The Administrative Appeals Tribunal heard the appeal of Mr Ahmed* in July 2019 and made the decision that the failure to disclose the nature of his relationship with alleged wife Annie* and son Asad* should not be grounds to refuse his citizenship application.
Mr Ahmed came to Australia in October 2008 as an international student. In August 2011, he married a Japanese citizen Ms Suki*, who held Australian permanent residency.
He lodged his application for citizenship in June 2016. After around two years in April 2018, his application was refused on the basis that Mr Ahmed failed to clear the “good character” requirement.
Home Affairs had conducted an investigation via the Australian High Commission in Pakistan. It was found that the applicant had married a woman and had a child too, apart from his marriage with Ms Suki.
This information led the Ministry to conclude that as Mr Ahmed failed to disclose his second marriage in Pakistan, he failed to be a person of “good character”.
The Ministry delegate said that while the applicant is married to Ms Suki in Australia, he is also married to another person in Pakistan under religious ceremony and/or local customs and also had a child out of the relationship [both of them live with the applicant’s family in Pakistan].
“I acknowledge that you have not been prosecuted or charged in relation to this behaviour under an Australian law, I am however satisfied that this behaviour does not conform to the values of Australian society and is against an Australian law."
During the Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceeding, Mr Ahmed denied that he was married to Annie or had a continuing relationship but confirmed that he did have a one-night intimate relationship with her during his visit to Pakistan. Annie later fell pregnant and gave birth to a son in September 2015.
However, Mr Ahmed agreed that Annie and her child are living in Pakistan with his family because of the possibility of ‘honour killing’ prevalent in the country and potential backlash from the family and society.
The Tribunal pointed out that it was a matter of honesty and not morality in the case of Mr Ahmed.
The Tribunal observed that based on the evidence reviewed the applicant had a single “tryst” with Annie but did not “marry” or was never in a “spousal relationship” with her.
In relation to the obligation to declare a “partner” or “child” in the citizenship application form, the applicant was not required to mention a non-partner relationship or to mention a child for which he did not have legal proof.
The Tribunal concluded that the Delegate’s decision that Mr Ahmed was not a person of “good character” could not be sustained and the matters were remitted to the decision-maker for reconsideration.
*names changed due to privacy.
