Akbari and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by the First Applicant, on behalf of himself and his two minor children, the Second and Third Applicants. The dispute arose because the First Applicant failed to pass the Australian citizenship test, thereby not meeting the general eligibility requirements under section 21(2) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The application was heard by A. Nikolic Am Csc SM in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the First Applicant met the general eligibility criteria for citizenship, and if not, whether there were grounds to exercise discretion in favour of the minor applicants, considering their best interests and any potential hardship or disadvantage they might suffer from a refusal of citizenship. The Tribunal was also required to consider whether the applicants qualified for an exemption from the citizenship test due to mental or physical incapacity, although the First Applicant's application was not lodged under that specific provision.

The Tribunal found that the First Applicant had not satisfied the requirements of sections 21(2)(d), (e), and (f) of the Act, and therefore was ineligible for citizenship under section 24(1A). The Tribunal noted that it lacked jurisdiction to consider an application under a different provision of the Act (s 21(3) concerning incapacity) that had not yet been determined by the Minister. Regarding the minor applicants, the Tribunal considered their best interests and relevant policy considerations, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that either child would suffer "significant hardship or disadvantage" or "significant hardship or detriment" if citizenship was not granted. The Tribunal concluded that as permanent residents, their immigration status would not change, and the younger child could apply in their own right in approximately a year, with the older child also being eligible to apply independently.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed all three reviewable decisions, finding that the First Applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements and that no significant hardship or detriment arose for the minor applicants if their citizenship applications were not approved.