1. The Applicant claims to be a 41-year-old citizen of Afghanistan.[4] The Applicant arrived in Australia by boat on 11 February 2012 without a visa to reside lawfully.[5]
2. On 29 August 2012, the Applicant applied for a protection (Class XA) (subclass 866) visa, which was granted on 10 September 2012.[6]
3. On 14 September 2016, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral under s 21(1) of the Act.[7] In support of his application, the Applicant provided a copy of the following documents:[8]

(a) Pages from his Titre de Voyages issued in the name Sultan Ali Qasim; > > (b) Western Australian Drivers Licence; > > (c) Correspondence from the Commonwealth Bank confirming his bank account details; > > (d) Student card; > > (e) National Police Certificate valid as at 1 September 2016; > > (f) Correspondence from Optus Billing Services; and > > (g) Passport-sized photograph.

4. On 29 June 2017, the Applicant applied to sponsor his wife, Rabia Bibi, and children on a Partner (Class UF) (subclass 309) and Partner (Class BC) (subclass 100) visa (Partner visa).[9] The Applicant's paternal uncle, Mohammed Amer Qasim Ali (born 1948) was listed as a third party declarant on this application.[10]
5. On 29 December 2016, a delegate of the Respondent[11] requested further information in relation to the Applicant's application for citizenship, to assist in confirming the Applicant's identity before he came to Australia.[12]
6. On 4 July 2019, a delegate of the Respondent[13] requested further information in relation to the Applicant's application for citizenship, in order for it to assess the Applicant's application for citizenship against the requirements of the Act and related policy.[14]
7. On 27 July 2019, the Applicant provided copies of the following documents in response to the Respondent's request:[15]

(a) A completed Form 80 Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment; > > (b) An undated written statement entitled Subject: Explanation for not being able to provide identity documents as requested by the department; > > (c) The pages of his Titre de Voyages issued in the name Sultan Ali Qasim; > > (d) Medicare card; > > (e) Western Australian Driver's Licence; > > (f) Government of Pakistan National Database and Registration Authority Family Registration Certificate issued by the Registrar General of Pakistan on 2 February 2018; > > (g) Pakistan marriage certificate, with translation certified on 29 December 2017; > > (h) Pakistan Driving Licence issued in the name Ghulam Raza; and > > (i) A further untranslated identity document.

8. On 9 August 2024, a delegate of the Respondent,[16] invited the Applicant to comment on adverse information,[17] specifically in relation to his claimed name, date of birth, nationality and family composition (natural justice letter).[18]
9. On 17 September 2024, the Applicant responded to the natural justice letter, providing copies of:[19]

(a) A statutory declaration declared on 17 September 2024; > > (b) A translated Tazkera in the name of Nisa (the Applicant's mother); > > (c) Various pages from the passports of his wife and children; > > (d) Pages from the passport of Mohammad Ali Jafari; > > (e) National identity card of Mohammad Ali Jafari; > > (f) A number of character references; and > > (g) Registration documents in relation to the Applicant's motor vehicle repair business.

10. On 1 October 2024, a delegate of the Respondent made the Reviewable Decision.[20]
11. On 28 October 2024, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal seeking review of the Reviewable Decision.[21]

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; and

(b) by sharing their democratic beliefs; and

(c) by respecting their rights and liberties; and

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

1. Section 21 of the Act sets out the general provisions for the making of applications and eligibility for citizenship.
2. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
3. Section 21(2)(h) of the Act provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person 'is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.'
4. Further, s 24 of the Act provides:

(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.

...

(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).

1. Accordingly, under s 24(1A) of the Act, the Minister must not approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless the Minister is satisfied that the person 'is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application', that being the requirement of

s 21(2)(h) of the Act. 2. Section 24(3) of the Act relevantly provides that:

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

3. 'Identity' is not defined in the Act; however, it is addressed in the Australian Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs).[22] The CPIs provide guidance to decision makers on the interpretation and exercise of the powers under the Act.
4. The Australian Citizenship Policy (the Policy) relevantly provides the following guidance.[23] The Policy states, at Chapter 13:

The identity provisions prohibit the approval of a citizenship application in cases where the decision maker (the Minister or their delegate) is not satisfied of the person's identity. > > In addition to being a legislative requirement under the Act, the Australian community expects that decision makers will not approve a person for citizenship or give evidence if they are not satisfied of the person's identity.

5. The Tribunal, as the decision maker, will generally apply policy such as that contained within the Policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[24]
6. The Policy also refers to the concept of identity as described in the Attorney-General's Department's National Identity Proofing Guidelines (the Guidelines).[25] The Guidelines provide:

2.1.1 A person's identity is not a fixed concept; it is highly dependent on context. It is some combination of characteristics or attributes that allow a person to be uniquely distinguished from others within a specific context. > > 2.1.2 A person's identity in Australia (for the purposes of these Guidelines) is generally considered to be established at birth with the creation of a RBDM birth record that details unique information about an individual-such as name, date and place of birth, For people not born in Australia, their identity in Australia is generally established from personal details recorded on DIBP Australian immigration documents or records.

7. The Guidelines further provide that the veracity of a person's identity is established through evidence provided to meet some or all of the five identity proofing objectives. Those objectives are in part 1:
   1. To confirm the uniqueness of the identity in the intended context to ensure that individuals can be distinguished from one another.
   2. To confirm the claimed identity is legitimate to ensure the identity has not been

fraudulently created through evidence of commencement of identity in Australia.

1. Confirm the operation of the identity in the community over time to provide additional confidence that an identity is legitimate in that it is being used in the community.
2. Confirm the linkage between the identity and the person claiming the identity

to provide confidence that the identity confirmed through objectives 2 and 3 is

not only legitimate, but that the person claiming the identity is its legitimate

1. Confirm the identity is not known to be used fraudulently to provide additional

confidence that a fraudulent (either fictitious or stolen) identity is not being

1. The Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction[26] No 16 - Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (CPI 16) provides that:

It is not sufficient to be satisfied of a person's identity at one point in time, as a person's identity is not a point in time concept; it must be verified incrementally throughout a person's life and considered historically.

2. The Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to the Australian Citizenship Bill 2007 explained in relation to s 24(3):

There may be cases where identity is unclear or cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. In these circumstances the Minister cannot approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

When assessing a person's identity, the Department relies on a combination of three elements, referred to as the three pillars of identity. Each pillar is made up of individual characteristics.

Personal identifiers, which include fingerprints, facial images, or a person's signature. Biometrics can be used for comparison, with, for example, facial images held by the Department or other domestic or international agencies.

Only reliable identity documents can satisfy this pillar.

A reliable identity document is issued with robust identity proofing processes along with issuance protocols and security features.

Documents contain biodata, or personal information,

such as name, date of birth, nationality, and/or citizenship, and may also contain biometric information.

A person's life story is a narrative of the events that happened to them from birth to present. Officers should consider the events that happened to the person, and the information and detail correlating to the events.

A person's life story may include descriptions of family composition, education, employment, countries of residence, countries visited, social footprint, and online presence.

Officers should not rely on a single pillar to establish a person's identity. Considering a single pillar in isolation is generally inadequate for providing a reliable basis on which to establish a person's identity. In order to comprehensively test and evaluate a person's claims with regard to their identity, decision-makers should consider each pillar.[27]

In most cases the consideration of the three pillars is embedded in the identity assessment process. The citizenship applicant is likely to be well documented, information provided to the Department will have remained consistent over a long period of time, and no inconsistencies or concerns will have been identified. Through their reliability and comprehensiveness, identity documents testify to important events in the applicant's life story. Through personal identifiers contained in identity documents, the applicant's biometrics held on departmental records are matched and confirmed.

1. Regarding the level of satisfaction required for a decision maker to be satisfied as to identity for the purposes of s 42(3) of the Act, the Tribunal is guided by the authorities considered by Deputy President Boyle in Sakhi Zada and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 1729 (Sakhi Zada):

Identity > > [36] Senior Member CR Walsh in Beyan at [38] noted: > > ...As submitted by the Minister, a Certificate of Australian Citizenship is a legal document of considerable significance and the Tribunal should not countenance an outcome which could lead to such a certificate being issued in circumstances where, as is the case here, the identity of the Applicant is far from clear. > > (see also Al-Hussaini and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs[28] (Al-Hussaini) at [30]-[31]) > > [37] In Confidential and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[29] (Confidential) the Tribunal found:

[34] I have concluded that the Minister has not been provided with any documentation to enable the Minister to form an opinion on the identity of the applicant. For this reason the application was, in my view, correctly rejected by the delegate.

[38] Deputy President Nicholson in Dhayakpa and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[30] (Dhayakpa), commenting on Confidential, observed:

[117] Neither the Act nor the common law requires that identity can only be established by the production of documents appropriate to an established or undisturbed society.

The decision in Confidential is not an authority that documentation is a requisite for the Minister to be satisfied as to identity. I accept the submission for the applicant that the case merely stands for the proposition that where an applicant has failed to avail himself of opportunities to secure evidence of identity which might reasonably be expected to exist and which he has been advised to secure, the application ought to be rejected. The question here is whether the identity can be established to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.

[118] I am satisfied as to his identity. In my view in the most unusual circumstances of the applicant's life, he has established it to the best of his ability.

[39] The approach taken in Dhayakpa has been followed by Tribunals in a number of cases (see YMPL and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[31]; [sic] Al Temimi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[32]).

[40] In Sinnathamby and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[33]

the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had lost his identity documents in the capsizing of a boat en route to Australia, but found that the inconsistencies in his other evidence and the bogus nature of some documentation provided in support of the citizenship application gave rise to a conclusion that he was not a person of good character.

[41] The Tribunal also notes the comments of Senior Member Puplick in

Al-Hussaini:[34]

[41] In Nguyen I came to a conclusion, affirming a denial of citizenship, in the following terms:

Citizenship of Australia is regarded as a special privilege when extended to those not automatically qualified. Earning it requires adherence not only to statutory requirements but also to the set of moral values and qualities related to honesty in dealings with the Government. These values and qualities are themselves a hallmark of good citizenship.

Citizenship cannot be awarded on the basis of false statements. There are no excuses for making false statements in this regard.

Equally, it is a hallmark of citizenship to take personal responsibility for one's own actions and not cast them off onto the shoulders of others. Even persons who are not able to manage well in the English language can do this without resort to placing themselves in the hands of deceitful third parties.

[42] Similarly, in Fang, I said, in relation to the use of false documents:

An attack on the fundamental integrity of the immigration system is in effect, an attack on the interests of all Australians.

[42] Based on the evidence that has been presented, can the Tribunal be satisfied of the identity of the Applicant? If it cannot, the prohibition on the approval of the person becoming an Australia citizen under s 24(3) of the Act will apply and the decision under review must be affirmed.

(Original emphasis.)

1. The matter was heard in Perth on 8 December 2025. Ms Alice Graziotti of Estrin Saul Lawyers represented the Applicant. Ms Daphne Jones-Bolla of Sparke Helmore Lawyers represented the Respondent. All parties appeared in person.
2. The joint hearing bundle filed by the Respondent was tendered and marked 'Exhibit R1.'
3. The following additional documents were tendered into evidence:

(a) Statutory Declaration of Ashraf Nyab declared on 3 December 2025 (Exhibit A1); and > > (b) Statutory Declaration of Rabia Bibi declared on 3 December 2025 (Exhibit A2);

4. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Applicant.[35] No other witnesses were called.
5. The Tribunal has reviewed all of the material before it. The Tribunal is satisfied that all relevant evidence was before it and that both parties were provided an opportunity to address the evidence, either orally or in writing. Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the Tribunal will be analysed and referred to below.

1. The Applicant told the Tribunal that his name is Sultan Ali Qasim, that he was born in the Daikundi province in Afghanistan and that he is of Hazara ethnicity.
2. The Applicant said that when he arrived in Australia, he told the authorities he was 27 years old and the officer selected the 31 December 1984 date of birth for him. The Applicant said that he went on to use this birth date in Australia.
3. The Applicant said that his father, Mohammad Hanif, passed away before he was born and his mother, Nisa, left him when he was two years old as her new husband did not accept him and went on to have five more children.
4. The Applicant said he went on to be raised by his paternal uncle, Mohammad Ali Jafari, his paternal grandfather, Qasim, and his step grandmother Soghra (Qasim's second wife).
5. The Applicant said that when he was very young, he left Afghanistan for Pakistan with his uncle Mohammad Ali Jafari, Soghra and other family members.[36]
6. The Applicant said that once he arrived in Pakistan, he was left in the care of his paternal uncle Mohammad Amir and was accepted into his family. The Applicant said that his other family members continued to travel on, seeking refuge in Iran. The Applicant said that Mohammad Amir passed away around 2019.
7. The Applicant said that he never went to school, instead working as a mechanic and eventually starting his own business.
8. The Applicant said that he did not have any Afghan identity documents whilst living in Pakistan, but he did purchase Pakistan identity documents in the name 'Ghulam Raza.' The Applicant said he was about five or six years older in those documents and had 'told everything honestly with immigration' (about this) on his arrival.
9. As to the process of purchasing the Pakistan identity documents, the Applicant said he was working in Quetta with people who knew his story, so he 'asked people there' and 'did everything himself.' The Applicant said that when someone in Afghanistan passes away, their death is not registered. The Applicant said he paid 55,000 Pakistani rupees to assume the identity of Ghulam Raza (who was deceased), obtaining Mr Raza's B-Form and birth certificate.
10. The Applicant said that from these documents, he obtained:

(a) a national ID card, by filling in a form and paying a fee; and > > (b) a passport, by attending an interview at the passport office and giving false information.

These documents were in the name of Ghulam Raza and with his own photograph.

1. The Applicant said that the Pakistan passport he obtained in this process is the passport he used to travel and the only passport he has ever held. The Applicant said he obtained his passport in 2008, prior to his marriage in 2010.[37]
2. The Applicant said that he had no choice but to buy his identity because it was a 'bad situation' when he left Pakistan with 'many killings going on' such that it was unsafe to live there and suppliers stopped supplying car parts to the area. When asked, the Applicant said he did not take make any enquiries on how to obtain his identity document legally and accepted that he had held himself out to be someone different for a significant period of time.
3. The Applicant said that he married his wife, Rabia Bibi, in 2010. The Applicant said that his wife knew of his life story before they were married and knew of his 'identity issues' at the time they were engaged but before they were married. The Applicant said that for example, when he first met his wife, he went by the name Ghulam Raza and that he told her his name was Sultan Ali Qasimi after they became engaged. The Applicant said that it is customary for a person to have a few names.
4. The Applicant said that the witnesses to his marriage, Abdul Hakim and Syed Muhammad Ali,[38] were community friends, he did not know them personally and that it was customary and common for such persons to appear as witnesses to a marriage. The Applicant said that these witnesses, and the community generally, knew him as Sultan Ali Qasim and that even though the marriage certificate states his name as Ghulam Raza, no one knew him by that name.
5. When asked, the Applicant said he reconnected with his mother around 2018 or 2019 through Mohammad Ali Jafari, who had tried to find his mother's son's phone number. The Applicant said it took about six months to find his mother, that she lives in a 'far away, mountain area,' and that he has spoken to her 'a few times,' although not for the last one and a half years. The Applicant said he has sent money to his mother 'a few times,' in his stepbrother Ali Dost's name, the first time being in early 2019.
6. When asked why his statement indicated his uncle Mohammad Ali had located his mother in 2024[39] (rather than in around 2018 or 2019 when the Applicant claims to have reconnected with her), the Applicant said that he was not 100% sure and that it was in 2018 he had asked Mohammad Ali to locate his mother. The Applicant said that prior to this, he knew his mother had lived in Afghanistan, but did not know exactly where or if she was still alive.
7. When asked, the Applicant said he previously did not know his mother's full name, noting he was unsure at the time that the name he entered for his mother in his citizenship application in 2016 was correct.[40] The Applicant said that at the time he completed his application he asked his uncle Mohammad Ali, who told him that his mother's name was Nisa Gull Qasimi. The Applicant said that he came to learn his mother's name when he reconnected with her.
8. The Applicant said that he did not know his mother's date of birth. When it was put to him that he had stated his mother's date of birth to be 31 December 1962 in his Form 80, the Applicant said that this date was approximate (despite his declaration that the information was correct),[41] and just as he was unsure of his own date of birth, he needed to write something on the form.
9. When asked about the copy of his mother's taskera he provided,[42] the Applicant said he did not know when it was issued and noted that while it stated she was born in 'Jaw Gulshan,' his mother was born in Daikundi as they are 'all from that area.'
10. The Applicant said that his father's name was Hanif or Mohammad Hanif. The Applicant said that people (in Afghanistan) have two or three names and know each other by their middle name.
11. The Applicant said that in his citizenship application, he stated that his father's name was Hanif Qasimi,[43] and that he had chosen the name Qasimi as the family name for his father on the basis that his grandfather's name was Qasim. The Applicant said that he did this because he did not know his father's family name.
12. The Applicant said that he did not know his father's date of birth.[44] When it was put to him that he had also indicated that his father's date of birth was 31 December 1960[45] and 1 January 1959,[46] the Applicant said all dates were approximate and had been entered just so the particular form could be lodged. The Applicant said that forms are rejected when the cells are left blank.
13. When directed to the entry in the table of his family composition,[47] and directed to the entry stating his grandfather's Qasim's date of birth is 1 January 2026, the Applicant said the agent had put in that information, not him. The Applicant said, however, that he considered Qasim would now be nearly 100 years old.[48]
14. The Applicant also said that he always maintained that that his uncle Mohammad Ali Jafari had three sisters, Zahra, Kobra and Fatima.[49]
15. As to the Proof of Status certificate he claims to have been by the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan following an interview he attended in Canberra in January 2025, the Applicant said the Embassy told him they could not assist him with a tazkera because of the new Taliban government. The Applicant said that his two witnesses in attendance at the Embassy were friends that lived in Canberra (who he had met twice in Perth in 2014, and Sydney (who he had met in a mosque in Sydney in 2012) then had had no contact with either until 2025.
16. The Applicant said that the certificate was issued to him based on information he gave about his parents, the area where he grew up and from his uncle Mohammad Ali Jafari's and grandfather Qasim's taskeras that he provided. The Applicant said that at the Embassy, they could tell he was from Afghanistan from his face, features, language, attitude, culture and customs.
17. As to the statement dated 17 September 2024, that he gave through Mr Rasheed Qasimi, his migration agent,[50] the Applicant said that there are 'a lot of mistakes' in the statement, that the agent 'made a lot of problems' for him, that he (the Applicant) cannot read or write and had trusted the agent as he was of Hazara ethnicity. As to how this statement was prepared, the Applicant said the agent did not read all of the statement back to him, only parts of it. The Applicant also said that at the time, he assumed the contents of the statement were correct and he did not understand that his statement also stated his belief that the contents of his statement were true.[51]
18. When taken to the related paragraph in his statement,[52] the Applicant said when he acted as the proposer for his relative Masumeh Gholami's refugee visa application, he never read the application before he signed it. The Applicant said this was his mistake.
19. When asked about his employment history, he described the record he gave[53] as approximate, stating that he could not remember exactly when he started his mechanic workshop in Pakistan.
20. When it was put to him that his evidence that he was unemployed prior to 2004[54] was inconsistent with his evidence that he was consistently employed between 1995 and 2004,[55] the Applicant said that the latter was incorrect and maybe there had been a mistake.
21. As to his Form 80 Personal particulars for assessment including character assessment, the Applicant said his case worker had completed the form based on information he provided and he signed it. The Applicant said he had told the case worker that he was born in 1984 and noted that the form indicated he was born in 1985.
22. During cross-examination, the Applicant said that his friends had had helped him complete the Form 80. When asked why his mother's country of current residence was indicated as 'unknown' in the Form 80[56] when he said that he knew his mother lived in Afghanistan, the Applicant said this answer was a mistake. The Applicant said that he also thought he was correct to indicate in his Form 80 that he had not been convicted of an offence,[57] despite having been convicted of reckless driving in 2015,[58] because he thought there was no need to mention it because 'the Department was already aware' (of the offence).
23. The Applicant said another mistake in the statements was the reference to his wife having obtained and sent him an Afghan drivers licence,[59] which is something that he said, 'he did not say.' The Applicant said that rather he obtained the licence through an agent whose number he obtained from friends and it was sent to him by post. The Applicant said that the agent was located in Quetta, Pakistan and that the licence cost 2,000 or 3,000 Pakistani rupees.
24. The Applicant said that he 'had a doubt' as to whether the Afghan licence document he was obtaining was genuine. The Applicant said that it was his 'biggest mistake' to admit to this doubt only after he submitted the licence to the WA Department of Transport in order to obtain a WA licence and the Department had asked him about it.
25. When asked if he considered himself to be a citizen of any country, the Applicant said he was an orphan, with no one to look after him and that he has no 'record of ID' in any country. The Applicant accepted that he has held himself out to be a citizen of Afghanistan,[60] and that he is sure he is from Afghanistan. The Applicant said that he regrets that he 'lied to Home Affairs.'
26. The Applicant stated that:

(a) Telling the truth has caused problems for him. > > (b) He has suffered by and paid for the misdeeds of his agents. > > (c) Many forms were wrongly filled out. > > (d) His only wrongdoings in Australia were providing a fake Afghan drivers licence and not declaring his reckless driving offence. > > (e) He has had his own business in Australia for 10 or more years, paid taxes and done no harm.

1. As noted above, the issue for review is whether the Tribunal is positively satisfied as to the Applicant's identity, in the sense of it being actually persuaded of this at the time of its decision.

1. The Applicant contended that he meets the requirements for approval of Australian citizenship, including those set out in s 24(3) of the Act.
2. The Applicant contended that despite:

(a) His having been unable to produce documents issued in his claimed identity from prior to his arrival in Australia; and > > (b) There being alleged inconsistencies in his life story to the extent that the delegate was not satisfied of his identity, > > these matters can reasonably be explained and are not so significant such that the Tribunal cannot be reasonably satisfied that the Applicant is Sultan Ali Qasimi, born 31 December 1984 in Daikundi, Afghanistan.

3. The Applicant emphasised that he arrived in Australia without any official documentation and did not pay attention when he provided information to those whom he placed too much faith in to assist him.
4. The Applicant contended that regarding the Respondent's concerns in relation to his family composition and birth dates, he comes from a country where dates are not always verifiable. The Applicant added that he was raised by his mother (whose taskera was unreliable and contained only an estimate of her date of birth and hence was possibly erroneous), then various relatives. The Applicant submitted that he believed that answer fields to questions posed in the forms he completed could not be left blank and that all dates provided were an approximation.
5. The Applicant submitted:

(a) He had relied on his uncle Muhammad Ali Jafari for family information, including in relation to his mother and her whereabouts. > > (b) It was common to call on the identities of deceased persons and relatives and did so as he did not know of a legitimate pathway that he could take. > > (c) Regarding the claimed inconsistences in the documents and statements, his oral evidence explaining these should be given much more weight, particularly as he is illiterate. > > (d) He had been transparent with Australian authorities and has told the same story since arriving in Australia. This story is consistent with his oral evidence at hearing. > > (e) He should have realised the 'small details' were important.

6. The Respondent contended, however, that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of the Applicant's identity in the requisite sense, emphasising that it is insufficient to be satisfied of identity at a point in time rather than from birth.
7. The Respondent submitted that the earliest available documentation are documents issued in Australia in 2012 (being a Medicare card and WA drivers licence), when the Applicant claimed to be 28 years old, and which were obtained on the basis of self-reporting and a fraudulently obtained Afghan drivers licence.
8. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant's documents issued in the name of Ghulam Raza do not assist him in circumstances where he obtained them by fraudulent means and then proceeded to use them to pass through multiple airports.
9. The Respondent submitted that the Proof of Identity documents the Applicant obtained in Canberra ought to be given no weight as it issued on the basis of the Applicant's self- reporting at an interview attended by two witnesses whom he had met on one or two occasions and had had no contact with for 10 years prior.
10. The Respondent submitted that similarly, the Applicant's marriage certificate ought to be given no weight. The Respondent submitted that this was because his marriage was witnessed by two acquaintances who knew him as Sultan Ali Qasimi, and who nevertheless went on to sign the certificate that identified the Applicant as Ghulam Raza.
11. The Respondent contended that as such, the matter turned on the Applicant's life story, which contained mistakes, errors in translation, was evolving in nature and raised further questions as to what other matters may also be incorrect.
12. This, the Respondent submitted, makes the story unreliable, raises doubt as to the weight that can afforded to it and leads to the finding that it cannot be reconciled with the other evidence before the Tribunal. The Respondent emphasised the following inconsistencies, in particular:

(a) The Applicant was unable to say exactly when he came to know his mother's surname, saying that he clarified this when he spoke to her after they reconnected but also indicated her surname on his application for citizenship form completed two years prior in 2016. > > (b) The Applicant indicated on his Form 80 that his mother's country of residence was indicated as 'unknown' but also said that he knew his mother lived in Afghanistan. > > (c) As to his father's name, the Applicant stated that he picked a family name when completing the form as he had to write something down. The Respondent noted the Applicant also had the option of answering 'unknown' as he did in other parts of the form but did not do so. > > (d) The Applicant's employment status at various points in time.

1. While there is no indication or claim of any inconsistencies between the Applicant's facial images, fingerprints or signatures provided, there is no biometric information held prior to the Applicant's arrival in 2012 to enable any comparison.

1. The Tribunal has considered the parties' written and oral submissions and finds that the documents that the Applicant has provided in support of his identity[61] can be afforded little weight and do not satisfy it of the Applicant's identity for the purposes of s 24(3) of the Act for the following reasons:

(a) By the Applicant's own evidence, his Pakistani identity documents were obtained by assuming the identity of Ghulam Raza, who was deceased, from which he obtained feeder documents enabling him to obtain a Pakistani passport in that name and using his own photograph. > > (b) The Applicant assumed Mr Raza's identity and continued to work in this name, register his marriage in this name and travel to multiple countries on the passport in this name. > > (c) The Applicant's claims that any discrepancies or errors in or between the documents can be explained by agent translation errors, his not having the statement read back to him before signing or his not, for example, appreciating he was still required to declare any criminal convictions, are uncorroborated explanations and cast doubts over the Applicant's explanations generally. > > (d) No Afghan documents have been provided in support of the Applicant's claims that he is from Afghanistan. The Afghan documents that were provided, for example the Applicant's mother's taskera, do not serve to verify his own nationality. > > (e) The Applicant's Proof of Status Certificate was issued on the basis of the Applicant's own information provided approximately 40 years after his own claimed date of birth. > > (f) The Applicant's Medicare card and WA drivers licence are not feeder documents, were obtained after the Applicant arrived in Australian in 2012 and do not link to any official documents that link the Applicant to Afghanistan in an unbroken chain. These documents were issued based on the Applicant's own self-reports and lack corroboration.

1. The Applicant accepts that he was unable to produce documents issued in his claimed identity from prior to his arrival in Australia[62] and considers the matter turns on his life story. The Applicant is of the view that the inconsistencies in his life story as it relates to his family composition and reconnection with his mother have been explained reasonably and with consistency over time.
2. The Respondent, however, is of the view that the inconsistencies in the Applicant's life story are implausible, material, directly undermine the reliability of his historical accounts and remain unexplained.
3. The Tribunal has considered the available evidence and finds the inconsistencies in the Applicant's life story are not minor and are not resolved or reconciled when considered alongside the Applicant's documents. In making this finding, the Tribunal relies on the following:

(a) There are multiple birth dates for his mother Nisa, grandfather Qasim, uncle Mohammad Amir, which the Applicant attributes to having fled Afghanistan at an early age, without documents, moving from relative to relative and hence his knowledge of his family's history is incomplete. > > (b) While the Applicant's explanations for the discrepancies and inconsistencies regarding birth dates and places has been relatively consistent over time, they are not supported by any independent documentary evidence and particularly none that is contemporaneous in nature. > > (c) Elements of the Applicant's narrative have been introduced only after inconsistencies were raised, including at the hearing. > > (d) Whether knowingly or otherwise, (if the Tribunal accepts the Applicant's claims that his completed statements or forms were never read back to him before he signed them, including the declaration that their contents were true) the Applicant has provided false information to the Department. > > (e) There are inconsistencies regarding the date the Applicant reconnected with his mother and how he came to reconnect with her, the Applicant claiming his agent made mistakes regarding these matters or there were translation errors. It is difficult to reconcile these inconsistencies in circumstances where the Applicant's explanations are mostly retrospective and without corroboration. It also calls into question the reliability and weight that ought to be attributed to the Applicant's statements and narrative generally.

4. The Tribunal is left in a position where the Applicant's life story brings it no closer to being positively satisfied of his identity.

1. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant's identity cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. The Tribunal has no real confidence in the Applicant's life story and has taken the view that the available documentary evidence does not serve to relieve the uncertainties and inconsistencies, rather it adds to them.
2. Based on the evidence before it, and for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied of the Applicant's identity. Accordingly, the prohibition under s 24(3) of the Act applies and the Applicant's application for citizenship by conferral must not be approved. The Reviewable Decision must therefore be affirmed.

1. The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated 1 October 2024 to refuse the Applicant's application for Australian citizenship by conferral, is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 94 (ninety-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member L M Gallagher.

..............................[SGD].................................

[3] In the requisite sense of the Tribunal being "actually persuaded" of the Applicant's identity. The state of

satisfaction must be as the date of the Tribunal's decision, not the Reviewable Decision, so new information

supporting, or detracting from, an applicant's case, may be taken into account. See Rezaei and Minister for

Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) AATA 3884 at [89].

[4] The Applicant does not know his exact date of birth, his nominal date of birth being 31 December 1984 (Exhibit R1, T4, HB 103).

[6] Exhibit R1, T15, HB 205 and ST7, HB 388.

[9] Exhibit R1, T15, HB 205. The Tribunal understands the Applicant's wife and children were granted Partner Visas and arrived in Australia in February 2024.

[11] Then, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

[12] No evidence has been provided to the Tribunal as to whether any documents were provided in response to this request nor were any claims made in this regard.

[13] Then, the Department of Home Affairs.

[16] Then, the Department of Home Affairs.

[22] The Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions were published on 1 January 2019 to support the function of

the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth); the relevant CPI was reissued on 01 January 2022.

[23] As to the status of the Policy, see RRML and Minister for Home Affairs [2020] AATA 1654 at [105].

[24] Minister for Home Affairs v G and Another [2019] FCAFC 79 [57]-[62].

[25] Attorney General's Department, National Identity Proofing Guidelines, 29 February 2016.

[26] The Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions were published on 1 January 2019 to support the function of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

[27] There may be cases where one pillar may be given more weight that the others. In such cases, the available pillar may become more significant when assessing the person's identity: CPI 16 [4.12].

[28] [2020] AATA 1267.

[29] [2013] AATA 144.

[30] [2015] AATA 310.

[31] [2017] AATA 1458.

[32] [2014] AATA 97.

[33] [2018] AATA 2579.

[34] [2020] AATA 1267. See also Deputy President Breen in Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 at [8].

[35] The Applicant's written evidence is mostly set out at Exhibit R1, HB 18 to 22, 51 to 52, 159 to 160 (plus attachments), 223 to 231 (plus attachments) and 335 to 340.

[36] The Tribunal understands that the Applicant claims that his paternal grandfather Qasim, had passed away by this time.

[44] As indicated in his application for citizenship (Exhibit R1, T4, HB 112).

[60] See, for example, Exhibit R1, T20, HB 224 and ST2, HB 335.

[61] For ease of reference, listed in Exhibit R1, HB 75 and 76.