Hamdan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by Mr Hamdan, who sought to challenge a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT had affirmed a decision to refuse Mr Hamdan's citizenship application, finding that he had not met the eligibility requirements. The dispute centred on Mr Hamdan's repeated failure to pass the Australian citizenship test.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Hamdan satisfied the requirements of paragraphs 21(2)(d), (e), and (f) of the relevant Act, which stipulate that these requirements are met "if and only if" the applicant has successfully completed the citizenship test. Mr Hamdan presented evidence of his struggles with the test, including multiple failed attempts and a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with generalised anxiety, which he argued affected his cognitive ability during examinations. He also highlighted his limited prior education and difficulties attending English language tuition.

The Tribunal determined that the wording of subsection 21(2A) of the Act was unambiguous, mandating that the citizenship test must be successfully completed for the specified paragraphs to be satisfied. Consequently, the Tribunal held that it had no discretion to consider Mr Hamdan's personal circumstances or reasons for failing the test. The Tribunal also referred to a previous decision which clarified that while an applicant may re-sit the standard test multiple times while an application is pending, this does not confer a "right" to an unlimited number of attempts or prevent a decision being made based on the results obtained.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Mr Hamdan had been afforded four opportunities to sit the citizenship test between November 2016 and October 2017, but had failed to successfully complete it on each occasion. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Hamdan did not meet the general eligibility requirements for Australian citizenship, and affirmed the decision under review.