Al-Najadi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

Al-Najadi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 4592 (10 December 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2019/5219
Re:Sulaf Ayad Khudhair Al-Najadi
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
Date:10 December 2021
Place:Sydney

The reviewable decision made on 29 July 2019 is set aside and in substitution the decision is made that the Applicant had an enduring mental incapacity at the time she made the application pursuant to section 21(3)(d) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).
........................................[sgd]................................
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – citizenship test exemption – whether applicant suffers from a permanent or enduring mental incapacity – medical evidence considered – applicant diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – incapability to understand the nature of the application – incapability to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the English language – incapability to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian – decision under review set aside
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) s 21
CASES
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 2: Permanent or Enduring Physical or Mental Incapacity
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), DFAT Country information Report Iraq, 17 August 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member
10 December 2021
The Application

The Applicant is a 31-year-old national of Iraq. She applied for Australian citizenship by conferral on 17 July 2018 on the basis that she had a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity for the purpose of s 21(3)(d) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).
A delegate of the Minister was not satisfied that the Applicant had such an incapacity and refused to grant the application on 29 July 2019. On 22 August 2019, the Applicant applied for review of that decision in this Tribunal.
The issue to be decided
The Tribunal has to decide whether the Applicant had the requisite permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity on 17 July 2018 when she applied for citizenship.
The evidence of two psychologists was before the Tribunal: that of Dr Mahmoud Abu-Arab, clinical psychologist, upon whom the Applicant relied, and the expert evidence of Ms Clair Baker who assessed the Applicant at the Respondent’s request. Dr Abu Arab saw the Applicant shortly before she lodged her citizenship application. He focussed on events that had occurred in Iraq before the Applicant arrived in Australia.
Ms Baker did not assess the Applicant until March 2020 and focussed on events that had occurred since the Applicant has been in Australia.
The legal framework
Subsection 21(3)(d) of the Act relevantly requires that the Minister (and the Tribunal when reviewing the decision) be satisfied that the applicant:
(d) has a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity, at the time the person
made the application, that means the person:
(i) is not capable of understanding the nature of the application at that time; or
(ii) is not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; or
(iii) is not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time
The Citizenship Procedural Instruction 2: Permanent or Enduring Physical or Mental Incapacity (CPI 2) dated 2 March 2019 is the relevant policy document. The Tribunal is not bound by policy guidelines but will usually apply policy unless there are cogent reasons in a particular case not to do so.[1]
[1] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645.
The evidence
Dr Abu-Arab, clinical psychologist, prepared the following reports and assessments: an Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System (ABAS) report dated 27 May 2018, a report dated 4 June 2018, and further reports dated 18 September 2019, 18 October 2019 and 15 May 2020.
The Respondent requested that Dr Abu-Arab be available for cross-examination. The Applicant’s legal representative requested him to appear at the hearing and indicated that he could be summonsed. Dr Abu-Arab wrote that he was unable to attend the hearing and had nothing to add to what was in his reports.[2]
[2] Exhibit A3 - Email sent 18 May 2021 at 12:20:08 pm from Dr Abu Arab to Mr Al-Shadidi, the Applicant’s representative.
Ms Claire Baker, forensic psychologist, provided a report dated 16 April 2020 and gave oral evidence.
An unsigned GP Mental Health Treatment Plan dated 9 September 2019 states that the Applicant suffers from depression and was undertaking Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) which would improve her mood.
The Applicant and her husband provided statements dated 8 November 2020 and gave oral evidence.
Copies of the documents, and Supplementary documents, provided by the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the T documents and Supplementary T documents respectively) were in evidence.
Undisputed events in the Applicant’s life
Following are events in the Applicant’s life that are clear from the evidence and not in dispute.
The Applicant was born in Iraq in 1989. Saddam Hussein was in power until March 2003 when the US and its allies removed him. There was a lengthy insurgency against US-led coalition forces. Increasing sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shi’a communities peaked with a February 2006 bombing at one of Shi’a Islam’s holiest mosques. A US forces surge in 2007-2008 temporarily reduced the violence enabling the US to withdraw the majority of its troops in 2011. There were ongoing sectarian tensions and the rise of Da’esh, a militant group that follows a fundamentalist version of Sunni Islam which occupied large parts of Iraq in 2014.[3]
[3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), DFAT Country information Report Iraq, 17 August 2020 at [2.2] to [2.4].
The Applicant married her husband in Iraq in March 2011 and arrived in Australia for the first time in November 2011, having been granted a Subclass 309 Partner (Provisional) visa. She has not left Australia since.
She gave birth to children in 2012 and 2013.
On 2 December 2013, after the birth of the Applicant’s second child, the Department refused to grant the Applicant the permanent Class BC Subclass 100 Partner (Migrant) visa. Because of the birth of their second child, the Applicant and her husband were late in applying for the permanent visa. The Tribunal decision in relation to the protection visa refusal recorded that the Applicant applied for review of the decision in the Tribunal when she became aware of it, but her application was outside the prescribed statutory time limit and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider it.
At some time after the birth of her second child in 2013, the Applicant had her gall bladder removed.
The Applicant applied for a protection visa in May 2014. After a review in the predecessor of this Tribunal, which remitted the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration, she was granted a Class XA Subclass 866 Protection visa in October 2016.
The Applicant suffered an ectopic pregnancy in 2017.
She applied for citizenship on 17 July 2018.
In October 2018 the Applicant, her husband and son were the victims of a violent and terrifying home invasion. Their daughter was asleep.
The Applicant had a third child in about February 2020 and was pregnant at the time of the hearing of this matter. She has been very unwell during her pregnancies.
The Applicant’s husband and children are Australian citizens.
The impact upon the Applicant of life events
There are various records of the impact of events on the Applicant:
·     As recorded in the Tribunal’s decision in relation to the protection visa refusal;
·     As reported by Dr Abu Arab;
·     As reported by Ms Baker;
·     In her statement;
·     In her oral evidence;
·     In her husband’s statement;
·     In her husband’s oral evidence.
Protection visa decision account of events in Iraq
The Tribunal decision in October 2016 found that the Applicant satisfied the protection criteria. During the hearing on 26 July 2016, the Applicant and her husband gave oral evidence with the assistance of an interpreter. The Applicant claimed protection because she feared persecution in Iraq because of her religion. The Tribunal member found that the Applicant gave her evidence in a straight-forward manner and found her a credible witness.
The Applicant claimed not to have suffered serious harm in Iraq in the past, although she had been frightened of being harmed. She said that the situation was much worse now and she was fearful every day that her family would be harmed and set out her own fears if she returned. She claimed that her father, who was a policeman, was injured in a bomb attack at a checkpoint two years before, had not worked since, and would remain at home until he retired. The Tribunal found that she had not suffered serious harm in Iraq in the past.
Dr Abu-Arab, clinical psychologist
Dr Abu-Arab, clinical psychologist, carried out an Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System (ABAS 3) on 27 May 2018 and prepared a report dated 4 June 2018, both of which were provided with the Applicant’s application for citizenship. She had been referred on a Mental Health Care Plan and was first seen by Dr Abu-Arab on 17 April 2018. He also saw the Applicant on 8 June 2018 which, he explained in a later report, was when he finalised the report which remained dated 4 June 2018.
ABAS 3 is used to assess an individual’s adaptive skills for diagnosis and classification of disabilities and disorders. The Applicant was assessed to be at an extremely low level on all scores.
Dr Abu-Arab also conducted a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) to screen the Applicant’s cognitive state and used a Post Traumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale (PDS).
In his 4 June 2018 report, Dr Abu-Arab reported that the Applicant was 14 years of age when Iraq was invaded by the USA and witnessed numerous traumatic events in which some of her relatives and neighbours were killed. She burst into tears while giving this account. Many relatives fled Iraq after the collapse of the former Iraqi regime. Her father was attacked by terrorists and was severely injured when he worked as a driver for a military officer.
He concluded that the Applicant’s attention and memory have been severely affected as a result of the traumatic events she had experienced. It is chronic and long lasting because it has been present for many years since she lived in Iraq. He did not expect significant improvement even with thorough and extensive training. Her condition would affect her ability to a concentrate on tasks and retain new learnt material. She is not confident to attend the Citizenship Knowledge Test due to her mental condition and her semi-illiteracy in English.
Dr Abu-Arab’s report of 18 September 2019 was apparently prepared for the purpose of these proceedings. He provided a diagnosis of PTSD which was chronic and long lasting because it was present since the Applicant lived in Iraq. In addition, she functions at the level of Borderline Intellectual Ability which has been present from birth and is impossible to change.
The doctor wrote that the Applicant was not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language when he saw her on 17 April 2018, which continues. She was not able to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship when he saw her on 17 April 2018, which continues. Her understanding of Australian citizenship is equal to obtaining a passport as a tool to travel overseas.
In the report dated 18 October 2019, Dr Abu-Arab explained that he did not provide treatment to the Applicant. There was a large body of psychological literature to the effect that treatment of chronic PTSD after two years of onset is not significantly useful. He reiterated that the Applicant’s intellectual deficit was from birth and treatment was not useful.
Ms Clair Baker, consultant forensic psychologist
Ms Baker, consultant forensic psychologist provided a lengthy and comprehensive report dated 16 April 2020 at the Respondent’s request. She had conducted a clinical interview and psychometric testing with the Applicant on 10 March 2020 assisted by an interpreter over about four hours. She also interviewed the Applicant’s husband. He also elaborated upon some answers the Applicant gave when he was present during about half of the interview with her.
The Applicant told Ms Baker that her mother and father are still alive in Iraq and are both in relatively good health. She had had a very happy childhood. She had lived a “good life”. Her education had been erratic because of war in Iraq. She had been able to understand and learn Arabic. She had never been able to understand anything that she had been taught in English.
The Applicant told Ms Baker that she had never experienced any emotional difficulties until she came to Australia. She reported being very sick during each of her four pregnancies. She expressed a considerable level of distress about her ectopic pregnancy and her most recent pregnancy when she was told that she had gestational diabetes and that the baby was small. Her husband said that she cried every day believing that the child was not going to survive but the baby was born two weeks early with no health concerns.
When questioned further about her anxiety, the Applicant explained that she felt that ‘it is not fair, everything I have been through. I have no family and no friends. I am isolated from my family and I cannot see them. All the bad incidents keep happening year after year, it has all built up now’.
The Applicant’s husband denied that she was traumatised from her experiences in Iraq and said that her problems started in Australia after her spouse visa was cancelled and she thought that she would be sent back to Iraq, where ISIS had taken hold, with two small children. There then followed the death of his father, the Applicant’s ectopic pregnancy which had caused her great distress, an operation on her gall bladder, the trauma of the home invasion, and the worry throughout her recent pregnancy that the unborn child was not healthy. He recounted that her father was badly injured by a bomb while he was working as an interpreter for the USA.
The Applicant had been advised to see a psychologist as soon as possible after the birth of her child in 2020 but had not done so because the baby was 26 days-old and the Applicant was not able to leave the house easily.
Ms Baker found that at the date of assessment, the Applicant met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, which she attributed to the 2018 post-application home invasion. Ms Baker was concerned that the Applicant had not received any psychological support following the attack which may have helped her.
Ms Baker considered Dr Abu-Arab’s reference to a large body of psychological literature to the effect that treatment of chronic PTSD after two years of onset is not significantly useful. She confirmed that there was empirical literature which suggests better outcomes for war veterans if they receive early treatment for PTSD, but “it has been difficult to find any other support for Dr Abu-Arab’s claim in this regard”.
Ms Baker wrote that it was apparent that the cumulative nature of the negative events which the Applicant had experienced since her arrival in Australia has resulted in an observable decline in her mental health. The Applicant’s current symptomatology would likely meet the diagnostic criteria for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), with Anxious Distress, but the origin of those symptoms was not clear.
Taking into account the string of negative events from 2013 to 2017, at the time of application:
… it would seem that on the balance of probabilities, [the Applicant] may well have been experiencing symptoms indicative of the presence of Major Depressive Disorder, with Anxious features.
Ms Baker thought that the evidence does not indicate that the Applicant has received ongoing psychological therapy to address her mental health concerns. For that reason, she concludes that the Applicant does not meet either concept of ‘permanent’ or ‘enduring’. In her opinion both PTSD and MDD can be treated with “varying levels” of success with targeted psychological therapy which should be provided as a matter of priority. She noted:
That being said, such therapy takes time to provide positive changes and in [the Applicant’s] case having no command of the English language, and being further compounded by the trauma following the home invasion, the difficulties during her last pregnancy and having the emotional challenges of a newborn infant, it is considered that [the Applicant’s] progress will be slow. [Emphasis added.]
Ms Baker found that the Applicant was in the lowest 2% of the population in her capacity to engage in everyday activities required to function, meet environmental demands, care for herself and interact with others effectively and independently. In her opinion, it was not possible to say whether the Applicant was unable or unwilling to attempt those activities due to the lack of psychological treatment and therefore whether the Applicant’s incapacity was ‘permanent’ or ‘enduring’. She observed some indicators that were contra-indicative of a permanent mental incapacity.
She concluded that:
… it could well be considered that [the Applicant’s] capacity for learning new information, is severely limited by her current level of depressive and anxiety symptomatology.
Ms Baker thought that appropriate and long-term psychological therapy would improve the Applicant’s emotional wellbeing and her level of cognitive function:
However, due to the complexity of [the Applicant’s] current mental health presentation, it is not possible to determine how long this would take or indeed if it would even be successful to the extent that she would be able to return to her prior level of cognitive functioning. [Emphasis added.]
Ms Baker remarked that the Applicant attended a few English classes when she arrived and did not continue as the series of negative events that followed, including the home invasion:
would undeniably have impacted her ability to learn a new language. [The Applicant’s] current psychological functioning may well be considered sufficient to meet the definition of ‘enduring physical and mental incapacity’, the nature of which is likely to be long term with an unclear prognosis for recovery. [Emphasis added.]
Ms Baker concluded her report:
In sum, on the basis of supplied information, extensive interview with [the Applicant] and with her husband, … observations made and results from formal psychological assessments, it is my considered opinion that without the evidence of any targeted psychological treatment it is not possible to determine whether [the Applicant] would be deemed to be suffering from a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity, which renders her incapable of understanding the nature of the application, demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language, demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. What can be stated with a reasonable level of confidence is that Ms Al-Najadi is currently suffering from a mental incapacity which left untreated is likely to continue to render her incapable of understanding the nature of the application, demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language, demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. [Emphasis in original.]
Dr Abu-Arab report 15 May 2020 – response to Ms Baker

Dr Abu-Arab responded to Ms Baker’s report on 15 May 2020. He repeated that he had diagnosed that the Applicant was suffering from PTSD and borderline cognitive capacity on 4 June 2018, prior to the home invasion in October 2018. His diagnosis was based on information from her husband as well as the Applicant. He maintained that PTSD related to events in Iraq which the Applicant and her husband described to Ms Baker.
In his opinion, it was most likely that the symptoms and signs were reinforced and exacerbated following the home invasion and the Applicant and her husband attributed the PTSD symptoms to the most recent traumatic event of which both were victims. Her condition was chronic before she came to Australia.
Dr Abu-Arab agreed with Ms Baker that the Applicant’s general intellectual ability is in the extremely low range and she has a limited understanding of Australian citizenship, apart from being able to get a passport and did not appear to know anything about the privileges and responsibilities of being an Australian citizen.
He referred to Ms Baker’s opinions that the series of negative events in Australia would undeniably have impacted her ability to learn a new language and that the Applicant’s current psychological functioning may be considered sufficient to meet the definition of enduring physical and mental incapacity.
Dr Abu-Arab concluded that the Applicant suffers an enduring mental illness that would affect her ability to learn English and then learn material required to pass the citizenship test. Her mental illness, cognitive disability and lack of English skills and overall adaptive functioning indicate that it is highly unlikely that she will be able to sit for the examination, even with extreme efforts. She is not able to demonstrate an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.
The Applicant’s evidence
It is unnecessary to summarise all the Applicant’s evidence because the factual difference in her history recorded by Dr Abu-Arab and Ms Baker is confined to the impact on the Applicant of events in Iraq before she came to Australia.
In her written statement dated 8 November 2020, the Applicant gave a very brief account of what she experienced while living in Iraq. It was essentially the same as that provided by Dr Abu-Arab. She claimed that those events resulted in her current psychological conditions which make her unable to learn English or attend to normal daily duties expected of someone of her age. She did not mention any event in Australia.
During cross-examination, the Applicant said that she had forgotten about the trauma in Iraq. Trauma in Australia is greater. She feels that she has been singled out. In Iraq, everyone experienced trauma.
She did not recall some things that Ms Baker had reported her saying. There was war in Iraq from when she was about nine or 11 years old. Since 2003 “pain and suffering got worse”. There were 30 or 40 people in her family. A lot had to migrate after the war. Some houses were bombed. Only her family home was left standing. Her education in Iraq was disrupted by war. After grade four she did not attend school very much. She attended until she was 18 or 19.
Her father was a policeman. He was injured in the leg by a bomb blast at a checkpoint while he was at work, when she was in about grade four or five, while she was in Iraq. A few other close relatives suffered physical harm as well. She did not.
It is not necessary to detail the Applicant’s harrowing evidence about the negative impact upon her of the visa cancellation in 2013 and the events thereafter. Ms Baker detailed them in her report and explained their impact on the Applicant’s mental health.
New information that emerged during the Applicant’s oral evidence was that her mother had passed away a month before, she cannot see her brothers, and her family ask why she does not go back. She says that she is in limbo and they say it cannot be true. She said that refusing her citizenship is an injustice. She was pregnant at the time of the hearing.
The husband’s evidence
The Applicant’s husband wrote in his statement that he did not know about the Applicant’s mental incapacity until after they were married. He heard her outlining the traumatic events to Dr Abu-Arab as outlined in his 4 June 2018 report.
During his oral evidence, the Applicant’s husband said that since the home invasion, the Applicant has been terrified.
Consideration
The Respondent accepted that both Dr Abu-Arab and Ms Baker are appropriately qualified experts and consider that the Applicant currently has a mental incapacity which affects her ability to understand the nature of her citizenship application, her ability to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the English language or responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.
The Respondent argued that there were two questions: Whether the Tribunal is satisfied that:
(a)the incapacity existed at the time of the application for citizenship, 17 July 2018, and
(b)if so, whether it is ‘permanent or enduring’.
In respect of the first question, the Respondent pointed to differences in opinion between Dr Abu-Arab and Ms Baker and contended that Ms Baker’s opinion should be preferred for various reasons, including that he was not available for cross-examination. Those differences were:
·Dr Abu-Arab attributed the Applicant’s PTSD to trauma suffered by the Applicant in Iraq, whereas Ms Baker attributed it to the post-application home invasion.
·Dr Abu-Arab’s opinion was that the Applicant had a borderline intellectual disability since birth.
·Ms Baker considered that the Applicant would likely meet the diagnostic criteria for MDD with Anxious Distress and considered it a ‘strong possibility’ that that was so at the time of application but was unable to say how severe those symptoms were at that time. The Mental Health Plan Referral dated 9 September 2019, which listed the reason for referral as depression, was consistent with that view.
Ms Baker’s assessment was comprehensive and included the Applicant’s history in Iraq and Australia. It is understandable that when the Applicant and her husband spoke to Ms Baker, they focussed on events in Australia, particularly the home invasion, given how recent and traumatising it was.
Dr Abu-Arab did not refer to any of the previous several distressing events that had occurred in Australia before he assessed the Applicant. It was not a comprehensive psychological report as Ms Baker’s was. However, his report needs to be understood in the context of its purpose which was clearly to support the Applicant’s citizenship application. The diagnosis of PTSD was sufficient for Dr Abu-Arab to conclude that there was the requisite incapacity which was permanent or enduring.
I have to make the correct or preferable decision on the evidence before me. Dr Abu-Arab saw the Applicant shortly before she applied for citizenship. Dr Baker assessed her about 20 months after the application date and after further events which adversely affected her mental health, including the home invasion.
It is significant that both psychologists diagnosed PTSD, albeit at different times. Dr Abu-Arab attributed it to events in Iraq and Ms Baker to events in Australia, particularly the home invasion, which occurred after the application date. Their opinions as to causation of PTSD were based on the respective histories they were given. Dr Abu-Arab has maintained his opinion in his several reports. Although he was not cross-examined and his reports were not comprehensive, I give his opinion some weight because of the consistency of diagnosis of both psychologists. Their opinions differed on whether the condition could be treated.
The Respondent criticised Dr Abu-Arab’s diagnosis of borderline intellectual disability from birth because Ms Baker referred to some matters that may have been inconsistent with the diagnosis being from birth. However, Ms Baker also found that the Applicant was in the lowest 2% of the population in her capacity to engage in everyday activities required to function, meet environmental demands, care for herself and interact with others effectively and independently. The difference of opinion was whether that condition was from birth and untreatable or might be improved by treatment.
Ms Baker’s various statements about the prospect of treatment being effective is usefully summarised in her opinion that:
[The Applicant’s] current psychological functioning may well be considered sufficient to meet the definition of ‘enduring physical and mental incapacity’, the nature of which is likely to be long term with an unclear prognosis for recovery.
I am satisfied that the Applicant had a mental incapacity at the time of Application for the following reasons. Dr Abu-Arab diagnosed PTSD before the application date and Ms Baker also diagnosed PTSD after the application date. While Ms Baker’s diagnosis was after the home invasion, it is consistent with Dr Abu-Arab’s assessment that the home invasion exacerbated the condition he had previously diagnosed.
The finding that the Applicant had a mental incapacity at the time of Application is reinforced by Ms Baker’s opinion that, on the balance of probabilities, the Applicant may have been experiencing symptoms indicative of MDD at the time of application after the string of negative events from 2013 until her ectopic pregnancy in 2017.
Clause 3.4 of CPI 2 defines an “enduring incapacity” as “one for which there cannot be a predicted recovery, or where it is, it is long term”. The evidence of Dr Abu-Arab and Ms Baker support the finding that the Applicant had an enduring incapacity at the time of application that means she was not capable of understanding the nature of that application at that time, was not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time and was not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, I am satisfied that Applicant satisfies section 21(3)(d) of the Act.
Decision
The reviewable decision made on 29 July 2019 is set aside and in substitution the decision is made that the Applicant had an enduring mental incapacity at the time she made the application pursuant to section 21(3)(d) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

I certify that the preceding 80 (eighty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member

......................................[sgd]..................................
Associate
Dated: 10 December 2021

Date(s) of hearing: 24 May 2021

Solicitors for the Applicant: M Al-Shadidi, Asad Lawyers

Advocate for the Respondent: T Ellison, Australian Government Solicitor

[2021] AATA 4592

10 December 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Expert Evidence

Jurisdiction

Standing

Date(s) of hearing:	24 May 2021
Solicitors for the Applicant:	M Al-Shadidi, Asad Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent:	T Ellison, Australian Government Solicitor