Diing and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, which was refused by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant sought review of this decision before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The core of the dispute was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of sections 21(2)(d), (e), and (f) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth), which relate to the knowledge requirements for citizenship.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had met the mandatory knowledge requirements for citizenship, specifically by successfully completing the citizenship test, and whether the applicant's reasons for failing to attend the scheduled test appointments were relevant to this determination. The Tribunal was required to consider the unambiguous wording of section 21(2A) of the Act, which states that these knowledge requirements are satisfied "if and only if" the applicant has sat and successfully completed the citizenship test.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to attend two scheduled appointments to sit the citizenship test, despite receiving invitations via her nominated email address. While the Tribunal accepted that the applicant experienced difficulties in accessing her emails and attending the appointments due to various personal circumstances, it found that these reasons did not permit any discretion to consider her circumstances or excuses for non-attendance. The Tribunal applied the principle established in *Jaber and Minister for Home Affairs* that section 21(2A) is unambiguous and leaves no room for the Tribunal to consider factors other than the successful completion of the test itself. Consequently, as the applicant had not sat the test, she could not satisfy the mandatory knowledge requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the application for citizenship. The applicant was advised that she was not precluded from making future applications and could continue to enjoy the rights associated with her permanent resident status in the interim.