Harjani and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) - [2019] AATA 4970

Harjani and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 4970 (26 November 2019)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2018/4492
Re:Jitendra Harjani
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Linda Kirk
Date:26 November 2019
Place:Sydney

The Reviewable Decision is affirmed.
.............[sgd]...........................................................
Senior Member Linda Kirk
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – approval of citizenship cancelled under section 25 of the Australian Citizenship Act – Canadian citizen – Applicant working in Canada – whether the Applicant likely to reside in Australia or continue to reside in Australia – Applicant has been absent from Australia for 18 months – whether the Applicant likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia – employment and professional undertakings – family ties – living arrangements and assets – community participation – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth)
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth)
CASES
Bates and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2015] AATA 492
Chang and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 14
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Ho and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1994] 34 ALD 664
Patel and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 108
Ul Haque and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 118
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Australian Citizenship Policy, 1 June 2016
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Citizenship Procedural Instructions, 17 April 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Linda Kirk
26 November 2019
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW APPLICATION

Dr Jitendra Harjani (‘the Applicant’), a citizen of Canada, first arrived in Australia on 1 March 2007 on a temporary Work Skilled (Subclass 457) visa.[1] He was granted a permanent Nominated Skilled (Subclass 190) visa on 12 July 2016.[2]
[1] Exhibit R1, T2, p 12.
[2] Ibid.
On 26 July 2017, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral under s 21 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’).[3] On 22 March 2018, the Applicant sat the citizenship test and his application was approved on the same day.[4]
[3] Exhibit R1, T12, pp 259-289.
[4] Exhibit R1, T2, p 13.
By letter dated 20 April 2018, the Applicant contacted the Minister’s department (‘the Department’) requesting an expedited citizenship ceremony due to an employment opportunity in Canada.[5] He included a copy of a letter of offer from Paraza Pharma Inc. which stated his employment commencement date is 14 May 2018 with employment being for a period of one year with the possibility of the position becoming permanent.[6]
[5] Exhibit R1, T7, p 234.
[6] Exhibit R1, T7, p 235.
On 24 April 2018, the Department emailed the Applicant a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of Citizenship Approval (‘NOICC’) on the basis that the Applicant may no longer be likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.[7] On 30 April 2018, the Applicant contacted the Department by telephone to discuss the NOICC. By letter dated 14 May 2018, the Applicant made submissions to the Department on the NOICC and made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) to access his citizenship interview transcripts.[8]
[7] Exhibit R1, T6, pp 229-233.
[8] Exhibit R1, T4, pp 36-42.
On 18 May 2018 the Applicant departed Australia.[9] On 22 June 2018, the Applicant emailed the Department and updated his residential address to a Canadian address.[10]
[9] Exhibit R1, T2, p 14.
[10] Ibid.
On 12 July 2018, a delegate of the Minister decided to cancel the approval of the Applicant’s citizenship under s 25(2) of the Act on the basis that the Applicant was not likely to reside, or continue to reside, in Australia, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia (‘the Reviewable Decision’).[11]
[11] Exhibit R1, T2, pp 4-17.
On 7 August 2018 the Applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) for review of the Reviewable Decision.[12]
[12] Exhibit R1, T1, pp 1-3.
The matter was heard in Sydney on 23 July 2019. The Applicant appeared before the Tribunal by telephone from Canada.
LEGISLATIVE REGIME
Subsection 21(2)(g) of the Act provides:
(2)A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
…
(g)is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved.
Section 24 of the Act provides:
Minister's decision
(1) If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Note: The Minister may cancel an approval: see section 25.
(1A) The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
Section 25 of the Act provides:
Minister may cancel approval
(1)The Minister may, by writing, cancel an approval given to a person under section 24 if:
(a) the person has not become an Australian citizen under section 28; and
(b) either of the following 2 situations apply.
Eligibility criteria not met
(2) The first situation applies if:
(a) the person is covered by subsection 21(2), (3) or (4); and
(b) the Minister is satisfied that, at the time the Minister proposes to cancel the approval, the person is:
(i) not a permanent resident; or
(ii) not likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia; or
(iii) not of good character.
…..
Effect of cancellation
(5) If the Minister cancels an approval given to a person, the approval is taken never to have been given.
The effect of subsection 25(1)(a) and (2)(b)(ii) of the Act is that the Minister may, by writing, cancel an approval given to a person under section 24 if the person has not become an Australian citizen under section 28 and the Minister is satisfied that, at the time the Minister proposes to cancel the approval, the person is not likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. Under subsection 25(5) of the Act, the effect of the cancellation is such that approval is taken never to have been given.
Citizenship Policy
The Australian Citizenship Policy (‘the Policy’) provides guidance on whether a person is likely to reside, or continue to reside in Australia. The Policy states at page 70:
… the decision maker may cancel the person’s approval under s 25 if the person is, among other criteria, not likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
The application (Forms 1300t and 1290) contains a declaration which refers to an intention to reside, or continuing intention to reside, in Australia, or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. This declaration would generally be sufficient evidence of the applicant’s intentions unless there is information to the contrary.[13]
…
If a person indicates that they intend to leave Australia or remain overseas for an indeterminate period, officers must consider whether they have a close and continuing relationship...[14]
[13] Exhibit R1, T14, p 322.
[14] Ibid.
The Policy further states at pages 70 – 71:
Factors that may contribute to a close and continuing association with Australia include:
·Australian citizen spouse or de facto partner
·Australian citizen children
·Length of relationship with Australian citizen spouse or de facto partner
·Extended family in Australia
·Return visits to Australia
·Periods of residence in Australia
·Intention to reside in Australia
·Employment in Australia (for example, public or private sector)
·Ownership of property in Australia and
·Evidence of income tax payment in Australia[15]
[15] Ibid, pp 322-323.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The issues for consideration by the Tribunal are whether it is satisfied that the Applicant is likely to:
(a)reside, or continue to reside, in Australia; or
(b)maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
In his submissions to the Department on the NOICC dated 14 May 2018, the Applicant referred to the following as demonstrating his strong ties to Australia:[16]
1.Professional ties, peer group association and professional collaboration;
2.Cultural ties through his association with Sri Guru Nanak Satsang Sabha, Blackburn, Victoria;
3.Personal ties, with significant financial assets in his superannuation fund;
4.Periodic return for work and travel in Australia;
5.Paying income taxes in Australia;
6.Maintaining close ties with his extended family in Australia.[17]
[16] Exhibit R1, T4, pp 36-42.
[17] Exhibit A1, p 1.
In his evidence at the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant confirmed that he is a currently a citizen of Canada and was granted citizenship in March 2014.[18] He currently resides in Canada and lives in rental accommodation close to where he works in Toronto. He is a part owner with his spouse of two residential properties in the city of Halifax, Nova Scotia. One of these is the primary residence of his spouse and the other is a set of flats which earns a rental income.[19]
[18] Exhibit R1, T8, p 243.
[19] Applicant’s submission dated 5 August 2019, p 1; Transcript p10.
The Applicant’s Canadian citizen spouse resides in Canada. The Applicant provided a certificate of domestic partnership from Nova Scotia which was registered on 19 September 2008.[20] The Applicant and his partner have a joint bank account with iNova Credit Union in Halifax, Canada.[21] They have been in a relationship since 2005 and they support each other personally and professionally.[22] His spouse is not a permanent resident of Australia.[23] His spouse is retired and suffers from a number of illnesses.[24] The Applicant provides occasional care to his spouse and also supervises those who care for him on a regular basis.[25] He does not provide financial support to his spouse who is financially independent.[26] They currently live 1,788 kilometers apart but travel back and forth between their respective residences whenever possible.[27]
[20] Exhibit A1, p 229.
[21] Ibid, p 230.
[22] Ibid, p 10.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Transcript p 11; Applicant’s submission 5 August 2019, p 1.
[25] Transcript p 12.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Applicant’s submission 5 August 2019, p 1.
The Applicant confirmed that he departed Australia on 18 May 2018 and has not since returned to Australia.[28]
[28] Transcript p 10.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he was employed in Australia for approximately seven years. He had two periods of employment in Australia, the first for an 18 month period in 2007-08 and then he returned in 2012 and stayed for six years. In the intervening periods he was employed in different parts of Canada.
The Applicant confirmed that he had a one year contract with Paraza Pharma Inc. in Montreal commencing on 14 May 2018.[29] He told the Tribunal that this contract came to an end and was not renewed.[30] He is currently employed with Toronto Research Chemicals, a research organisation in Toronto.[31] He commenced work in this ongoing position on 29 April 2019.[32] His employment is the subject of two three monthly probation reviews.[33]
[29] Transcript p 13; Exhibit R1, T7, p 235.
[30] Transcript p 13.
[31] Transcript p 13.
[32] Transcript p 14.
[33] Ibid.
The Applicant told the Tribunal he has looked for permanent employment in Australia in the past and is still looking.[34] He submitted a number of applications for positions between September 2017 and March 2018 but he was not successful.[35] He also has been speaking to friends in Melbourne about whether there are any positions available within their network.[36]
[34] Ibid.
[35] Transcript p 17; Exhibit A1, pp 6-8.
[36] Transcript p 17; Letter from Dr Nghi Nguyen.
The Applicant was questioned about a collaboration between him and Professor Jonathon Baell to write an academic paper.[37] The Applicant told the Tribunal this collaboration is continuing and he continues to mentor two research students.[38] These are unpaid roles and are ongoing as neither student has yet graduated.[39]
[37] Transcript p 15; Exhibit R1, T4, p 53; Exhibit A1, pp 13-14.
[38] Transcript pp 16-17; Exhibit A1, p 12.
[39] Transcript pp 15-16.
In his written claims, the Applicant stated that he has a maternal first cousin, Sapna Panjawni, who lives in Australia and they have been supportive of each other for many years.[40] He told the Tribunal that his cousin has now been granted permanent residence.[41]
[40] Exhibit A1, pp 11-12; T4, p 52.
[41] Transcript pp 23-24; Letter from Sapna Panjwani dated 23 July 2019.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he currently has approximately $105,000 in his Australian superannuation fund, which he considers to be a significant asset that demonstrates his ties to Australia.[42]
[42] Transcript p 25; Superannuation statements dated July and December 2018.
In his written claims, the Applicant also referred to a letter from Jang Pannu at Sri Guru Nanak Satsang Sabha, Blackburn, Victoria that states the Applicant is a member of the congregation and helps in events organised by it.[43] He stated that he is confident that his short term absence from Australia will not diminish his commitment to the cultural and faith community in Sri Guru Nanak Satsang Sabha.[44]
[43] Exhibit R1, T4, p 51.
[44] Exhibit A1, pp 14-15.
Following the hearing, the Applicant submitted the following documents:
·Letter dated 24 July 2019 from Dr Aaron DeBono, Senior Researcher, Monash University;
·Undated letter from Dr Nghi Nguyen, Research Officer, ACRF Chemical Biology Division – Medicinal Chemistry Group, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Bundoora;
·Letter dated 25 July 2019 from Amanpreet Kaur, doctoral student Monash University;
·Letter dated 25 July 2019 from Nicole McNamara, PhD candidate;
·Letter dated 23 July 2019 from Sapna Panjwani;
·Letter dated 28 February 2019 from Brigitte MacKay, Human Resources and Talent Manager, Paraza Pharma Inc. confirming Applicant’s contract not renewed and last day of work Friday 17 May 2019;
·Superannuation statement from the period of January to June 2018 showing a balance of $95,617.78;
·Superannuation statement from the period of July to December 2018 showing a balance of $96,497.02; and
·Applicant’s submissions dated 5 August 2019.
The Respondent provided further submissions in writing on 20 August 2019.
CONSIDERATION AND REASONS
(a)Is the Applicant ‘likely to reside, or continue to reside, in Australia’?
The Tribunal has examined the phrase ‘likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia’ in previous decisions, which establish that a state of satisfaction will be reached where the person gives evidence that she or he will reside in Australia soon after becoming a citizen.
In Ho and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 664 (‘Ho’) Deputy President McMahon examined these words as they appeared in subsection 13(1)(j) of the now repealed Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (Cth). He said at [31]:
It can not mean "likely to take up residence in 18 months or 2 years time" or "likely to reside some time in the indefinite future if economic conditions permit and if a suitable job can be found". The juxtaposition of the phrase with the opening phrase of the paragraph, indicates that the Minister must be satisfied that the Applicant is likely to reside in Australia immediately, or very soon after, being granted a certificate of Australian citizenship.
This approach to the meaning of the phrase adopted in Ho has been followed in subsequent decisions of the Tribunal. In Chang and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 14, Senior Member Ettinger said at [57]-[59]:
I am mindful that in Re Shen and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] AATA 906, at [23], the Tribunal stated that:
“The expression 'likely to reside', in the context of the 1948 Act has been held to mean 'likely to reside in Australia immediately, or very soon after being granted a certificate of Australian citizenship': Re Ho and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1994] 34 ALD 664 at [31] as applied in Taechaubol and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] AAT 425 at [153] and in Alavian and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] AATA 421 at [28] and [29].
Mr Galloway submitted that Shen was concerned with a different factual situation because he was an academic, and that Ms Chang worked off shore for the benefit of Australia, and that this should be recognised.
I have considered the submissions of both parties, and the evidence Ms Chang has given regarding her intentions to move to Australia with her children (one as yet unborn), in a few years time, and that she has not yet decided whether it would be to Sydney or to Adelaide. I am satisfied that does not signify as indicated in Re Ho and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 664, an intention to reside immediately or very soon after being granted a certificate of Australian citizenship.
The evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant would like to find employment in Australia and he is speaking to friends about any opportunities of which they may be aware. There is however no evidence that the Applicant is actively seeking employment in Australia, for example, details of applications he has made for positions since he departed Australia in May 2018. In his written claims dated 7 August 2018, the Applicant stated that he left Australia to take up a one year temporary work assigment in Canada, being the 12 month employment contract he had at Paraza Pharma Inc. in Montreal. However when this contract ended in May 2019, the Applicant immediately commenced another role as an ongoing employee at a research organisation in Toronto. Although his ongoing employment in this role is subject to him satisfying the probationary requirements, there is no indication that the Applicant will not continue in this role if opportunity permits. The Applicant has no plans to return to Australia to live permanently at any time in the immediate or near future.
The Applicant’s spouse resides in Canada and they are in a long-term committed relationship. While they do not live together, they travel between each other’s residences as often as they can. The Applicant and his spouse jointly own two residential properties, one of which provides them with ongoing rental income. The Applicant currently lives in a rental accommodation close to where he works in Toronto. He does not own any real or other property in Australia. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the Applicant’s most recent stay in Canada, which is now for a period of 18 months, is intended to be temporary.
Having regard to the relevant authorities, the Policy and the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is likely to reside in Australia immediately, or very soon after, being granted a certificate of Australian citizenship.
(b)Is the Applicant likely to ‘maintain a close and continuing association with Australia’?

The Tribunal has previously considered the meaning of this phrase in a number of its decisions. In Ul Haque and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 118 Senior Member Britton stated at [45]:
[t]he words that make up the phrase “close and continuing association” are ordinary English words and should be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear. The Australian Oxford Dictionary defines “close” as “having a strong or immediate relation or connection”, “continuing” as meaning “to remain in existence or unchanged” and association as “the act or an instance of associating; fellowship or companionship”. The Macquarie Dictionary offers similar definitions, defining “close” as “near, or near together, in space, time, or relation”, “continuing” as “to last or endure” and “association” as “the act of associating … connection or combination”.
The Minister has given guidance to decision-makers with respect to the application of the Act and the regulations to various aspects of Australian citizenship. This guidance is to be found in the current Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs), specifically CPI 11 – Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia (issued 17 April 2019). In accordance with the decision of Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634, the Tribunal gives these CPIs appropriate weight.
With respect to the phrase ‘likely to maintain a close and continuing relationship with Australia’, the CPIs provide at paragraph 3.3 ‘Factors that may be relevant’. These include ‘Living arrangements and citizenship/migration status in their current country of residence’. These include:
·Whether they are currently renting a home, and if so, when their lease would expire and what options are open to the person to break the lease if necessary;
·Whether they have purchased a property in their country of residence, and whether they reside in the property or have made another arrangement, such as leasing it to a third party;
·Whether they have any assets, commitments or ties to a country that may require or incline them to continue to reside in that country. For example:
oWhat is the person’s source of income? Are they subject to an employment contract and what arrangements do they have in relation to that contract? If the contract is for a defined period of time, do they have an option of extending the contract? Have they indicated they would they do so? Do they operate a business that requires their physical presence or could they run that business remotely? Do grandparents or other relatives provide childcare so the parent/s can work?
oIf the person has been caring for an elderly or sick relative, what arrangements would be made for the care of that relative if the person becomes an Australian citizen? Does the relative still need care or are they recovered or have they died?
oWhat are the schooling arrangements for their child/ren and what are the implications of or plans to change those arrangements? For example, if the child is enrolled in a school that had a long waiting list and requires prepayment of fees, is there an intention to leave the child in that school and what would be the care arrangements for the child? Is the child at a stage of their education where relocation would have an adverse impact and so the parent claims any relocation will occur after the child has completed that stage (for example, if the child has entered a program equivalent to year 11 and 12)?
·Frequency and purpose of visits to Australia if the applicant resides overseas. Is the person simply holidaying, or are they maintaining some form of association with Australia, for example, by undertaking professional studies to ensure they can engage in their profession on return to Australia?
·Frequency and reasons for absences from Australia if the person resides in Australia. For example:
oA person’s absences from Australia would not ordinarily be of concern if they were of a temporary nature, such as when the person was:
§undertaking temporary work overseas for an Australian based company or organisation, or an aid agency;
§accompanying a spouse or de facto partner who was employed by the Commonwealth at an Australian Embassy, High Commission or Consulate;
§participating in Australian cultural activities;
§promoting Australia overseas; or
§enrolled at an overseas university where equivalent studies are not available in Australia;
oA person’s absence/s from Australia because they have continued to work in the same overseas position or for the same employer they had prior to obtaining permanent residence may be an indicator that they have not been residing in Australia and are unlikely to do so;
oWhat has been the person’s motivation for international relocations? Is the person motivated to pursue life opportunities, career or financial advancement regardless of location or are they primarily motivated to pursue those opportunities in Australia?
oAn intention to remain temporarily overseas for work related reasons is not fatal to the application if the decision-maker is satisfied that the applicant has a genuine intention to reside in Australia at the end of that period;
oDepartmental movement records may be used to establish periods of residence. Passenger cards, where available, may assist in identifying reasons for being outside Australia.
·Participation in the Australian community. For example:
oParticipation in a community group that provides services or engages in activities of benefit to the community;
oMembership of a board or committee of a club, charity or other entity that provides services, recreational or educational opportunities in Australia.
oNote: membership of a club or other body in itself is not likely to amount to participation in the Australian community; nor is usage of a club’s facilities for private purposes. For example, distinction could be made between activities to improve the facilities of a golf club for the benefit of the community, and playing golf at that club.
·The applicant has a close family member (such as a spouse/de facto partner or child) who is an Australian permanent resident or Australian citizen and that family member intends on residing in Australia.
Employment and professional undertakings
The evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant is currently employed as a scientist at a research organisation in Toronto. He has been employed in this position since May 2019 following the end of his one year contract with Paraza Pharma Inc. in Montreal. His current role is ongoing, subject to him satisfying the probationary requirements. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has applied for any jobs in Australia since his departure in May 2018. The letter provided by Dr Nguyen states that the Applicant ‘continues to actively engage in employment search within Australia’ and has often sought his help and advice in this search. However the Applicant has not provided evidence of any applications he has made for positions or interviews he has attended in the 18 month period he has been absent from Australia. Since his departure from Australia in May 2018 the Applicant has not made any return visits.
The Applicant has provided evidence that when he was working as a Senior Researcher in Australia he undertook research in his field, which included publishing academic papers and collaborating professionally with other researchers and mentoring research students. The Applicant claims that these collaborations with colleagues and mentoring of students are ongoing and he has provided letters of support. In relation to his collaborations with colleagues, the evidence is vague as to the level and type of involvement the Applicant maintains in research projects. Dr Nguyen states only that he is ‘very confident that [they] will continue to develop [their] knowlege and understanding of sciences of mutual interest in years to come.’ Dr DeBono refers to the Applicant remaining as ‘an adjunct of the faculty due to the ongoing nature of the projects he has been concomitant to.’ He states that in relation to these ongoing research projects, they will seek the Applicant’s ‘involvement and expertise’ and are appreciative of ‘his ongoing support’. He notes also the Applicant’s ‘mentorship and supervision of graduate students’ and his ‘strong ties to the Australian scientific community’ and that they ‘anticipate his ongoing involvment moving forward.’
In relation to his mentoring of students, Ms McNamara states in her letter that she worked with the Applicant in the past and ‘continue[s] to use his help and support in solving [her] research problemts now and [she is] confident this will continue well into the future.’ Ms Kaur writes that the Applicant continues to maintain his professional ties with her and her colleagues and she is confident this will continue for years to come. She refers to their ‘collaborative research findings’ which ‘are likely to be published as co-authors in the near future’ but does not provide any details of where or when this research will be published. The Applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that he is not a formal supervisor to any research student in Australia. In relation to his mentoring of students including Ms McNamara and Ms Kaur, this involvement is most likely of fixed duration and will end when the students graduate.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence of the Applicant’s collaborations with colleagues and mentoring of students demonstrates that he is ‘likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.’ In making this finding the Tribunal has had regard to paragraph 3.2 of the CPIs which states that the requirement to maintain a close and continuing assocation refers to an association with Australia, not with Australians. Whereas the evidence shows that the Applicant will endeavour to maintain his professional relationships with students and colleagues, this does not demonstrate he will maintain a close and continuing assocation with Australia.
Family ties
The Applicant does not have any children and his spouse is a Canadian citizen who resides in Canada. He has one maternal cousin in Australia who has recently become a permanent resident. There is limited evidence as to how close the Applicant is to his cousin, when he last saw her, or how regularly they are in communication.
On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant’s limited family links demonstrate a close and continuing association with Australia.
Living arrangments and assets
The Applicant currently lives in rented accomodation close to his place of work in Toronto. He is a joint owner with his spouse of two residential properties in Halifax. He does not live in either of these properties which are occupied by his spouse and tenants respectively. The Applicant and his spouse do not reside together but the Applicant has some care responsibilities for his spouse including supervising the care provided to his spouse by others. There is no evidence that the Applicant owns any property in Australia.
The Applicant provided evidence that while he was employed in Australia he paid taxes and paid into a superannuation fund which he continues to maintain. The Applicant contends that his superannuation savings are evidence that he holds a significant asset in Australia. The Tribunal accepts this is an asset of some worth but it is the one and only asset the Applicant holds in Australia. His more significant assets are the two residential properties he jointly owns in Canada, one of which provides rental income.
The Applicant provided recent statements of his UniSuper superannuation account. These show that he made no contributions to this account in the period between 1 January and 30 June 2018 and he made one contribution of $500 between 1 July 2018 and 31 December 2018. Whereas this asset will continue to grow and must remain in Australia, it is insufficient to demonstrate a close and continuing association with Australia.
Community participation
The Applicant claimed to have an ongoing association with the cultural and faith community in Sri Guru Nanak Satsang Sabha. No additional evidence in relation to his association with this community was provided at the hearing or in additional submissions. As the Applicant has now been absent from Australia for 18 months, his ongoing association with this community must at best be very limited.
The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates that the Applicant has not relocated to Canada to take up a short term or temporary employment opportunity with the intention of returning to Australia at the end of that employment. Since departing Australia in May 2018 he has completed a one year employment contract in Montreal and has now gained ongoing employment at another research organisation in Toronto. He owns two properties in Canada and is in a spousal relationship with a Canadian citizen who lives in Canada and who relies on the Applicant for emotional support. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has any plans to return to Australia in the immediate or near future.
The Tribunal has previously considered circumstances similar to those of the Applicant involving an applicant who claimed to have a close and continuing association with Australia but did not have any definite plans to return to Australia. In Bates and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2015] AATA 492, Professor McCallum, in finding that the Applicant was not likely to ‘maintain a close and continuing relationship with Australia’, placed weight on the Applicant’s residence and employment in the United Kingdom for a period of nine months after departing Australia, her inability to be precise about her intention to return to live in Australia, her lack of ownership of property in Australia, and the absence of evidence of any plans to enable her to obtain future employment in Australia.
Similarly, in Patel and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 108, Deputy President Tamberlin QC, in finding that the Applicant was not likely to ‘maintain a close and continuing relationship with Australia’, placed weight on the fact the Applicant did not have any Australian citizen children or an Australian spouse or extended family in Australia, the absence of evidence of any regular return visits to Australia, the evidence she was employed in the United States, did not own any significant property in Australia except for an interest in a superannuation fund, that she no longer was making income tax payments in Australia, and the lack of evidence of any act of participation in Australian based activities or organisations.
Weighing up all of the relevant factors, the Tribunal finds that the factors weighing against a finding that the Applicant is likely to maintain a close and continuing relationship with Australia strongly outweigh those that support a finding of him maintaining a close and continuing relationship with Australia.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is likely to maintain a close and continuing relationship with Australia.
As the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant meets the requirements of both limbs of the criteria in subsection 25(2)(b)(ii) of the Act, the Reviewable Decision is the preferable decision.
If and when the Applicant returns to live in Australia, he will be able to apply for the grant of Australian citizenship by conferral, provided he satisfies the relevant criteria.
DECISION
The Reviewable Decision is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 55 (fifty five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Linda Kirk

......................[sgd]..................................................
Associate
Dated: 26 November 2019

Date(s) of hearing: 23 July 2019

Date final submissions received: 20 August 2019

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms K Dunlop- Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Date(s) of hearing:	23 July 2019
Date final submissions received:	20 August 2019
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms K Dunlop- Sparke Helmore Lawyers