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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by a person under the age of 18. The applicant and her family had been permanent residents of Australia since 2013 and had resided in Australia for most of the applicant's formative years, attending Australian schools. The applicant's father, an Australian citizen, had not applied for citizenship himself due to concerns about dual citizenship recognition in China. The applicant's application was considered while she and her family were temporarily overseas in Hong Kong, a stay that was extended due to unforeseen COVID-19 restrictions and subsequent career and financial challenges. The Minister had refused the application, and the applicant sought review of this decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Minister's discretion to refuse the applicant's citizenship application under subsection 24(2) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth) had been exercised appropriately. This required the Tribunal to consider whether the applicant was a "usual resident" of Australia at the time of her application, and more broadly, whether granting citizenship was in the best interests of the child, taking into account her ties to Australia, her views, and her integration into Australian society. The Tribunal also had to consider the guidance provided by the Citizenship Policy and Citizenship Procedural Instructions, while recognising that these were not binding and could be departed from for cogent reasons consistent with the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a usual resident of Australia at the time of her application, and that her extended stay in Hong Kong was due to exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had fully integrated into the Australian community from a young age, identifying as Australian and having a strong sense of belonging. The applicant's written statement detailed her experiences of Australian culture, history, and education, and her desire to preserve her identity. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant possessed sufficient maturity to understand the significance of Australian citizenship and that it was in her best interests to be granted citizenship.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Minister's decision to refuse the application. In substitution, the Tribunal found that the discretion under subsection 24(2) of the Act to refuse the applicant becoming an Australian citizen should not be exercised. As the applicant satisfied subsection 21(5) of the Act, the Tribunal ordered that she be granted Australian citizenship.