Australian Immigration Daily News

How often do you hear about someone’s having their Australian citizenship revoked?

Especially 17 years after the person has been granted citizenship.

Not very often at all! Once could probably go so far as to say “almost never”.

That’s why a decision from the AAT that was recently reported on Austlii, Eidson and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) (2017) AATA 1354 (23 August 2017) is both interesting and worth knowing about.

The background of this case, as recounted in the AAT’s decision, was that the applicant had originally entered Australia in June 1986, when she was 16 years old. Although her name at birth and her legal name was actually “Karina Maya Steiner Eidson”, she used an assumed identity, the name of “Sharon Leigh Gregory”, with a different date of birth from her actual date of birth. 

The Tribunal’s decision notes that Ms Eidson apparently used the assumed name “at the behest” of her parents, who had themselves entered Australia under assumed names. 

Again according to the Tribunal’s decision, Ms Eidson’s father had been arrested and bailed for serious drug offences in the United States in 1985, and the family was fleeing the jurisdiction of the US to avoid the consequences of the drug charges when they came to Australia.

The additional facts were that Ms Eidson was granted 6 further visitor visas in the name of “Sharon Gregory” following her original arrival in Australia. Apparently, she applied for and was granted these visitor visas before she reached the age of approximately 20.

Ms Eidson then married an Australian citizen, in 1989, and changed her name to “Sharon Leigh McDonald” (“McDonald” apparently being the Australian surname of her Australian citizen husband).  She was granted permanent residency in 1989, evidently in this name, through what was then known as a “spouse visa”.

Then in 19992, she was granted a Resident Return visa, again apparently using the assumed name.

In 1992, she applied for Australian citizenship, using the assumed name and an incorrect date of birth. 

In the citizenship application, she made a number of false declarations, relating to her own identity, the identity of her parents, and also as to whether she had been found guilty of any offences (she had apparently been found guilty of minor drug possession offences in December 1997 without having a conviction recorded, but apparently did not disclose this on the citizenship application.

The citizenship application was granted in 1999.

However, the past came back to haunt her, and this lengthy history all came unraveled, in 2011.

In that year, both the Australian Federal Police and the Department received information concerning the family’s “fraudulent entry” into Australia.

Ms Eidson was prosecuted on 3 separate charges for breaching section 50 of the Australian Citizenship Act (the date when this prosecution was brought is not recorded in the AAT decision).

Section 50 of the Citizenship Act provides that it is an offence, subject to a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment, for a person to knowingly make a statement or representation that is false or misleading in a material particular for a purpose relating to the Citizenship Act.

Apparently, the charges for contravening section 50 that were brought against Ms Eidson were found to be proven, but the court where the charges were heard did not proceed to conviction – instead she was placed on a “good behavior” bond for a period of 2 years.  However, this type of disposition of a charge brought under section 50 – with the charges found proven but the person placed on a good behavior bond – is sufficient to “enliven” the Minister’s powers to cancel a person’s citizenship under section 34(2) of the Citizenship Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the Minister’s decision to revoke Ms Eidson’s citizenship should be affirmed. It considered that her history of having misrepresented her identity, over the course of 9 separate visa applications and then a citizenship application was not an isolated incident; that she could have come forward at any point to “set the record straight”;  and, very significantly, the public interest in deterring migration fraud and preserving the integrity of the migration system.

It also appeared to figure into the Tribunal’s decision that the revocation of her citizenship would have limited  immediate impacts on her life, in that she would still be able to remain in Australia with permanent residency status and continue running her business (a restaurant and bar in Queensland).

The Tribunal considered that Ms Eidson would be at possible risk of visa cancellation and removal from Australia, but it did not place great weight on this factor because it determined that this risk was “distant and speculative”, since her history of migration offences did not amount to a “substantial criminal record” that could cause her to fail the character test.

It all goes to show that the ghosts of the past are never buried forever, and they might spring to life at any point to haunt the future.

All the more reason to always be scrupulously truthful in dealings with the Department!

Do you think it was appropriate, fair and just for the Department to proceed with this revocation action so many years after citizenship had been granted? Is there any period of time, or circumstance, under which conduct of the kind which led to the revocation might be forgiven?