends and work associates to focus only on what might be helpful. The Tribunal also accepts that limited weight should be afforded to the references of Ben Phillips and Aaron Worley as these references do not demonstrate they are aware of Mr Kealy's prior convictions. Nevertheless, it counts in Mr Kealy's favour that Mr Moran and Mr Stanley have each stated that they are aware of his offences and attest to his good character. Overall, the Tribunal has placed limited weight on this evidence in assessing whether the Applicant has demonstrated the 'enduring moral qualities' associated with 'good character'.
3. Mr Kealy submits that his conduct on 13 July 2019 and 7 February 2020 was an aberration which cannot be excused but which does not offer insight into his character overall. In support of that submission, he relies on the fact that he has not committed any offence or been convicted for any other offence before 13 July 2019 or since 29 April 2020 (the date of sentencing). This fact is conceded by the Minister. As to his non-disclosures, he submits that the errors were inadvertent and are explained by his dyslexia and panic.
4. The Tribunal accepts on the evidence that Mr Kealy does not have a lengthy criminal history, but his history does include serious offences such as domestic violence (crimes of violence against women) and drink driving. It is apparent from his criminal record that his conduct has not always conformed to the rules and values of Australian society.
5. That said, CPI 15 provides that the length of a sentence imposed on a person should be considered when assessing the relative seriousness of an offence. In this matter, Mr Kealy's initial punishment for the stalk/intimidation was a non-conviction and an 18-month CRO. Save that this offence was called up due to the breach of the Cro, this non-conviction would not ordinarily be considered by the Tribunal. Notwithstanding, in the Tribunal's view, a community-based sentence of this nature is typically for less serious, first-time offences and is inconsistent with the contention that Mr Kealy's offence was a serious violent offence. The Tribunal is satisfied that the first sentence imposed upon Mr Kealy strongly points to the offending being at the lower end in terms of seriousness. However, in breaching his CRO, Mr Kealy showed a disregard for the law and being convicted of the offence and sentenced to a CCO means this sentence is relevant to the Tribunal's assessment, and indicates that his offending was deemed too serious for a fine but did not warrant prison. Those matters weigh heavily against him.
6. The Tribunal is also concerned that Mr Kealy has attempted to minimise the seriousness of his conduct by continuing to deny that he threatened his ex-partner. The Tribunal accepts that the evidence does not indicate that he threatened to physically harm her, but it does indicate that he threatened to damage her property and that would get what is 'coming to' them. These are unmistakenly threats. Mr Kealy has expressed 'deep' regret for his behaviour and conduct, remorse for the pain and fear he may have caused his ex-partner. [45] However, whilst the Tribunal accepts that he is genuinely remorseful for the drink driving offending and breach of the CRO, the Tribunal shares the concerns of the Minister that Mr Kealy continues to deny threatening his ex-partner. Mr Kealey also appeared to place emphasis on his ex-partner saying she did not mean for things 'to go that far'[46] implying that she was to blame for his actions and resulting charge and AVO. This raises serious concerns that Mr Kealy has not taken responsibility or accountability for his actions and cannot be seen to express remorse for this conduct. This weighs heavily against him.
7. Mr Kealy told the Tribunal that he has worked hard to make significant and lasting changes to his life including spending less time at the pub, purchasing an alcohol testing device to ensure he never drinks and drives, as well as participating in a parenting and relationship course to better manage co-parenting. He also indicated that he was arranged to participate in mediation and counselling sessions with his ex-partner to try and rebuild a positive co-parenting relationship with her, but she refused to participate.[47] Unfortunately, as contended by the Minister, there is no independent documentary evidence before the Tribunal to demonstrate his participation in any of these courses, or importantly, what the courses covered or how they were intended to effect change in his behaviour. There is also no independent psychological assessment regarding the likelihood of Mr Kealy repeating his conduct with his ex-partner. The Tribunal is prepared to accept his oral evidence that he did participate in a short telephone course regarding co-parenting, and that he is genuinely motivated to deal with these issues differently in the future but in circumstances where he has not had any contact with his ex-partner for more than five years (partly due to the AVO and partly due to his desire to keep his distance), and the lack of independent evidence to demonstrate that the risk of him repeating his conduct is minimal, the Tribunal gives limited weight to this course as indicating that he has rehabilitated.
8. There is also no independent evidence in relation to his sobriety or reduced alcohol consumption. The Minister contends that this counts against a finding of good character. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that he has reduced his alcohol consumption and notes that there is no evidence to suggest he is not committed to his continued sobriety. The Tribunal acknowledges that in his character reference dated 5 January 2022, Ben Phillips stated that Mr Kealy had not failed a random alcohol or drug test throughout the project. However, the Tribunal places limited weight on this statement noting it was written more than four years ago. Having regard though to the fact that he has not had any further drink driving offences in the past five years, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Kealy has genuine insight into his error of judgment in drink driving and is committed to maintaining his sobriety so as not to put himself or others at danger in the future. This weighs in his favour.
9. Paragraph 4 of CPI 15 recognises that a person of good character would not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, for example they would not intentionally provide false personal information or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications or conceal criminal convictions. Mr Kealy provided false information in his RRV application and Incoming Passenger Cards by failing to disclose that he has been convicted of numerous criminal offences. In Re Harry Taradel and Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[48], Senior Member McCabe observed:

"... dishonesty in dealings with the department is a very serious matter. The integrity of the immigration system depends on individuals telling the truth about their personal circumstances and history. The department is not in a position to know what applicants know, after all. When dishonesty comes to light, it must be dealt with firmly to deter others who might intend acting dishonestly...". [49]

1. The Tribunal does not accept Mr Kealy's oral evidence that he made a 'mistake' when he answered 'No' to the questions regarding his criminal convictions and AVO. Whilst there is no evidence before the Tribunal regarding Mr Kealy's educational background, he was born and raised in an English-speaking country and is fluent in English. He has also resided in Australia for fifteen years. In the RRV application, the first question directly asks if he has been ever been convicted of an offence in any country. In the Tribunal's view, there is no scope for misinterpreting or mistaking what this question was asking. In the same way, the second question directly asks him if he has ever been the subject of a domestic violence or family violence order. The answer is either yes or no. There is no other possible interpretation in the Tribunal's view. With respect to the Incoming Passenger Cards, the question consisted of six simple words; 'Do you have any criminal convictions?' Again, there is no room for mistaking or being confused about what this question is asking, and it requires a simple yes or no answer. In such circumstances, the Tribunal finds that he would have understood the question and made a conscious decision not to disclose his convictions and the fact there he was the subject of an AVO.
2. The Tribunal has considered Mr Kealy's claim that the errors were caused by his dyslexia. The Tribunal notes Mr Kealy's evidence that he is dyslexic and struggled all the way through school and still struggles.[50] It also notes his evidence that he 'cannot read and write well'.[51] During the hearing the Tribunal was able to observe Mr Kealy. He demonstrated that he was able to read when he was directed to read various parts of Exhibit HB1, and when he read a preprepared closing submission to the Tribunal. The Tribunal acknowledges that he asked his partner on one occasion to pronounce or read a word for him but otherwise observed that he was able to read his preprepared closing statement unaided, indicating to the Tribunal he was able to read well enough to present his case to the Tribunal.
3. In circumstances where there is no medical evidence before the Tribunal regarding his dyslexia, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that he has dyslexia but is not in a position to draw any conclusions as to its severity or the manner or extent to which it might affect his ability to complete a department document. Accordingly, based on the limited evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that his claimed dyslexia contributed to his misinterpretation of the question on the Incoming Passenger Cards or completion of the questions regarding his prior convictions or family violence orders on the RRV. With respect to the RRV, this view and finding is strengthened by the fact that he was had assistance completing the RRV form. In any event, being aware of his dyslexia, Mr Kealy should have taken steps to ensure that he properly understood the RRV form and the Incoming Passenger Cards and responded accordingly.
4. The Tribunal has also considered Mr Kealy's claim that his non-disclosures were inadvertent and partly caused by him panicking. The Tribunal accepts the Minister's contention that the RRV was lodged onshore removing the risk or necessity for panic. It was also completed with the assistance of his partner which one assumes would have aided in the curtailment of any unnecessary panic. With respect to the Incoming Passenger Cards, the Tribunal accepts that Mr Kealy may have felt rushed but that does not explain why he would have answered incorrectly. Having regard to the Tribunal's earlier findings, the Tribunal does not accept that Mr Kealy's failure to disclose his convictions was inadvertent or the result of panic. This claim is not accepted by the Tribunal and no weight is given to it.
5. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that Mr Kealy's deceptive behaviour indicates that he does not have characteristics expected of a person of good character, specifically providing truthful information and making full and honest disclosures of criminal convictions when requested to do so in their dealings with government.
6. Paragraph 14.1 of CPI 15 recognises that in the case of a serious offence (such as domestic violence), a significant amount of time may have to pass before the Tribunal could be satisfied that the person is of good character. In some very serious cases, it may never be possible to be satisfied that the person is of good character.
7. Although it has been more than five years since Mr Kealy's last recorded conviction, there is no 'rule of thumb' for establishing how much time must pass for a person to demonstrate that they are now of good character.[52] The Tribunal notes that paragraph 14.1 of CPI 15 provides that in determining the period of the enduring/lasting moral qualities of an applicant, the nature of the offence is more relevant to whether or not the person is of good character than the period of time since the crime was committed. In Assafiri and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[53] Senior Member Toohey stated that:

Time of itself is not enough. The "enduring moral qualities" of which good character speaks must be demonstrated objectively over a sufficient period. How long that will be will depend on all the circumstances of the case_.[54]_

1. The Minister contends that this is not a sufficient period for Mr Kealy to establish he is of good character, particularly given the serious nature of his offending and the fact that his most recent dishonest interactions with the department occurred as recently as May 2025. The Tribunal agrees and does not consider that sufficient time has elapsed for it to be satisfied that the offences Mr Kealy committed in 2019 and 2020 were out of character for him. In making this finding, the Tribunal has had regard to the seriousness of Mr Kealy's criminal conduct. Also relevant to a determination of whether a sufficient period of time has elapsed since Mr Kealy's most recent offending is his refusal to take responsibility for the verbal threats he made to his ex-partner. That the Applicant has not yet taken responsibility for his offending indicates that more time is necessary for him to accept that his behaviour was criminal, consistently with what would be appreciated by a person of good character.
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that Mr Kealy is a person of good character after the passage of only five odd years since his most recent offending. The serious nature of his criminal behaviour, coupled with his reluctance to accept responsibility for his actions, are such that the Tribunal finds that the passage of time is insufficient for it to be satisfied that Mr Kealy has demonstrated the 'enduring moral qualities' associated with 'good character'.

1. The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly.[55] In determining whether the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act, the Tribunal is required to reach an 'affirmative belief' that Mr Kealy is a person of good character.[56]
2. There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to reach an affirmative belief that Mr Kealy is of good character. Despite the passage of time since his most recent offending, his offences have been serious, and one involved threatened violence.
3. There are some mitigating factors weighing in Mr Kealy's favour. However, in light of the his domestic violence and associated AVO, his reluctance to accept responsibility for his criminal actions in threatening his ex-partner as well as his limited rehabilitation, the Tribunal is not satisfied in its evaluative judgement that Mr Kealy is of good character pursuant to s 21(2)(h) of the Act. On the evidence, both holistically and objectively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Kealy at present has the requisite enduring moral qualities for good character.
4. This decision should not deter Mr Kealy from continuing his efforts to live a better life and continue to make positive contributions to the Australian community as it is open to him to make a further application for Australian citizenship in the future, should he choose to do so.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[18] The Tribunal notes that this was submitted to the department after the Application was refused and on the same day he lodged his review with the Tribunal.

[23] The fourth case referenced by Mr Kealy did not include a citation. He referred to it as the 'fearless case' of 2023 noting that the applicant in that case had citizenship granted despite criminal history because of enduring moral qualities shown through long lawful conduct and community contribution.

[25] Ibid, at [44]. The Tribunal stated that 'there is considerable evidence to support a finding that the Applicant is of good character. He contributed to the community through his paid employment and continued to do so after the workplace accident. Except for the incident which led to the offending, the evidence is that the Applicant has upheld and obeyed the law. The nature of the offending was serious, but the overall circumstances and punishment imposed by the court indicate the offending was at the very low end in terms of seriousness. It is also in the Applicant's favour that considerable time has passed since his offending, and he has complied with the court orders.' The Tribunal also notes [39] where it was held that 'there was insufficient evidence to determine the Applicant's mental health at the time of the offending, but [the Tribunal] accep[ed] he may have been experiencing some symptoms of [schizophrenia].

[26] [2023] AATA 3094.

[29] [2023] AATA 1101.

[39] See Re Drake and Minister for Immigration, and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, 645 per Brennan J, which was cited with approval in Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Gray [1994] FCA 1052; (1994) 33 ALD 13, 30 per French and Drummond JJ.

[40] [2021] AATA 2437 at [4] to [13].

[48] [2005] AATA 1255.

[53] [2014] AATA 35.

[55] Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 at [8].

[56] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 at [55].