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

This matter concerned an application for citizenship by conferral by Akot (the Applicant) against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent). The Applicant sought review of the Minister's decision to refuse their application for citizenship. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the Applicant had satisfied the residency requirements stipulated in the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the Applicant had satisfied the general residence requirement under section 22(1)(a) of the Act, specifically in light of the Applicant being outside Australia for 482 days in the four years immediately preceding their application. Further, the Tribunal had to consider whether any of the Ministerial discretions provided for in sections 22(4A) to 22(11) were satisfied, and whether the Applicant met either of the special residence requirements under sections 22A or 22B.

The Tribunal considered the policy underpinnings of the residency requirements as outlined in the Australian Citizenship Policy Statement and the Citizenship Procedural Instructions. It was acknowledged that these documents are not legally binding on the Tribunal. Drawing on the Full Federal Court's observations in *Minister for Home Affairs v G and Another*, the Tribunal affirmed that executive policy must be consistent with the relevant statute, allowing for consideration of all relevant factors and not fettering the decision-maker's discretion. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not satisfy the general residence requirement under section 22(1)(a), nor were any of the Ministerial discretions or special residence requirements met. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.