1. In his communication with the delegate the Applicant claimed that his ex-partner had made up the claims, which were untrue, and that he pleaded guilty because he was influenced by the prosecutor. However, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant lodged an appeal and was found to have committed the offences (offences proved without proceeding to conviction). In the circumstances, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant's claim that he did not commit the offences. The Tribunal finds that the fact that the offences were proved, on appeal, is probative evidence that the offending conduct occurred.
2. There are before the Tribunal a number of statements outlining the circumstances of the Applicant and Ms RG, including a statement from Wentworth Community Housing and a medical certificate in relation to the Applicant issued by Dr Hussain in November 2021. It refers to the Applicant's appointments but does not specify the nature of his condition.
3. The Applicant provided to the Tribunal evidence of his past qualifications and a number of character references, as well as financial documents in support of his application for fee reduction. The Applicant presented evidence of his employment, bank records, evidence of appointments with a counsellor and a statement outlining his circumstances. The Applicant presented a list of NSW Police event numbers and NSW Police reports. The Applicant provided a copy of his Uber profile and character references.
4. In oral evidence the Applicant stated that he first came to Australia in 2012 on a Student visa and became a permanent resident in 2018. He states that he has been living in Australia for 14 years, he has studied and married in Australia and he has family in Australia and considers Australia his home. The Applicant told the Tribunal that it is a hassle having to reapply for the visa and that others ask him about his circumstances. The Tribunal notes that as a holder of a permanent visa, the Applicant is able to remain in Australia indefinitely, whether or not he is an Australian citizen.
5. The Applicant states that there is a protection order in place until August 2026 in relation to his partner, where he is named as the protected person. He states that after the protection order expires, they are unlikely to move back together as they are 'kind of' separated and his ex-parter has 'moved on' but they are not divorced and have no plans for that.
6. In relation to the 2016 incidents, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he had never been violent towards his partner and had 'never touched her' and the information in the police facts sheet is not correct. The Applicant states that they had an argument but he had not made any threats and had never been violent towards his partner. The Applicant stated that he was unaware that his partner had complained to the police until the police attended his home. In relation to the information in the Facts Sheet that he admitted making the threats, the Applicant states that he was in a jail cell and upset and he did say some words. The Applicant states that his partner attended the police station on the same day stating she made a mistake and asking for his release but she was told it was too late.
7. The Applicant denied in his evidence to the Tribunal that he had physically restrained his wife at the time of the incident and stated that he had never restrained her. However, the Respondent points to the Applicant's evidence in relation to the BVA cancellation proceedings. The Tribunal's decision of 13 February 2017 sets out the Applicant's oral evidence. It is recorded that the Applicant claimed that his partner tried to harm herself and he restrained her to prevent self-harm. Given these discrepancies, the Tribunal is not convinced that the Applicant has been fully truthful in his description of the 2016 incident.
8. The Applicant told the Tribunal that when the trial started, there was not much evidence against him. He states that they had been attending court for a few days and they had no home and no jobs and he had no legal representative so he decided to plead guilty to expedite the process but he did not appreciate the consequences. He appealed the sentence because he wanted to change the penalty but had no legal representation and did not understand the process. He did not appeal the conviction because he could not afford a lawyer. The Applicant states that there is no possibility to reopen the case, otherwise he would have applied for that.
9. The Tribunal notes that the court Notice indicates that the offence was proved (without proceeding to a conviction) while the Applicant claims there was not enough evidence to convict him. The Applicant repeatedly told the Tribunal that he has not done anything wrong and cannot 'fix' what he had not done. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept the Applicant's evidence that he has not done anything wrong in light of the fact that Applicant had been found guilty and the offence was proved. There are some discrepancies in the Applicant's evidence which cause the Tribunal to question the veracity of the Applicant's present claims. For example, the police facts sheet records the Applicant as admitting some threats which the Applicant now denies and the Applicant's evidence to the 2017 Tribunal is that he did restrain his partner to prevent self-harm which the Applicant now denies. Given these discrepancies, the Tribunal gives greater weight to the court's determination that the offences had been proved than to the Applicant's denials of the offending.
10. With respect to the driving offences the Applicant states that he did not know his license was suspended due to the non-payment of the fines.
11. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he has been attending counselling for about a year and finds it useful. He stated that it is not domestic violence related counselling but general conversations with the counsellor. He states that he believed attending counselling would be helpful for his citizenship application.
12. Ms Dolaghan told the Tribunal that she witnessed the Applicant's interaction with his former spouse and while Ms RG had at times attacked or 'lashed out' at him when they attended the office, he never retaliated. Ms Dolaghan stated that she has not observed the Applicant being violent towards Ms RG but, rather, he was always polite. Ms Dolaghan confirmed that she has not observed the Applicant outside of the office and would not be familiar with his behaviour outside of her office. While the Tribunal accepts Ms Dolaghan's evidence and accepts that it represents her genuine beliefs, the Tribunal is of the view that Ms Dologhan would not necessarily be familiar with the circumstances leading to the offending.
13. The Respondent submits that the Applicant does not meet s. 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act. The Respondent submits that family violence offending must be considered as serious offending. The Respondent notes that the Applicant did not provide any evidence of rehabilitation and had not demonstrated any insight or understating of the seriousness of his offending but instead denied the occurrence of the offences of which he was found guilty, despite the finding of guilt. The Respondent also refers to lack of rehabilitation. The Respondent notes that the Applicant was also found guilty of driving while license suspended, which involved knowing contravention of traffic law and is also a serious offence. The Respondent submits that the totality of the Applicant's offending means the Tribunal cannot be positively satisfied the Applicant is a person of good character.

1. The Applicant's evidence to the Tribunal is that he has been engaged in counselling for about a year and had attended 8-9 sessions, which he finds useful. The Applicant stated that he is not a violent person and he feels that he does not need counselling in relation to family violence but after he was questioned at an earlier case conference about counselling, he thought counselling might be helpful to his case. The Applicant told the Tribunal that the counselling is general in nature and not related to family violence
2. The Applicant's evidence is that he engaged in counselling after being questioned about it in the context of his citizenship application. He expressly told the Tribunal that he is not a violent person and did not think he needed counselling. In the circumstances where the Applicant claims he did not believe he needed counselling and, on his own evidence, commenced counselling in order to support his citizenship application, the Tribunal does not consider that the Applicant's engagement in counselling evidences his insight into his offending or appreciation of his conduct.
3. It is significant that there is no evidence to indicate that the Applicant had engaged in any counselling or other structured rehabilitation specifically relevant to family violence. His evidence to the Tribunal is that he did not feel he needed that and his counselling sessions have been more general. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant had evidenced adequate rehabilitative efforts or his rehabilitation.
4. The Applicant has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to his former partner. He told the Tribunal that he had 'never touched her' and had never restrained her. The Applicant denied the information in the police facts sheets in relation to the 2016 offending. He refers to his partner getting violent or aggressive due to mental health issues but states that he had never engaged with that conduct. As noted above, the Tribunal has found the Applicant's present evidence unconvincing. Firstly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant has offered a truthful explanation of the events (for the reasons stated above). Secondly, the Tribunal has formed the view that the fact that the 2016 offences were proved (without conviction) indicates the Applicant had committed the offences. The Applicant's persistent denials of any wrong-doing suggests to the Tribunal that he lacks insight into his offending.
5. As noted above, there are a number of character references before the Tribunal (some unsigned) and the Tribunal has had regard to those. The Tribunal accepts that those who provided references believe the Applicant to be a person of good character. The Applicant also provided evidence of having completed formal study and other training in Australia as well as evidence of his employment.

The Tribunal's assessment of the Applicant's character

1. The Applicant has been found guilty of several offences. Despite the Applicant's claims that nothing had occurred in 2016, the Tribunal has determined that the finding of guilt is evidence that the offences had been committed. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant had committed the offences set out above.
2. The Tribunal considers the offending to have been serious. The 2016 offending was in relation to the Applicant's then partner and given the nature of the offending, is likely to have caused fear or apprehension in the victim. It constituted family violence offending. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant had engaged in serious family violence offending in 2016. In XFKR[6] Kendall J (as he then was) stated in relation to family violence offending:

...violence that is gendered and directed at women (and which seeks to degrade and dehumanise women on the basis of sex) ...normalises those socially enforced gender imbalances that allow sex-based inequalities and violence to arise in the first place. The impact this has, socially, on systemic equality between the sexes cannot be underestimated.

1. Similarly, In Patterson[7] and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 5175, the Tribunal held (at [60] per Senior Member Tavoularis):

Legal authority also militates strongly against violence against women, especially in a domestic context. This Tribunal, in the matter of Mendoza and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 686 has said that the Australian community has "zero tolerance" for violent offending against women and for domestic violence offending against anyone, and that such conduct is to be regarded as "unacceptable at any time - in any place - in any circumstances." Similarly, this Tribunal has found that domestic violence is "fundamentally inconsistent with the standard of behaviour expected by the Australian community".

1. The Tribunal considers the offending behaviour in 2016 to have been serious and one that did not demonstrate Applicant's ability to distinguish right from wrong and to behave in an ethical way conforming to the Australian values. The Tribunal is particularly concerned about the Applicant's denial of that conduct as it indicates, in the Tribunal's view, the Applicant's lack of insight into his behaviour.
2. The Tribunal has also considered the driving offence. The Applicant told the Tribunal that his license was suspended because he failed to pay the court penalty and had several fines for not paying the train fare. He states he could not afford to pay the fines and his license was suspended as a result, which he was unaware of until he was stopped by the police. While the Tribunal does not consider this offending to be serious, it does show, in the Tribunal's view, the Applicant's disregard for the law.
3. The Tribunal acknowledges that significant time has passed since the offending and close to ten years since the 2016 family violence offending. There is no evidence of any other offending since the driving offence. The absence of recent offending weighs in favour of the Applicant, as does his employment, education and other engagements. However, the Tribunal gives these factors more limited weight than it may have otherwise done in circumstances where the Applicant does not appear to have any insight into his offending and there is little evidence of effective rehabilitation.
4. The Applicant refers to attending counselling sessions for about a year. His evidence is that these sessions are not specifically related to violence or family violence and that he engaged in counselling because he felt it would help him with the citizenship process. It is not apparent that through counselling, or through any other programs or activities, the Applicant had gained genuine appreciation of his conduct. There is little evidence of remorse as the Applicant states that he "cannot fix what he had not done". The Tribunal finds that the Applicant's rehabilitative efforts have been minimal, at best, and ineffective.
5. Having regard to the Applicant's evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated his conformity with the rules and values of the Australian society, that he has demonstrated his ability to distinguish right from wrong and his willingness or ability to behave in an ethnical manner. Having regard to the entirety of the Applicant's circumstances, the Tribunal is not positively satisfied the Applicant is a person of good character. The Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant meets s. 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act. He is not entitled to be conferred Australian citizenship. This finding does not preclude the Applicant from making another application in the future.

1. Having found that the Applicant does not meet the eligibility requirements for conferral of Australian citizenship, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634.

[2] Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 663; (1996) 68 FCR 422.

[3] Re Chen and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] AATA 1815.

[4] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Thornton (2023) 409 ALR 234.

[5] BOY 19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574.

[6] XFKR and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 2385 at [45].

[7] Patterson and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 5175.