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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by Mr Akram, a citizen of Pakistan who first arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival. Mr Akram had previously held a Safe Haven Enterprise (SHEV) visa. He sought ministerial intervention to apply for a visa with a pathway to permanent residency. The Minister ultimately decided to intervene under a different section of the Migration Act 1958, which required Mr Akram to consent to the cancellation of his SHEV visa, making him an unlawful non-citizen, before granting him a Former Resident visa. Following this, Mr Akram applied for citizenship but was found to have been an unlawful non-citizen for a period of approximately two and a half hours in the four years preceding his application, which impacted his eligibility.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Mr Akram had been an unlawful non-citizen in the four-year period before applying for citizenship, and if so, whether any exemptions applied or if there was any administrative error that would allow for his eligibility. The core of the dispute centred on the period between the voluntary cancellation of Mr Akram's SHEV visa and the granting of his new visa, during which he was technically an unlawful non-citizen. The Tribunal also considered whether the information provided to Mr Akram about the consequences of his visa cancellation was misleading or incomplete, and whether he understood the implications of consenting to the cancellation.

The Tribunal found that the process followed by the Department was consistent with the requirements of the Migration Act. It was established that for the Minister to exercise his personal power under s 195A of the Act to grant a detainee a visa, the person must be in detention, which necessitates being an unlawful non-citizen. Mr Akram was informed in writing that he would need to consent to his visa cancellation and that this would make him an unlawful non-citizen. While Mr Akram submitted that he would not have consented had he understood the impact on his future citizenship application, the Tribunal found no administrative error in the advice provided or the process followed. The Minister's intervention was discretionary, and Mr Akram had the choice to decline the offer.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. This outcome meant that Mr Akram's status as an Australian permanent resident was unaffected, and he retained the ability to apply for citizenship after 20 May 2026, which was the date his new visa would expire.