Mohammad and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

[2025] ARTA 2055

Mohammad and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 2055 (8 October 2025)

Applicant/s:  Ali Mohammad

Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number:                2024/10172

Tribunal:General Member S. Fenwick

Place:Melbourne

Date:8 October 2025  

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that the Tribunal is satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity.

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

General Member S. Fenwick

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – national of Afghanistan – identity – inconsistencies in biodata – consideration of biometrics and life story – decision set aside and remitted

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Cases

BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 1336

Secondary Materials

Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 – Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act

Statement of Reasons

BACKGROUND

1. The Applicant applied to the Tribunal on 4 December 2024 for review of the decision of a delegate of the Respondent, dated 19 November 2024, refusing the grant of Australian citizenship by conferral. The decision was based upon a finding that the decision maker was not satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity, as required by s 24(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The Applicant is not certain as to his date of birth, but is generally considered to be aged somewhere in his early or mid-thirties. He arrived in Australia in April 2012 as an illegal maritime arrival, having spent a few months in transit in Indonesia. Some years later the Applicant returned to Afghanistan and married. The Applicant is the eldest among six siblings in total, and all of his immediate family are resident in Australia.

3. The Applicant has a life-long, congenital condition that has a substantial impact upon his vision, rendering him legally blind. As a consequence, he received no formal schooling in Afghanistan and upon arrival in Australia was recognised as illiterate. The Applicant has since gained limited literacy in English, but relies upon technology to facilitate the restricted reading comprehension that he has.

4. At the core of this matter are inconsistencies in both the Applicant’s ‘family’ name and his date of birth. These two features of his identity vary across both different forms of national identity document from Afghanistan, and various official migration records and other Australian documentation.

5. The Applicant was represented before the Tribunal and lodged a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (ASFIC) and a bundle of documents (AB). The Respondent lodged documents pursuant to the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (T), a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC), and Supplementary T documents (ST).

6. The Applicant together with his uncle, Mr Mohammed Payendah, and Mr Payendah’s wife, Ms Rakema Hazizi, gave evidence at the hearing with the assistance of an interpreter in the Dari language.

   LEGISLATION

7. Under s 24(3) of the Act, the Minister is prohibited from approving an application for citizenship where they are not satisfied as to an applicant’s identity. The key word here, ‘identity’, is not defined in the Act, but has been the subject of discussion in a number of authorities. For example, in BQG21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 1336, Mortimer CJ observed that inquiry into identity revolves around being satisfied that the person applying for citizenship is who they say they are.

8. Policy guidance is provided for decision makers in Citizenship Procedural Instruction 16 - Assessing Identity under the Citizenship Act (CPI 16). Consistent with the legal principle identified above, CPI 16 states that identity is a combination of characteristics that allow a person to be distinguished from someone else [4]. CPI 16 notes that humanitarian arrivals may have no documentation upon arrival [4.1], and therefore it may be appropriate to treat the first grant of a visa as the starting point for the use of documentation in support of identity.

9. Documentation is one of the so-called three pillars or identity, with the additional pillars consisting of biometrics and life story [5]. Photographs are an example of biometrics. Certain systemic compromises appear to be required in respect of persons with a single name, or no family name. CPI 16 states for example that where a person uses a single name it can only be recorded as a family name [7.2].

10. Decision-makers are encouraged to consider inconsistencies arising among identity information [11]. CPI 16 states, for example, that consideration must be given to the significance and weight of inconsistencies against a person’s identity claim, and what further inquiries might assist (including providing natural justice to an applicant so they may explain any inconsistencies).

11. With respect to life story, CPI 16 states that there may be cases in which greater weight may be given to this pillar including in the case of an undocumented arrival [11.3]. Finally, any conflicting information must be tested and evaluated [12.1].

    ISSUES

12. The sole issue arising is whether I can be satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity.

    EVIDENCE

13. It is helpful to begin with a summary of the variations in name and date of birth associated with the Applicant. These are listed in chronological order.

Family name	Date of birth	Document	Reference
Jafari	11 Jan 1995	UN asylum seeker certificate	T30, 274
Jaffari	31 Dec 1993	Biodata form	ST, 80
Jaffery	11 Feb 1993	Consular access request	ST, 86
Jaffery/Jaffary	31 Dec 1993	IMA entry interview	ST, 88
[no family name]	31 Dec 1993	Protection visa application	ST, 1
[no family name]	1994	Taskera	T3 a)
Payendah	23 Mar 1989	Afghan passport	T27, 236

1. In respect of the above, I note that in documents dated after the application for a protection visa, including the application for citizenship and various other departmental material relating to family visas, the Applicant has consistently relied upon his name as being Mohammad Ali (that is, no family name) with a date of birth of 31 December 1993.

2. There are three statements from the Applicant. In a statutory declaration, dated 2 February 2024, (T33 b)) he declares in summary:

   (a)he was born in the village of Baladeh and is of Tajik ethnicity;

   (b)on Christmas Island ‘the staff’ said his date of birth was 31 December 1993, because he could not provide an exact date, and he has persisted with this date since then;

   (c)his father was Shirin Gul and his mother Zia Gul, and he has one sister and four brothers;

   (d)he left Afghanistan around the age of sixteen, and with the assistance of a people smuggler travelled from Pakistan via Malaysia and Indonesia;

   (e)he is unable to explain why there are various other dates of birth provided in the department’s file; and

   (f)he applied in Afghanistan for a Taskera at the age of fourteen or fifteen and has lost the original.

3. In a statutory declaration dated 23 September 2024 (T28 b)), the Applicant states in summary:

   (a)he applied for his Afghan passport in 2018 and initially used a copy of his Taskera, however the authorities did not accept this and found an earlier Taskera with a year of birth of 1989;

   (b)this passport was issued with the name Payendah which is his uncle’s name and he chose this as the authorities asked for a family name;

   (c)he originally travelled to Pakistan on this trip using an Australian-issued travel document, but left this behind when entering Afghanistan to visit family;

   (d)the passport was required in order to re-enter Pakistan;

   (e)he intended to leave the passport in Pakistan in case it was needed for future travel, however it was mistakenly placed in the luggage of a gentleman with whom he had travelled by the mother of this man’s relative;

   (f)he was advised upon return to Australia by the travel companion that the Australian authorities had found the Afghan passport and taken copies of it; and

   (g)the only purpose of the document was to travel between Afghanistan and Pakistan and he does not consider either Jaffery or Payendah to be his true surname.

4. In a statement dated 30 October 2024 (T33 a)) the Applicant states that he understands that his UN identity document contains the name Jafari. The Applicant recalls an interview which he believes was in Indonesia at which he was encouraged to pick a surname and chose the name on that basis.

5. In his evidence, the Applicant explained that in Afghanistan it is not normal to respond to a question as to age by using a date of birth, and he only believes that he may have been born sometime between 1989 and 1993. For this reason, upon arrival in Australia he said he was ‘between 18 and 20’. He stated further that did not use a family name in Afghanistan but chose Jafari in Indonesia on the basis that someone else had selected that name, which he associated with his faith, Shia Islam. In his view the differences in surname and dates of birth were all due to misunderstanding and cultural differences.

6. In cross-examination the Applicant was asked about his documentation upon arrival in Australia. He was unable to explain certain handwritten notes, stating that he was legally blind and was illiterate at that time. The Applicant also stated that he did not consider that he had given a date of birth when his identity document was prepared in Indonesia, and the document was to help prevent young people being arrested.

7. The Applicant was not certain whether he provided the name Jafari upon arrival and interview in Australia. The Applicant stated he was interviewed a number of times and recalled signing a document, and this was the extent of his literacy. He was also unable to recall whether or how the date 2 November 1993 may have been arrived at.

8. The Applicant was asked about obtaining his Taskera. He recalled being assisted when young by a non-government organisation who helped those with impaired vision. The Applicant thought he may never have had a copy of this document. I also understood the Applicant to have given evidence that effectively qualifies some of the detail included in his second statutory declaration. This was apparently on the basis of a misunderstanding with the lawyer preparing this declaration.

9. Some time was spent in evidence dealing with the Applicant’s Afghan passport. He repeated the narrative summarised above in his second declaration. It was not made clear in this evidence why he did not regain possession of this document from his travel companion after arrival in Australia. The Applicant did state that he had sometime later asked for it, and was told that the friend had lost the document.

10. The Applicant confirmed his vision impairment in evidence and referred to obtaining help from Vision Australia. He explained that he can read some material with the use of assistive technology, having become partially literate since arriving here. I observe that medical material lodged in this matter confirms the Applicant’s congenital and lifelong vision impairment (T3, d)-e)). He was born with cataracts and following surgery as a child has no lens in either eye. He has 10% vision on one eye and is legally blind in the other, and one of the eyes is ‘lazy’. The materials include other documents attesting to the Applicant’s diverse physical and mental health conditions (T28).

11. The Applicant’s uncle gave evidence consistent with his written statement (AB). He confirmed that he has known the Applicant his whole life, approximately 35 years, and in fact lived in the same house as the Applicant’s family at the time he was born. The witness confirmed that he had chosen his family name after arrival in Australia.

12. The uncle’s wife also gave evidence consistent with her statement (AB), being that she has known the Applicant as part of the extended family since marriage.

13. I note in passing that it transpired during closing submissions that one of the Applicant’s brothers had driven him to the Tribunal on the day of the hearing but was not called to give evidence only because a supporting statement had not been provided in advance.

14. I note further from the material in this matter:

    (a)the Applicant’s arrival biodata form is annotated at the top with the words ‘Client Illiterate’, and the date of birth is accompanied by the note ‘client has been age determined’ (ST, 80);

    (b)it is noted in the Applicant’s protection visa application that he had never used the name Jafari before coming to Australia (ST, 15);

    (c)the Applicant has declared ancestry in Australian documents consistent with Afghan documents, being that his father is Shirin Gul and his grandfather Shindo Gul (ST, 42; T3 a); T17 d));

    (d)the Applicant appears to have referred to his family composition consistently (ST, 42); and

    (e)the Applicant provided a copy of his Taskera issued in May 2011, bearing the name Mohammad Ali with a date of birth described as ’17-year-old in 1390 (born 1994)’ (T3 a)).

15. Finally, some attention was paid at the hearing to a document recently prepared by the Applicant, and said to attest to his identity (AB). This document appears to be a composite of personal details for the Applicant from his Taskera under which text includes the statement that the undersigned ‘tribal elders’ verify the Applicant’s identity and ancestry, concluding with the statement that the signatories attest to the Taskera’s authenticity.

16. The Applicant confirmed in evidence that he had recently sent back to Afghanistan a copy of his Taskera which had then been validated at several levels of government, commencing at the village level. He was unable to provide a clear statement as to what process was undertaken.

    CONSIDERATION

17. The main thrust of the submissions for the Applicant was that he accepts that there are discrepancies in information provided, but he has not sought to deliberately mislead, and had no motive to do so. It is contended in written submissions that the differences in name and birthdate are the result of the Applicant’s illiteracy, cultural practices in Afghanistan regarding birth records, and the pressure to provide a surname despite this not being part of Afghan culture. It is also contended that reliance upon the Afghan passport is misplaced since this was not relied upon by the Applicant for travel to Australia, and its existence has been explained.

18. The Respondent submitted that lingering doubts remain about the inconsistencies in information concerning the Applicant. It was acknowledged that explanations have been provided about the two family names, but that the Applicant has been unable to explain the diverse dates of birth used across various documents. It was contended that little weight be given to the most recent document said to verify the Applicant’s Taskera, and that the Applicant’s explanation for his Afghan passport remains uncorroborated. These submissions are consistent with those in the RSFIC.

19. I note at the outset that a considerable amount of material has been lodged in this matter and the preceding summary of evidence does not seek to capture all of the many exchanges between the Applicant, his various representatives over time, and the responsible agency. I have also not sought to address in any detail country information but I acknowledge the Respondent lodged a lengthy report by the Norwegian Refugee Council concerning civil documentation in Afghanistan (ST, 114).

20. The summary, equally, does not detract from the relatively straightforward set of issues that arise for consideration which is the use or adoption by the Applicant since immediately prior to his arrival in Australia of two family names and a range of inconsistent dates of birth.

21. A foundational matter for consideration is the weight to be placed upon cultural practices in Afghanistan around family names and dates of birth. There is no active dispute in this matter about the veracity of the Applicant’s evidence which I understand to reflect cultural practices commonly attested to in matters of this kind in the Tribunal. I therefore take as a starting point that I can accept as credible the Applicant’s written and oral evidence that he did not use a family name in Afghanistan, and not only does not know his date of birth with any certainty, but this is not a piece of information that holds significance for him.

22. In the absence of some other evidence or viable narrative, I accept his evidence that circumstances forced him to adopt the family name Jafari. I note the different spellings of this name which I consider to be of no further consequence, given that his illiteracy means that he could not reasonably be understood to have responsibility for them.

23. I consider greater uncertainty remains about the use of the name Payendah. I take from the Applicant’s evidence overall that he was aware that this name had been used for his Afghan passport. Unlike the other family name, this one does appear to have a logical and credible connection to the family. I accept that this document was procured or created for a specific purpose, being to re-enter Pakistan during the 2018 visit.

24. Further questions arise from the unusual circumstances in which the Applicant states this document came to travel back to Australia in the luggage of another man. This seems distinctly odd, but the Applicant has given a consistent description of this on different occasions. The greater concern about this document is that it appears at a point in the overall chronology well after the (otherwise) consistent adoption of the name Mohammad Ali.

25. The challenge arising with the various dates of birth is understanding how any of them were arrived at. I take from the evidence overall that at no point is it clear that the Applicant himself specified one or other date. I also raised with the parties during evidence the additional challenge arising which is obtaining robust and probative evidence about what takes place in interviews where interpretation is relied upon. This is all the more complex in circumstances where the Islamic calendar is used and a corresponding date needs to be identified in the Western calendaring system.

26. Beyond these issues arising from documentation, I consider that I have reliable evidence from family members that the Applicant is who he claims to be. This is reinforced by other aspects of documentation, being the consistent identification of the Applicant’s ancestry by reference to father and grandfather. It is also reinforced by various photographs of the Applicant which, given his appearance is characterised by a lazy eye, permit them to be positively compared.

27. Overall, therefore, I consider that there is a consistent life story that emerges from a combination of sources, including national identity documents, other documents and material, and direct evidence. I consider I am able under the policy guidance in CPI 16 to exercise some latitude in the circumstances of the Applicant being an illegal maritime arrival. While not entirely undocumented, given that he was carrying his UN identity certificate, the overall journey in search of humanitarian protection is a factor that must carry some weight.

28. With this in mind, and taking account of common cultural practices in Afghanistan, I consider that in reaching a state of satisfaction as to the Applicant’s identity, I am able to give greater weight to life story and biometrics, notwithstanding some lack of certainty specifically about his Afghan passport.

29. A further and particular consideration in this matter is the Applicant’s illiteracy and his significant vision impairment. These conditions further reduce any weight that might otherwise be attributed to inconsistencies apparent from the documentary record.

    DECISION

1. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits it for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that the Tribunal is satisfied as to the Applicant’s identity.

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

   General Member S. Fenwick

Date of hearing:	23 and 24 September 2025
Applicant:	Ali Mohammad
Applicant’s solicitor:	Rasheed Qasimi of Help Visa and Migration Services
Respondent:	Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Respondent’s solicitor:	Jade Birman of Australian Government Solicitors