Chippa and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship)
[2025] ARTA 823
•26 June 2025
Chippa and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 823 (26 June 2025)
Applicant/s: Venu Madhav Chippa
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2024/2571
Tribunal:General Member S. Fenwick
Place:Melbourne
Date:26 June 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits it for reconsideration in accordance with the finding that the Applicant is likely to continue to reside in Australia.
...............................[SGD].........................................
General Member S. Fenwick
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – whether applicant likely to reside or to continue to reside in Australia – whether the applicant likely to maintain close and continuing relationship with Australia – where applicant spent substantial time overseas – decision set aside and remitted
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Secondary Materials
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 1 – Citizenship by Conferral – General Eligibility
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 11 – Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND
Mr Chippa applied on 17 April 2024 for review of the decision of a delegate of the Respondent Minister, dated 19 March 2024, to refuse the grant of Australian citizenship by conferral. The application was lodged one day outside the statutory time limit for making applications for review.
For reasons that remain unclear, Mr Chippa’s application was subject to multiple events and also to Directions made by the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Ultimately, in November 2024, the Applicant lodged a request for extension of time which was listed to be heard before me in March 2025. The extension was granted. Mr Chippa was overseas at this time, but he returned in May 2025.
The Applicant first arrived in Australia in mid-2016, aged 29, and is presently aged 38. Mr Chippa was originally granted a form of permanent residency visa for skilled workers, and in 2020 was granted a five-year resident return visa. Just over one month later, in November 2020, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral. At that time, Mr Chippa intended to return to India for a period of three months, and – ultimately – he went on to spend over 1,000 days there between 2020 and April 2024. He has spent other periods overseas during his time in Australia.
Mr Chippa represented himself before the Tribunal and lodged a bundle of documents in March 2025 (AB1), a letter in April 2025, and a bundle of documents in June 2025, shortly after the hearing (AB2). I invited the submission of additional evidence after the hearing due to Mr Chippa’s continuing desire to explain his circumstances.
The Respondent lodged documents under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), and a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC), with several annexures.
In his April 2025 letter, Mr Chippa states that until reading the RSFIC, he was not aware of the complexity of the arguments in his matter. He explains that he has invested his energy and resources to become a citizen, at the eventual cost to his Indian citizenship. Mr Chippa considered the Respondent had overemphasised the ‘Covid effect’ in his case.
The decision under review (T3) demonstrates that Mr Chippa was asked in late 2023 to provide further information about his circumstances (T6). This request was indeed prompted by the Applicant’s absence from Australia from late 2020. This was said to raise questions about his capacity to meet the statutory test in s 21(2)(g) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act). This provision requires the Minister to be satisfied that an applicant is likely to reside, or continue to reside in Australia, or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
Mr Chippa responded to this request with further information, largely explaining his absence from Australia which appears to have been in some important degree a result of the pandemic (T7). At that time, and in his submission of material since, the Applicant has sought to elaborate on this various concrete connections with Australia, and the material lodged extends to many pages of relevant documents.
LEGISLATION
I have summarised above the provision of the Act at the centre of this matter, s 21(2)(g) of the Act. The provision forms part of the general eligibility requirements, and I note that Mr Chippa has been found to satisfy the general residence requirement (which takes account of overseas absences in the years prior to an application for citizenship).
There are a series of departmental policy guidelines known as the Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPI) that are commonly relied upon in decision-making. The Tribunal may rely upon these to the extent they are consistent with the legislation, and it is considered good practice, particularly in high volume areas of government administration, to take account of such policy.
CPI 1 addresses matters arising under the general eligibility provision. It notes, accurately, that s 21(2)(g) of the Act is comprised of two elements, and that an applicant may satisfy either in order to meet this leg of eligibility.
CPI 11 is dedicated entirely to considerations relevant to the likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing associate with, Australia. The policy was updated in late 2024, and the relevant version is provided with the RSFIC [18] (Attachment C). CPI 11 proposes that the words in s 21(2)(g) of the Act carry their ordinary meaning, and that ‘likely’ should be interpreted as indicating a probability (rather than a possibility) [3.4]-[3.5]. It goes on to suggest that past international movements of an applicant might require further investigation. ‘Reside’ is described as to dwell permanently or for a considerable period of time, in the sense of a person’s home in which they ordinarily live.
CPI 11 sets out a series of factors that may be relevant when assessing whether s 21(2)(g) of the Act is satisfied in a particular case, with proposed criteria or indicators provided [3.6]. These are, relevantly:
(a)pre-existing connection with Australia;
(b)employment status;
(c)financial links;
(d)overseas employment or business;
(e)family relationships;
(f)return travel to, and periods of residence in, Australia;
(g)primary residence and migration status in foreign country; and
(h)intention to reside.
ISSUES
The sole issue to be determined is whether Mr Chippa satisfies either of the two elements of s 21(2)(g) of the Act being, likelihood to reside or to continue to reside in Australia, or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
EVIDENCE
At the hearing, Mr Chippa explained that he came to Australia with a background in architecture. Having trained in the United Kingdom, the Applicant wished to have further international exposure. He stated that after applying to several business, went on to work with a well-known architectural firm (which he named) for four years, in their public infrastructure division. This ended due to redundancy arising from the pandemic.
Mr Chippa also described several contracts he had worked on in the past year as a contractor for a labour hire agency in the architecture field. He stated that he is continuing to look for a permanent position. He stated that during his time in India he undertook a course of study in project management. Mr Chippa also explained he is not permitted to work on Australian projects when residing in India and I understood him to say that he had also undertaken some professional work in India.
Upon his return in 2025, the Applicant took up residence again in an outer suburban location. He stated that he expects to have his name on the lease at this property in September 2025. Mr Chippa stated that he had taken over the place of another gentleman who moved interstate.
Mr Chippa confirmed that he settled on a property purchase in India in 2023. This transaction, he stated, commenced some two-to-three years prior. The property is for his parents, but he lives there when travelling home. It was put to the Applicant that he merely aspires to live in Australia and therefore cannot meet the test of being likely to continue to reside. Mr Chippa responded that ‘the reality is, I am here’ and he does not wish to ‘do something stupid’ (by which I understood him to mean costly) to provide the kind of documentary proof that the Respondent appeared to require. He cannot, he said, buy a house for the sake of citizenship. Mr Chippa stated, further, that he has equity in his property in India, which he plans to bring to Australia, and that he has made transfers from his Australian accounts to cover loan expenses in India.
By way of further background, in response to questions from myself, Mr Chippa stated that his parents are both around 60 and still working. He has a sister in the same city in which they reside and she does not provide ongoing care of support for their parents. Mr Chippa explained that at present he derives income from being an Uber driver. He confirmed in evidence he has had periods on social security.
Documentary evidence
With respect to his employment, Mr Chippa has provided evidence concerning his registration as an architect. This includes a certificate, downloaded in late 2023, that he is a non-practising architect (T7(f)), and what appears to be an application to return to practising status (T2(c)). I note that publicly available sources confirm his original registration on 28 May 2019. He provided photographs apparently of participation in professional events.
Mr Chippa lodged documents (AB1) confirming an eight week assignment between July and September 2024 to work for a local architecture and design business.
The following financial material has been provided by Mr Chippa:
(a)superannuation balance as at April 2024 (T2);
(b)two local bank statements as at May 2025, with nominal balances (AB1);
(c)a transaction statement from one of these accounts indicating debits for architects registration, rent transfer to leaseholder, and a Jobseeker payment deposit (AB1); and
(d)a transaction statement for the other account indicating credits for Uber work, and debits for funds transfers to himself (AB2).
In addition to the transfer for rent indicated above, evidence of a recent payment to the leaseholder at Mr Chippa’s residence was provided (AB2). The Applicant also provided personal email correspondence from May 2025 that appears to demonstrate a request from the leaseholder to the landlord to add a housemate to the lease (AB2). A Statutory Declaration dated in late 2024 from the leaseholder confirms that Mr Chippa is a resident (AB1).
Mr Chippa also provided two signed character references from friends who state that they have known him for seven and eight years, respectively (AB2).
The Applicant’s international movements are summarised in the RSFIC [3] (and Annexure A). They comprise seven relatively brief outbound trips between 2017 and 2020, as well as a period of around two months in 2025. As noted, Mr Chippa spent nearly 1,200 days offshore between late 2020 and April 2024.
Finally, I note material demonstrating Mr Chippa’s ownership of an apartment in India effective mid-2023 ((T7(b)), and indicating that his parents are residents there (AB1), and he has stated previously the property is intended for his parents (T7(a)).
CONSIDERATION
The focus of inquiry in this matter has changed somewhat over time given that Mr Chippa returned to Australia during the course of the review. Accordingly, some of the material he has provided (both to the agency and to the Tribunal) has dealt with his residence in India including further studies there. This appears to have been directed at explaining or justifying his absence from Australia.
Accordingly, it was acknowledged by the Respondent at the hearing that it may have become less difficult for the Applicant to satisfy the first element of s 21(2)(g) of the Act. That said, the Respondent contended that evidence provided of Mr Chippa’s residence in Australia is sparse. It was also contended that Mr Chippa lacks evidence of more permanent professional employment. The Applicant had provided at the time of the hearing limited material supporting relationships outside his housemates. Equally, the Respondent noted the limited evidence of financial commitments in Australia, and limited weight should be placed on the assets he has here.
In addition, I note these written submissions: a continuing association does not require an applicant to maintain a permanent presence in Australia; his professional registration should not be taken as evidence of participation in the community; and, other than statements to this effect, Mr Chippa had provided limited evidence of social ties prior to the hearing.
I accept that at the time the original decision was made, there may have been some uncertainty about Mr Chippa’s intentions. The foundation for this was his substantial period offshore, and it is evident this was not solely due to the pandemic. I understand him to have explained, with support from documents, that the purchase of an apartment took longer than expected. That said, Mr Chippa did not return to Australia until more than two years following the reopening of our borders.
I have limited insight into Mr Chippa’s professional career in Australia prior to what he says was redundancy, but I acknowledge the photographic evidence lodged by him in this matter. There has been no attempt to challenge his professional status or work record, other than the Respondent’s submissions, which I accept, as to the lack of regular employment now and into the future.
Mr Chippa has also provided what appear to be reasonable explanations for his limited documentation in respect of residence and finances in general. I accept his statements about the need to transfer funds overseas and the plans, such as they are, to be included on a residential lease in the future. I also accept that following the hearing, the Applicant provided further evidence of relationships in Australia, and I have no reason not to accept these on their face.
There is some merit, I consider, in the general thrust of Mr Chippa’s argument that he has invested substantial time in Australia, and – at least at the time of the hearing – had in fact returned. However, taking the first element of the provision, I must still be satisfied that as at the time of my decision on review, Mr Chippa is likely to continue to reside in Australia, given that I accept the evidence indicates he does now reside here.
I consider that on the evidence overall, despite the scant quality of the evidence of residence and the absence of regular employment, Mr Chippa does appear likely to continue to reside in Australia. That is, there is no evidence on the materials or that emerged at the hearing, to indicate a reason for the Applicant to return to India. His travel history indicates regular relatively brief return trips, but the conditions that I understand underpinned his lengthy stay no longer pertain.
A key inference in the Respondent’s arguments is that Mr Chippa has established a permanent residence in India. The longer view of this matter indicates a commitment to live and work in Australia. Despite the Applicant having a comparatively light footprint in Australia, I am satisfied that the first limb of s 21(2)(g) of the Act is satisfied.
DECISION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits it for reconsideration in accordance with the finding that the Applicant is likely to continue to reside in Australia.
Date(s) of hearing: 2 June 2025 Applicant: Self-represented Solicitors for the Respondent: Mills Oakley
0
0
0