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

This matter concerned an application for citizenship by conferral by Mr Chimnani, who was aged 16 years and 10 months at the time of the delegate's decision. The applicant met the general criteria for citizenship but the delegate exercised a discretion to refuse the application. The applicant argued that he had a close and continuing association with Australia and that refusal would cause him significant hardship, disadvantage, or detriment, and that his best interests were not adequately considered. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether it was appropriate to exercise the discretion under section 24(2) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth) to refuse to approve the applicant becoming an Australian citizen.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, which indicated he was studying Data Sciences at Pennsylvania State University in the United States, having commenced in August 2021. Prior to this, he lived in India. His visit to Australia in August 2019 was brief, lasting only three to four days. He maintained contact with friends in Brisbane via social media. The applicant planned to participate in an exchange program in Australia in his third year of university and intended to visit his father and partner in Melbourne during university breaks. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was a permanent resident and satisfied the requirements of section 21(5) of the Act.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in its Citizenship Policy Instructions (CPIs), specifically CPI 13 regarding the best interests of a child and CPI 12 concerning the assessment of significant hardship, disadvantage, or detriment. While the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was referenced, the Tribunal found that general entitlements to public education, health, and social welfare were typically not an issue for permanent residents applying for citizenship. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated significant hardship, disadvantage, or detriment that would warrant overriding the delegate's decision.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the application for citizenship by conferral. The Tribunal encouraged the applicant to make a further application at a time when he would be eligible under the Act, noting that he would not be restricted from visiting, studying, or living in Australia in the future.