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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, which had been approved but subsequently cancelled by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant, Mr Cai, had failed to attend a citizenship ceremony to make the pledge of commitment within the required timeframe. The cancellation was based on the belief that the applicant was not likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was tasked with reviewing this decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, such that the cancellation of his citizenship approval was warranted under section 25 of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). If this condition was met, the Tribunal then had to consider whether the discretion to cancel the approval should be exercised. The applicant's good character and permanent resident status were not in dispute.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's history of residing in Australia since 2013, his completion of secondary and tertiary education in Australia, and his family ties to Australia, including permanent resident parents and citizen siblings. Despite the applicant's stated intention to reside in Australia and his preference for living there, he had been overseas since October 2020 due to COVID-19 travel restrictions and other personal circumstances. The Tribunal applied the principles from *Re Ho* and *Al-Khalidi*, which emphasise the need for an applicant to be likely to reside in Australia immediately or very soon after being granted citizenship, and to "reality-test" the evidence of intention. While acknowledging the applicant had not yet returned to Australia, the Tribunal found that he should be given an opportunity to do so to make the pledge of commitment.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the reviewable decision to cancel the applicant's citizenship approval and remitted the matter to the Respondent. The direction was that the applicant be afforded an opportunity to attend an in-person citizenship ceremony.