Australian Immigration Daily News

It has been widely reported by a number of media outlets that Australia is granting citizenships at record numbers which means the backlog of applications is hoping to be cleared by the end of 2020 (an ambitious but not an unrealistic goal).  The help of online ceremonies made the process more seamless and allowed more permanent residents to call Australia home during the pandemic.

Applicants beware!

To become an Australian Citizen, one must pass the character test.  In my previous post, I discuss the mechanics of character provisions under the Migration Act of 1958.  Here we are looking at completely different set of Rules and Regulations.  Starting with the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. The Act states that an applicant must demonstrate they are of good character, namely, that the applicant shows enduring moral qualities of a person at the time of a decision and an indication of whether the applicant is likely to uphold and obey laws of Australia, and the other commitments made through the Pledge, should they be approved for Citizenship.

Factors considered when determining good character include but not limited to:

• Behaviour
• Serious offences such as
• crimes of violence
• negligent reckless driving
• war crimes
• drug trafficking
• crimes against children
• people smuggling
• harassment or stalking
• terrorist activity
• extortion
• illegal pornography

The above list is quite explicit and gives little room for compelling an compassionate circumstances.

In terms of assessment of the character criteria for the purpose of grant of Australian Citizenship,

the following is taken into account

• Impact on victims
• Sentencing remarks
• Length of sentence
• Any ongoing obligations to the court such as a court order
• Was this a pattern or a one off incident

It is also interesting to note that “General Conduct” is tobe considered may include, but is not limited to:

• whether the applicant is a risk to national security,
• interactions with Australian government or State/Territory governments,
• whether the applicant has endangered children or caused other people to
• be alarmed at their behaviour,
• whether the applicant has endangered society through behaviour such
• as political extremism, vilification of the community.

Are there mitigating circumstances?  Yes, whilst there are limiting some of these include:

• length of time between the date of offence (if known) and application for Australian citizenship, or between conviction and application,
• has the applicant accepted responsibility and shown remorse for their conduct?
• how has the applicant behaved since being released from prison or upon completion of any obligations to a court such as a good behaviour bond?
• has the applicant rehabilitated themselves? Have they made a conscious effort to obey and uphold Australian laws?
• what was the applicant’s age at the time the offence was committed?
• were there any extenuating circumstances relating to the offence, such as an offence committed under duress or under periods of psychological
• disturbance (including involuntary effects of medication or temporary psychological conditions but not including under the influence of recreational drugs),
• is there evidence of length of employment, stable family life and/or community involvement?

A good starting point is to analyse your case to assess the mitigating versus the aggravating factors.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal also provides an excellent library of cases to get you started:

In Geele and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

(Citizenship) [2020] AATA 253 (20 February 2020), the notion of good character is addressed at

paragraph 48:

Ms Geele, despite the difficulty she has faced as a result of her separation from her former husband, has contributed positively to the community, mastering the English language, obtaining qualifications, holding down a full-time job whilst raising her two daughters, and contributing in a voluntary capacity to the Australian-Somali community. Further paragraph 50 explains that a one off incident should not “diminish her good character in the citizenship context, or otherwise”.

Paragraph 57 concludes that:

Ms Geele has been living in Australia for nine years, is in full-time employment, has learnt the English language, undertaken training certificate qualifications, is raising two Australian citizen children as a single mother, has no criminal record, or traffic offence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that Ms Geele has demonstrated enduring good moral qualities over time that are in conformity with Australian community values; as attested to by character references which state that she is who she claims to be, and describe her as honest, generous and of great integrity.

In Gjergji and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 72 (30 January 2019)

The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision dated 16 February 2018 and remits the matter to the Minister for Home Affairs for reconsideration directing that Mr Gjergji is a person of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.

On 2 July 2013, Mr Gjergji was charged with Cultivate Cannabis Plant – Artificially Enhanced Cultivation and Possess Prescribed Equipment and, on 23 June 2014, these charges were listed for hearing in the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court. No convictions were recorded; however, he was fined $400 and $300 for each of the charges respectively. Paragraph 15 explains that the term good character is not defined in the Act. However, in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 663; (1996) 139 ALR 84, Lee J noted at [94] that: Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some of the meaning be applied, the words ‘good character’ should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community.

At paragraph 38, While the Tribunal acknowledges that these charges weigh against Mr Gjergji, it is nonetheless of the view that – based on the Magistrate’s decision and point 9.5.2 of the Instructions they are ultimately not matters of sufficient weight to offset the other evidence before the Tribunal of Mr Gjergji’s good character.

At paragraph 39 the Tribunal has considered the mitigating factors outlined in 9.5.2 of the Instructions. Mr Gjergji has accepted responsibility and shown remorse for his conduct; I accept that he has made a conscious effort to obey and uphold Australian laws; and there is evidence before the Tribunal of his to his employment and to community involvement.

Concluding paragraphs in this matter state Pursuant to s 21(2) of the Act, the Tribunal must be satisfied that Mr Gjergji is a person of good character. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is of the view that Mr Gjergji is – on balance and in aggregate – a person of good character. The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates that he has, notwithstanding one lapse, respected and abided by the law in Australia and other countries; been honest and financially responsible; been truthful in his dealings with the Australian government despite the use of a false passport; and has behaved in accordance with Australia’s community standards.

As you will note from the above case there is a greater focus on what the expectations of the Australian community is at large and whether the offender should be allowed to be given the privilege of becoming an Australian citizen.

If you are applying for Australian citizenship or need help in assisting your client, get in touch with us for more information: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.