A former Geelong taxi driver has been denied Australian citizenship after being convicted of indecently assaulting two female passengers. Muhammad Isa, 54, applied for citizenship in 2020, but the Department of Home Affairs refused the application due to his criminal record.
Background of the case
Isa, originally from Pakistan, had been living in Australia on a permanent visa. In 2018, he was convicted of two counts of indecent assault following incidents that occurred in 2016 and 2017 while he was working as a taxi driver in Geelong. The assaults involved touching the victims inappropriately during taxi rides.
The court sentenced Isa to a 12-month community corrections order and he was placed on the sex offenders register for eight years. Despite completing his sentence, the citizenship application was rejected on character grounds under Section 501 of the Migration Act.
Legal proceedings
Isa challenged the decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), arguing that he had reformed and that his crimes were not of the most serious nature. However, the AAT upheld the refusal, stating that Isa had not demonstrated sufficient rehabilitation and that the nature of the offences was serious, involving a breach of trust.
The tribunal noted that Isa had shown limited insight into his offending and had minimised his actions. It concluded that the risk of reoffending, while low, was not acceptable given the vulnerability of potential victims.
Broader implications
The case underscores the strict character requirements for Australian citizenship. Applicants must satisfy the minister that they are of good character, and any criminal history can be a significant barrier. The decision has been met with mixed reactions, with some supporting the strict stance on protecting the community, while others argue that individuals who have served their sentences should be given a second chance.
Isa's visa status remains under review, and he may face deportation if his visa is cancelled. The Department of Home Affairs has not commented on the specific case but reiterated that each application is assessed on its merits.
