Atiya and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)

Atiya and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 415 (18 March 2019)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/4172
Re:Sennan Atiya
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
Date:18 March 2019
Place:Sydney

The decision under review is set aside on the basis that the Tribunal finds that Mr Atiya qualifies under s 21(3)(b) of the Citizenship Act to be exempted from undertaking the Australian Citizenship Test.
..............................[sgd]..........................................
Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – citizenship test exemption – whether the applicant suffered from a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity – decision set aside
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Act 2009
CASES
Atef Khodeir and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 499
Butrus v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] AATA 239
Skaf v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2016] AATA 429
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), Citizenship Policy, 1 June 2016
Determination for the Approval of Citizenship Test (Section 23A) IMMI 11/088 made by the Minister on 1 March 2012, effective 24 March 2012
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5) (American Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C. 2013
REASONS FOR DECISION
Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member
18 March 2019

Mr Sennan Khazal Atiya (the Applicant) appeals to this Tribunal against a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the Respondent) to refuse his application for citizenship by conferral.
Citizenship by conferral (that is where citizenship is granted to a person who does not have an automatic or statutory entitlement to citizenship) may be granted where an applicant satisfies certain requirements of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act). One of those requirements is that the Applicant sits for and passes the citizenship test. However, if an applicant has “an enduring physical or mental incapacity” which is of such a nature that they cannot undertake the citizenship test, then they may be granted citizenship, all other things being equal and all other requirements being satisfied, without so doing.
It is on this basis that the Applicant comes before the Tribunal seeking to have the Minister’s decision set aside.
APPLICANT’S CIRCUMSTANCES
The Applicant was born in Iraq in August 1982. He arrived in Australia in February 2009 from Syria where he had fled as a refugee from his homeland. He holds a Global Special Humanitarian visa subclass 202.
According to a statement rendered under his name,[1] although written apparently by either, his carer, his brother-in-law or a deceased friend, his mother died while the family were in Syria in 2006 awaiting the granting of refugee status and his father died in 2013 in Australia. Apparently one of his sisters arrived in Australia at the same time as did he and his father. One other sister and two brothers (who now have families) have since arrived here. According to the Applicant at least three of his siblings are now Australian citizens.
[1] Section 37 Tribunal Documents at [60].
In that statement the Applicant says that he started to have problems with his mental health following the kidnapping of his sister in Iraq in 2004 and that these problems have been exacerbated by the deaths of his parents. He says that he lives and is alone with neither a family nor social support network.
In Iraq he attended both primary and high school until the age of 16 or 17 years and was, at that stage able to both read and write the Arabic language. He can still read Arabic (although he says, with increasing difficulty) but finds it hard to write because he suffers from arthritis in his hands.
In Iraq he worked in his father’s business as a jeweller (which he enjoyed) and later as an apprentice barber where he managed to deal effectively with customers.
The Applicant holds a NSW Drivers’ Licence which he says he obtained after his arrival in Australia holding an Iraqi licence. At that stage he says he was able to answer questions and read a few simple street signs. He says it has been some years since he drove and that he is now no longer capable of navigating independently.
The Applicant says that he has never worked in Australia, although there is some doubt about this as one of the medical reports refers to his developing problems with his hands which started “exactly 4 months ago since he started the new job.”[2] This report is dated 7 January 2015 and it certainly does not appear that the Applicant has worked since that date.
[2] Ibid at [15].
Some three years ago he was placed on Newstart Allowance and then, apparently, moved to the Disability Support Pension[3] on the basis of his mental health condition. He was also assessed as needing a full-time Carer and one has been provide for him and lives with him. He appears, from all accounts to be almost totally dependent upon this Carer who is responsible for matter such as managing his financial affairs, taking him to medical appointments and making all his domestic arrangements[4].
[3] Ibid at [8].
[4] Ibid at [10].
Details of his medical history will be discussed below.
DETAILS OF APPLICATION
The Applicant lodged an application for citizenship by conferral on 17 May 2016 and this was refused by a delegate of the Minister’s on 24 May 2018.[5] The Applicant then appealed that decision to this Tribunal on 23 July 2018. The matter was heard in the Tribunal on 15 March 2019 with the Applicant appearing by phone with the assistance of an Arabic language interpreter.
[5] Ibid at [38]-[45].
THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Claims such as this are dealt with under the provisions of s 21 of the Act which is set out below.
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007 - SECT 21
Application and eligibility for citizenship
(1) A person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
General eligibility
(2) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(a) is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and
(b) is a permanent resident:
(i) at the time the person made the application; and
(ii) at the time of the Minister's decision on the application; and
(c) satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and
(d) understands the nature of an application under subsection (1); and
(e) possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; and
(f) has an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and
(g) is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and
(h) is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.
(2A) Paragraphs (2)(d), (e) and (f) are taken to be satisfied if and only if the Minister is satisfied that the following apply:
(a) the person has sat a test approved in a determination under section 23A;
(b) the person was eligible to sit that test (worked out in accordance with that determination);
(c) the person started that test within the period worked out in accordance with that determination and completed that test within the period (the relevant test period ) worked out in accordance with that determination;
(d) the person successfully completed that test (worked out in accordance with that determination) within the relevant test period.
Permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity
(3) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(a) is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and
(b) is a permanent resident:
(i) at the time the person made the application; and
(ii) at the time of the Minister's decision on the application; and
(c) satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and
(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; and
(e) is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and
(f) is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.
In short, the system is such that:
(a)A person may make an application for citizenship and, under s 24(1) of the Act the Minister must make a decision to grant or not grant that application. The Minister is obliged to make a decision and has no power to defer such decision-making.[6]
(b)In order for an application to be granted, an applicant must satisfy all of the 8 requirements that are listed in s 21(2);
(c)Subsections (d), (e) and (f) of s 21(2) can only be satisfied if the applicant understands the nature of their application, possesses a basic knowledge of the English language and has an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship;
(d)This is established by the applicant having to undertake and pass the citizenship test established by s 21 (2A). Ministerial Determination (Instrument) 11/088 provides that: “There is no limit to the number of times a person can sit a Standard Test in order to successfully complete the test unless a person has commenced a Course-Based Test;”[7]
(e)However, if the Minister is satisfied that an applicant cannot meet the requirements of ss 21(2)(d),(e) or (f) due to having “a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity, at the time the person made the application” and is otherwise likely to reside, remain or maintain a close relationship with Australia and is of good character, then the Minister may proceed to grant the citizenship application.
[6] The Australian Citizenship Instructions state: 39.2 Deferral of decision not possible: “Under s14 and s14A of the old Act, it was possible to defer a decision on an application under certain circumstances. The new Act does not allow for the deferral of decisions.”
[7] Determination for the Approval of Citizenship Test (Section 23A) IMMI 11/088 made by the Minister on 1 March 2012, effective 24 March 2012.
More generally, the provisions of this section and its operations were outlined by Senior Member Taylor SC in Khodeir:
[2] Ordinarily a person’s eligibility for Australian citizenship depends on satisfaction that they meet each of the eight cumulative criteria set out in s 21(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007…… I paraphrase those three matters as
(a) AWARENESS: — understanding the nature of the citizenship application:
(b) ENGLISH: — possessing a basic knowledge of the English language;
(c) KNOWLEDGE: — having an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibility and privileges of Australian citizenship.
[3] As a result of recommendations of the Australian Citizenship Test Review Committee, and amendments effected first by the Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 2008 (Cth) and subsequently by the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Act 2009 (Cth), those three ordinary eligibility criteria may not apply where a citizenship applicant has a significant incapacity (either physical or mental, and either permanent or enduring). In such a case the person is eligible for citizenship if they both (i) comply with the five other ordinary eligibility criteria in ACA 2007 s 21(2) and (ii) satisfy the Minister that, because of their incapacity, when they applied for citizenship they were not capable of satisfying any one of the other three ordinary criteria (ie “awareness“, “English” and “knowledge”).[8]
[8] Atef Khodeir and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, [2015] AATA 499.
This Tribunal has set out the legislative history of section 21(3)(d) in its determination in Butrus[9] and this need not be repeated here, other than to indicate that the current form of the legislation was effected by passage of the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and Other Measures) Act 2009 and this in turn led to the adoption of policy guidelines indicating how decision-makers should approach claims made under this section.
[9] Butrus v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] AATA 239 at [25]-[30].
They are found in the Australian Citizenship Policy which states:
“For applications received on or after 9 November 2009 for consideration under s21(3) applicants must produce evidence, from a qualified medical practitioner, of a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity that means the person is not capable of:
·understanding the nature of their application
·demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language or
·demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.
To qualify, incapacity must be either permanent, or sufficiently long-term as to be enduring. An enduring incapacity is one for which there cannot be a predicted recovery, or where if there is, it is long-term and it would be unreasonable to expect the person to recover before becoming eligible for Australian citizenship. Examples may include a person suffering from long-term depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or where a person has suffered a stroke.
A temporary physical or mental condition does not meet the requirement.
……….
Applicants claiming permanent or enduring physical incapacity must provide evidence from a specialist in the field they are claiming the incapacity, following referral from their General Practitioner.
……………
Applicants claiming permanent or enduring mental incapacity may provide evidence from a:
·psychiatrist who is a fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists or
·medical practitioner who is a fellow of the Australian Society of Psychological Medicine or
·psychologist who is registered with the Psychology Board of Australia, has a practice endorsement in an area relevant to the problem, and is registered with Medicare for these purposes. Examples of psychologists who are likely to have a relevant area of practice endorsement are clinical psychologists, forensic psychologists and clinical neuropsychologists.
……………
It is anticipated that people claiming a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity will have been seeing a specialist on a regular basis.” [10]
[10] Australian Citizenship Policy at [71]-[74].
Thus, in order to meet the criteria under the Act, an applicant must have a “permanent or enduring mental incapacity” which results in an applicant not being able to understand the nature of their citizen application, acquiring basic English language competency or being able to understand the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship.
In order to demonstrate this, the applicant must, in line with the Citizenship Policy, produce evidence from a qualified medical practitioner which shows that the enduring incapacity is one for which there can be no predictable recovery, or where that recovery would not reasonably be expected to take place before the applicant becomes otherwise eligible for a grant of citizenship.
If those conditions are satisfied, then “s 21(3) operates to exempt persons who satisfy the provision from being required to pass the citizenship test.”[11]
[11] Skaf v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2016] AATA 429 at [7].
THE CITIZENSHIP TEST
This application is significantly different from those which come before the Tribunal where applicants have actually sat for, and failed, the citizenship test and then apply to the Tribunal as per the provisions of s 21(3)(d) to have the test requirement waived on the grounds of their “enduring physical or mental incapacity”.
In this instance the Applicant claims that his “enduring physical or mental incapacity” is such that he should not be required to undertake the citizenship test at first instance. This claim was made in his original citizenship application dated 16 May 2016.[12]
[12] Section 37 Tribunal Documents at [48].
In order to assess this claim it is necessary to outline the provisions and processes of the citizenship test.
Section 23A of the Act sets out details of the citizenship test. It requires those undertaking the test to be permanent residents (s 23A (4)), that the Minister make a determination about what constitutes passing the test (s 23A(2)) and the time limits within which the test must be completed (s 23A(5A)).
Passing the citizenship test is an integral requirement for the consideration of grant of citizenship. The test is designed to establish that an applicant both understands what citizenship is all about and what their application actually means. It also establishes a basic requirement in regard to competency in the English language.
There are actually several versions of the test. The Standard Test is simply computer-based. The Assisted Test is available for persons with low literacy skills and is conducted on the computer but with the assistance of a test administrator. The Course-Based Test was used for those who have failed the Standard or Assisted Test on three or more occasions and involved a detailed tuition programme.[13]
[13] The Course-Based Test is no longer offered by the Department and has not been available since mid-2017.
The Instrument to which reference has already been made provides that a score of 75% is required and this minimum threshold cannot be varied.[14] This arrangement has been in place since the Instrument was made in March 2012.
[14] Determination for the Approval of Citizenship Test (Section 23A) IMMI 11/088 at [10], [26], [43)(iii)].
THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE
The Applicant submitted several medical reports, from a variety of health practitioners, to the Tribunal. These relate both to the Applicant’s mental health and also to a physical problem with his wrist.
It is not necessary to discuss the issues with the Applicants wrist or developing arthritis. The Tribunal accepts the evidence from the consultant neurologist (Dr Ibrahim Hanna)[15] and Dr Niranjan Ganeshan (at Rayscan Imaging),[16] among others, to the effect that such conditions exit. However none of the Applicant’s reported physical conditions would preclude him from physically sitting for the test which does not require written answers, and, to that extent, they are not relevant to this application.
[15] Section 37 Tribunal Documents at [15-17], [20-22] and [24].
[16] Ibid at [19], [27], [29-33].
The matter which is relevant, relates to the Applicant’s mental health. There are three sets of reports which go to this question.
Dr Adel Zaki is the Applicant’s regular General Practitioner and has commented upon the Applicant’s mental health in a series of letters by way of referrals to other (specialist) practitioners.[17]
[17] Letters dated 15 June 2018 and 23 November 2018 are included in the Applicant’s Submissions.
Ms Sana Zaarour is a psychologist working at the Liverpool Healthcare Medical Centre. She is a Member of the Australian Psychological Society (MAPS). She has submitted reports on the Applicant’s mental health dated 11 July 2018 and 27 November 2018.[18]
[18] Respectively at Applicant’s Submission and at Section 37 tribunal Documents at [8-9].

The Respondent objects to these reports especially that of Ms Zaarour, being taken into account by the Tribunal or, in the event that they are, urges that they should be given little weight. This is because the Australian Citizenship Policy which is issued by the Department to guide decision-makers in the interpretation of the provisions of the Act states:
“Applicants claiming permanent or enduring mental incapacity may provide evidence from a
·psychiatrist who is a fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists or
·medical practitioner who is a fellow (sic) of the Australian Society of Psychological Medicine or
·psychologist who is registered with the Psychology Board of Australia, has a practice endorsement in an area relevant to the problem, and is registered with Medicare for these purposes. ….”[19]
[19] Australian Citizenship Policy (effective 1 June 2016) at [72]-[73].
In support of this proposition the Respondent states in its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (at paragraph 24):
“In regards to this last requirement, the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency’s (AHPRA) register of practitioners in relation to Ms Zaarour shows ‘none’ next to the term ‘endorsements’.”
Nevertheless the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that Ms Zaarour has, in her report concluded that the Applicant suffers from “major depression and symptoms consistent with schizophrenia”. [20] She reports that she assessed the Applicant on 5 July 2018 using a “clinical interview, Diagnostic and Statistics Manual Fifth (sic) Edition, and Depression, Anxiety Stress Scale.”
[20] Section 37 Tribunal Documents at [8].
The bulk of evidence about the Applicant’s mental health status is provided in a series of written reports from Dr Hecham Alhajali, MBBS., MD Psych, FRANZP, a consultant psychiatrist who also gave evidence to the Tribunal by telephone, at the request of the Respondent.
Dr Alhajali has been seeing the Applicant since April 2016, although his first appointment was just over a month before the Applicant lodged his citizenship application. There are reports from Dr Alhajali dated 16 April 2016, 16 June 2016, 25 July 2016, 14 October 2017 and two dated 24 November 2018.[21] The doctor’s sessions with the Applicant were conducted in Arabic although he said that the Applicant often “had very few words to say” and was largely dependent upon his Carer for support to make arrangements for the Applicant to attend interviews.
[21] Ibid at [57], [12], [10], [11] and in the Applicant’s Submission respectively.
The initial report (16 April 2016) is written specifically in support of the Applicant’s application for citizenship as are the final reports of 24 November 2018.
Dr Alhajali’s assessment of the Applicant can be summed up as follows:
·He finds that the Applicant suffers from chronic anxiety and depression, borderline intellectual disability and has an anxious personality and multiple grief issues;
·He describes the Applicant as hearing voices which cause him fear and anxiety; he suffers from insomnia, intrusive flashbacks of traumatic memories from Iraq and his refugee situation;
·He finds the Applicant to be socially isolated with a low degree of motivation, poor concentration and attention and poor memory or retention skills.
Dr Alhjali also reports that the anticipation of having to participate in the tribunal proceedings has heightened the Applicant’s level of anxiety and enhanced a degree of paranoia. He recommended that the Applicant not be required to attend the hearing and the Tribunal agreed to allow him to participate by telephone from his home.
The Tribunal sought an opinion from Dr Alhajali about the impact of the Applicant’s medication which consists of the anti-depressant Avanza (45 mg) and the anti-psychotic Latuda (40 mg). He opined that while these drugs often led to improvements in patients’ cognitive abilities this was not always the case and they could sometimes have a slightly negative effect.
Dr Alhajali addressed the specific questions of the Applicant’s ability on inability to undertake the citizenship test in April 2016 and came to a conclusion as follows:
“Mr Atiya has not been able to learn and improve his English language skills since arriving in Australia due to the effects of mental illness in addition to several other reasons including: limited cognitive abilities and poor education history, exposure to stress and inability to cope with psychosocial stressors.
I am of the opinion that, Mr Sennan Aitya has a permanent and enduring mental incapacity with cognitive deficits.
Mr Atyia is incapable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language and also incapable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of the Australian history and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.”[22]
[22] Ibid at [59].
Dr Alhajali has seen the Applicant over the course of the last three years. After the initial consultation he saw him at two to three monthly intervals after which time he came to believe that the Applicant’s position had stabilized and thereafter he saw him only on an annual basis. His report in October 2017 noted that the Applicant’s “presentation today is much better to when I last reviewed him a few months ago, improved self-care, and appeared more happy and reactive.”[23]
[23] Ibid at [11].
On 24 November 2018 Dr Alhajali addressed a report to the Department in which he concluded:
“Mr Atiya is incapable of demonstrating and or learning adequate English skills to enable him to undertake the Australian Citizenship Test. This is due to the effects of permanent mental illness on his limited cognitive abilities.
Mr Atyia is not capable of demonstrating adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. This is also due to the effects of permanent mental illness on his cognitive abilities.”[24]
[24] Applicant’s Submission.
The Respondent pressed Dr Alhajali on the extent to which his diagnosis was based on the application of any clinical testing of the Applicant. Dr Alhajali replied to the effect that his diagnosis was based on the use of a “mental state examination” and that he had not undertaken a series of detailed and structured tests. He indicated that he used tests related to simple issues of recalling a sequence of names, simple mathematical problem solving and tests of short-term memory recall.
TRIBUNAL EVIDENCE
The Tribunal was able to take evidence on the telephone from the Applicant. It was able to establish that the Applicant lived with a full-time carer upon whom he is fundamentally dependent and has been for some 3 years. The Applicant relies upon his Carer (Amer) to take him out of the house, otherwise he remains housebound and does not go out on his own. When at home he generally sits in front of the television although he cannot operate the television controls himself but relies upon his carer to set it to YouTube programmes dealing with “animals and nature.” His carer makes all his medical appointments and supervises his medication. He also apparently manages all his financial arrangements.
Although he has some family members in Sydney he apparently does not see much of any of them other than his brother-in-law with whom he appears quite close. He rarely sees his extended family of nephew and nieces. He apparently can read the Arabic newspapers although he says his ability to do so is declining.
At one stage, shortly after his arrival in Australia, he participated for six to seven months in English language classes but was unable to make much progress and had difficulty both remembering and socialising. He does remember a few elementary words or phrases in English.
It appears that a turning point in his life was the death of his father in 2013 and that his mental health has noticeably declined since that event.
It must be acknowledged that all this information was self-reported and that there were no other people, including his carer, invited to give evidence, by either party, apart from that taken from Dr Alhajali.
CONSIDERATIONS
The Applicant’s situation is one which evokes sympathy on the basis that he is a relatively young man, aged 36 years. He can expect to live for many decades into the future but it appears that that will be in a situation of social isolation and dependency. He is also suffering, apart from his mental health condition, from an increasingly disabling set of physical conditions.
In response to questions it was quite clear that the Applicant had little or no idea why he wanted to become and Australian citizen or what the benefits of citizenship might be. All he could relate to was the concept of physical security which is hardly surprising given his reported traumatic experiences in Iraq and his refugee status in Syria.
What the Tribunal has to decide is whether or not the Applicant qualifies under s. 221(3)(d) of the Act to be granted an exemption from having to undertake the Australian Citizenship Test. Is the Applicant capable of understanding the nature and meaning of his application; does he have or has the prospect of acquiring any degree of competence in the English language and does he understand the privileges and responsibilities of Australian citizenship? If he does not, then the question is, is this as a result of his having any enduring physical or mental incapacity at the time the application was made?
One issue which was not explored in the hearing was whether or not his carer could play any sort of role in helping the Applicant to learn English. The Tribunal presumes that a full-time live-in carer would be a person who, in this instance, is fluent both in Arabic and English and who is spending almost all their time with the person in question. It is unknown if this possibility of acquiring any English language skills exists or whether the degree of cognitive impairment which has been diagnosed is such as to make this an unrealistic assumption.
Despite the Respondent’s concerns about the lack of formal and programmatic testing of the Applicant by Dr Alhajali, the Tribunal has no difficulty in accepting his diagnosis of the Applicant’s current position and his prognosis for the future.
It is clear to the Tribunal that the Applicant does have an enduring mental incapacity and that this incapacity prevents him now and will prevent him in the future from being in any position to undertake the Australian Citizenship Test. In Senior Member Taylor’s formulation he has none of the awareness, English or knowledge to which the test is directed.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside on the basis that the Tribunal finds that Mr Atiya qualifies under s 21(3)(b) of the Citizenship Act to be exempted from undertaking the Australian Citizenship Test.

I certify that the preceding 58 (fifty- eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Chris Puplick AM, Senior Member

...............................[sgd].........................................
Associate
Dated: 18 March 2019

Date(s) of hearing: 15 March 2019

Applicant: By Phone

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr A Clarke, Minter Ellison

[2019] AATA 415

18 March 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Administrative Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Date(s) of hearing:	15 March 2019
Applicant:	By Phone
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr A Clarke, Minter Ellison