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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by Alaa Hammad. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs refused the application, determining that Ms Hammad did not meet the residence requirement. Ms Hammad sought review of this decision, arguing that she maintained a close and continuing association with Australia, which would permit the exercise of discretion under subsection 22(9) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth) to treat periods of absence as periods of presence in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Hammad had a close and continuing association with Australia, such that the discretion in subsection 22(9) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* could be exercised in her favour. This required consideration of the general residence requirement under section 22 of the Act, which mandates a period of presence in Australia for four years immediately preceding the application, including 12 months as a permanent resident. Ms Hammad did not meet this general residence requirement due to her limited physical presence in Australia, having been in the country for only 17 days in total.

The Tribunal considered that while a lack of physical presence did not automatically preclude a finding of a close and continuing association with Australia, it was a significant factor. Ms Hammad's connection to Australia was primarily through her Australian citizen spouse and children, and significant assets held in Australia, such as property, shares, and bank accounts. However, her involvement with the broader Australian community was limited, and she maintained ongoing employment in Qatar. The Tribunal concluded that, when considering the totality of the evidence, Ms Hammad did not demonstrate a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Ms Hammad did not meet the prerequisite for the exercise of the discretion under subsection 22(9) of the Act. The decision under review was therefore affirmed.