[2014] AATA 435
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2013/6333
Re
Cheryl Tongia
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Dr P McDermott RFD, Senior Member
Date 2 July 2014 Place Brisbane The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
............................Sgd.........................................
Dr P McDermott RFD, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea – Independence Day and automatic citizenship – Cessation of Australian citizenship – Application for resumption of Australian citizenship – Cessation outside legislative scope – Applicant ineligible for resumption – Decision affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea s 65
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) ss 5, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 23
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) ss 3, 21, 29, 30(1A), 33, 36
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Nationality and Citizenship Act 1955 (Cth)
Papua New Guinea Independence (Australian Citizenship) Regulations 1975 (Cth) reg 4Papua New Guinea Independence (Australian Citizenship of Young Persons) Regulations 1980 (Cth) reg 2
CASES
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; ex Parte Ame (2005) 222 CLR 439
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Walsh (2002) 125 FCR 31
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr P McDermott RFD, Senior Member
2 July 2014
INTRODUCTION
Cheryl Tongia (the applicant), has previously held Australian citizenship, and has made an application to become an Australian citizen again. On 18 November 2013, the applicant was advised that her application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The applicant now seeks a review of that decision by this Tribunal. I thank the applicant for her courtesy to this Tribunal by attending the hearing of this application.
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP OF APPLICANT AT BIRTH
In 1966 the applicant was born in Port Moresby in what was then the Territory of Papua. Upon her birth she became an Australian citizen because s 10(1) of the
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) provided that a person born in Australia after the commencement of that Act became an Australian citizen by birth. When she was born, the Territory of Papua was part of Australia. This is because s 5 of the
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth) then provided that “‘Australia’ includes the Territories of the Commonwealth that are not trust territories”. Papua was not a trust territory.The exceptions in s 10(2) of that Act have no application to the applicant.
EFFECT OF INDEPENDENCE
The Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, in s 65(1), provides that a person born in the country before Independence Day (16 September 1975) who had two grandparents who were born in the country or an adjacent area gained automatic citizenship of the new State of Papua New Guinea. The applicant has confirmed that she has at least two grandparents who were born in the country.
Section 65(1) of the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, is, by
s 65(4) of that Constitution, expressed not to apply to…
Continue reading Cheryl Tongia and Minister for Immigration and Border Protec...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Cheryl Tongia and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 435
- Case
- [2014] AATA 435
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, including section 24, which deals with the cessation of Australian citizenship. It was established that Ms. Tongia's Australian citizenship ceased due to the automatic acquisition of Papua New Guinean citizenship on Independence Day, as per the Papua New Guinea Citizenship Act. The court also considered relevant case law, including the High Court's decision in Teoh, which sets out the scope of legislative power in relation to citizenship. The court concluded that the cessation of Ms. Tongia's Australian citizenship was not outside the scope of the legislative power, and therefore, she did not qualify for the resumption of Australian citizenship.
Having found that the Minister's decision was not erroneous, the court affirmed the decision under review. The applicant's application for the resumption of Australian citizenship was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.