Hossain and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) - [2025] ARTA 709

Hossain and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 709 (5 June 2025)
Applicant/s:  Ummul Khayer Farhana Hossain
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:                2024/0615
Tribunal:General Member J Cipolla
Place:Sydney
Date:5 June 2025

Decision:The decision under review that the Applicant not be exempted from undertaking the Australian Citizenship test is affirmed.

Statement made on 05 June 2025 at 3:40pm
Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – application for citizenship by conferral – Applicant claiming permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity within the meaning of paragraph 21(3)(d) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – Applicant’s medical and personal history considered – relevant law and policy considered – decision under review affirmed

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Cases
Butrus and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] AATA 239
Secondary Materials

Citizenship Policy
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 2 – Australian Citizenship by Conferral – Permanent or Enduring Physical or Mental Incapacity

STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND

Ms Ummul Khayer Farhana Hossain (‘the Applicant’) seeks review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (‘the Minister’) to refuse her application for Australian citizenship by conferral.
In the normal course of processing an application for citizenship, a person who applies to become an Australian citizen is required to satisfy the Minister that, amongst other things, they understand the nature of the application, possess a basic knowledge of the English language, and have an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. A person can only be taken to have satisfied these requirements if they have successfully completed the citizenship test. However, an exemption applies to Applicants who have a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity that renders them incapable of satisfying these requirements by successfully sitting the citizenship test.
On 9 January 2024, a delegate of the Minister refused the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship, as the delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she had a permanent or enduring incapacity that would satisfy the criteria to be exempt from taking the citizenship test.
The Applicant contends that the “content and circumstances” of the medical evidence she provided were not properly taken into consideration.
On 15 April 2024, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision.
ISSUES IN THE REVIEW
The issues for the Tribunal to determine are:
(a)whether the Applicant had a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity at the time of her citizenship application on 29 June 2023; and, if so
(b)is there evidence of the Applicant not being capable of understanding the nature of the application at that time; or not being capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; or not being capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time; because of a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity.
LEGISLATION AND POLICY
Section 21 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’) sets out the requirements for Australian citizenship by conferral. The general eligibility requirements for Australian citizenship by conferral are outlined in subsection 21(2). Paragraphs 21(2)(d) to 21(2)(f) specify that a person must understand the nature of an application for Australian citizenship, possess a basic knowledge of the English language, and have adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.
Ordinarily the criteria at paragraphs 21(2)(d), 21(2)(e) and 21(2)(f) are satisfied when the Applicant is eligible and successfully completes the citizenship test, as provided for in section 23A of the Act.
A person who applies for Australian citizenship under subsection 21(1) of the Act is eligible for conferral in accordance with subsection 21(3) if the Minister is satisfied that the person meets each of the requirements in paragraphs 21(3)(a) to 21(3)(f).
Paragraph 21(3)(d) requires that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(d)has a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity, at the time the person made the application, that means the person:
(i) is not capable of understanding the nature of the application at that time; or
(ii)is not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; or
(iii)is not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time …
The Act does not define permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity, but the Citizenship Policy (‘the Policy’) and the Citizenship Procedural Instructions provide guidance to decision makers on the interpretation of and exercise of powers under the Act. CPI 2 – Australian Citizenship by Conferral – Permanent or Enduring Physical or Mental Incapacity (‘the Instructions’) sets out the requirements for assessing incapacity and determining whether paragraph 21(3)(d) is satisfied.
Although the Tribunal is not strictly bound by the Policy and the Instructions, the Tribunal as decision-maker will generally apply policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.
In relation to incapacity the Policy relevantly provides:
To qualify, incapacity must be either permanent, or sufficiently long-term as to be enduring. An enduring incapacity is one for which there cannot be a predicted recovery, or where if there is, it is long-term and it would be unreasonable to expect the person to recover before becoming eligible for Australian citizenship. Examples may include a person suffering from long-term depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, or where a person has suffered a stroke.
A temporary physical or mental condition does not meet the requirement.
The Instructions also specify that the incapacity must be the direct cause of the Applicant failing to meet the requirements in paragraph 21(3)(d) of the Act.
APPLICANTS MATERIALS
The Applicant is not represented in the proceedings before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided by the Applicant to the Department and at review.
The Applicant was born on 1 March 1987 in Bangladesh and arrived in Australia on 28 February 2017, as the holder of a Subclass 309 Partner visa. The Applicant was granted a Subclass 100 Partner visa on 8 May 2018.
When the Applicant lodged her application for Australian citizenship by conferral on 29 June 2023, she indicated at question 21 of that application that she had a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity, meaning that she was not capable of sitting the Australian citizenship test.
In support of this contention the Applicant lodged a number of documents with her application.
This included a letter from Dr Anne-Marie Rees, a Consultant Perinatal Psychiatrist, dated 20 June 2022 (a year prior to the lodgement of the application for citizenship). The letter which is brief (3 lines) notes that the Applicant had been suffering from postnatal depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. The letter makes reference to medication that the Applicant had been taking for her condition and notes that she had been attending the Royal Hospital for Women’s perinatal outreach service. The report does not refer to the date of these respective diagnoses, the tests that had been administered to diagnose the conditions, or any information with respect to the prognostic outlook.
The Applicant also provided a medical certificate from Dr Sneha Wadhwani dated 27 June 2023 which noted that the Applicant was suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder and post-natal depression and that “her performance in her citizenship may be affected”.
The Applicant also provided a brief report from Dr Savio Irani-Lewis, a general practitioner dated 27 June 2023, which indicated that the Applicant was suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder and post-natal depression and that she should be exempted from the citizenship test and ceremony.
The Applicant also provided a verification of medical condition form from Centrelink dated 12 December 2023, completed by Dr Savio Irani-Lewis who noted that at the time the Applicant was suffering with lower back pain, severe depression and birth trauma with the date of onset of 10 January 2022. Further, the Applicant was suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder with a date of onset of 10 January 2022, and opined that these were permanent conditions likely to persist for two years or more. In the comments section of the form, it is noted that the Applicant was not fit for work, study, exams or interviews.
The evidence indicates that on 6 September 2023 whilst processing the Applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral, the Department sent her a letter requesting additional information pertaining to her incapacity. The Department included the requirements pertaining to permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity and requiring evidence from a specialist.
The evidence indicates that the Request for Evidence from Specialist form was completed by Dr Sario Irani-Lewis a general practitioner on 4 October 2023. The requirements are such that the form should be completed by a specialist in psychiatry or psychology.
Dr Irani-Lewis stated that the Applicant suffered with depression in the form of postnatal depression along with post-traumatic stress disorder. He noted that the Applicant had not shown any improvement since the onset of these conditions. The Applicant’s general practitioner in response to question 14 with respect to the Applicant’s incapacity to demonstrate an understanding of the citizenship application or obtain a basic knowledge of English or an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship made the following conclusions. That the Applicant would not have difficulties in understanding these things, however, she would not be able to concentrate on a citizenship examination due to her depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
On 20 November 2023, the Department sent the Applicant a further letter requesting additional evidence of her incapacity. The Applicant provided a letter from her general practitioner Dr Irani-Lewis dated 12 December 2023 noting she suffered with postnatal depression as a consequence of birth trauma. The Applicant also resubmitted the letter from Dr Anne-Marie Rees, psychiatrist, dated 20 June 2022.The Applicant also provided a Centrelink verification of medical condition form from Dr Irani-Lewis dated 12 December 2023 attesting to her postnatal depression and birth trauma.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant had a consultation with Dr Hooi-Beng Teoh (Dr Teoh), a Psychiatrist, via a tele-health consultation, on 8 December 2023 in the form of an ‘impairment assessment report’ initiated for Gerard Malouf and Partners Solicitors.
Dr Teoh found that the Applicant was suffering with post traumatic stress disorder as a result of her daughter being bitten by a dog on 11 January 2021. He found the impact of being a witness to this incident had caused the Applicant psychological trauma and that the Applicant would have difficulty working in a full-time job. Further the Applicant would benefit from monthly sessions with a psychiatrist for at least 12 months.
The evidence indicates that the Applicant was assessed a second time by Dr Teoh via a tele-health consultation on 14 June 2024. The assessment on 14 June 2024 was with respect to the same incident that occurred on 11 January 2021.
Dr Teoh notes that the Applicant, prior to migrating to Australia, had worked as a bank officer in Bangladesh and since arriving in Australia in 2017 she had not worked. The incident that led to the Applicant acquiring post-traumatic stress disorder occurred on 11 January 2021. The report describing the incident notes that the Applicant’s husband picked up their daughters from child-care in Bondi Junction. As her husband was walking home with the children, they met a woman who lived in the same block of flats as them. The woman had an American pit bull terrier with her. She took the dog off the leash, and the dog jumped up at her daughter Fiona, biting her on the face and injuring her right eye. The Applicant’s daughter was taken to the Sydney Children’s Hospital and treated. The report notes that since the incident, the Applicant had intrusive memories of the incident and has had acute anxiety. She said that she has been feeling unsafe and hypervigilant. She has been waking up at night with acute anxiety attacks. She reported insomnia, lack of motivation and poor concentration. She has been feeling dizzy and has difficulty dealing with people and found it hard to leave the house on her own.
Dr Teoh stated that since the incident, the Applicant had been argumentative and irritable and had found it an effort to care for her children. He noted she had been engaging with a psychiatrist each month and had been previously prescribed antidepressant medication along with medications for her post-traumatic stress disorder. Further, she had also been engaging with a psychologist. The Applicant was the subject of a mental state examination with Dr Teoh finding that there was no evidence of psychotic symptoms or suicidal ideation. Dr Teoh found that the Applicant’s cognitive functions were intact and there was no evidence of short or long-term memory impairment. In summary he found that the Applicant had significant anxiety symptoms and presented with symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.
Dr Teoh opined that the Applicant suffered from a permanent psychological impairment. He determined that the Applicant would benefit from seeing a psychiatrist monthly for 24 months and that she would need to be on medication for two years or more and that she would benefit from seeing a psychologist each fortnight for the next 12 months.
REVIEW HEARING
The Tribunal conducted a review hearing on 29 May 2025 and the Applicant attended along with her husband. The Applicant and her husband both gave evidence to the Tribunal. The Applicant and the Tribunal were assisted by an accredited Bengali interpreter. The Respondent was represented by Ms Liu, solicitor from Hunt and Hunt Lawyers.
The Applicant advised the Tribunal that she arrived in Australia in February 2017 as the holder of a Subclass 309 Partner visa. The Applicant confirmed that she had been residing in Australia continuously for over nine years.
With respect to her study history in Bangladesh, the Applicant advised that she had completed tertiary studies, namely an English degree with honours and a Masters degree in English at the National University of Bangladesh in Cumilla. The Applicant advised that this degree was completed in around 6 to 7 years. The Applicant confirmed that all the tuition with respect to her honours degree and her masters degree was conducted in English.
The Applicant confirmed that since arriving in Australia, she had completed a Certificate III in Business Administration at TAFE NSW during 2021 and she was awarded a certificate on 8 December 2021.
The Applicant advised that she had three children. Twin daughters born in October 2017 and her youngest daughter born in January 2022. The Applicant advised that her husband did not work but had previously worked in the IT sector. The Applicant stated that her husband had not worked since she arrived in Australia as a consequence of an injury. She advised that her husband suffered with mental and physical disabilities that precluded him from working. The Applicant advised that the family was surviving solely on Centrelink benefits.
The Applicant gave extensive evidence about the difficulties that she had with the birth of her third child due to delivery complications that led to postnatal depression and ongoing physiological problems.
The Applicant also described that her mental health had been impacted by her observing her daughter Fiona being attacked by a pit bull terrier in January 2021.
The Applicant stated that as a consequence of her postnatal depression that she has been taking medications for her mental health, Setraline and Prazosin. The Applicant advised she had been taking these medications since 2022.
The Applicant advised that after the birth of her third daughter and the onset of postnatal depression, that she was able to be seen by a psychiatrist at the Royal women’s Hospital in Randwick for 12 months to assist in her recovery.
The Applicant confirmed that she had worked in a bank in Bangladesh prior to arriving in Australia.
The Applicant was asked why she decided to apply for citizenship in June 2023. The Applicant advised that she became eligible at that point in time to apply and that she wanted to commit to Australia.
The Applicant’s husband (the witness) gave evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the reports of Dr Teoh were referable to Gerard Malouf and Partners, solicitors in Parramatta. The witness advised that these solicitors had been engaged regarding any future action that may arise due to impairment that the Applicant may have suffered after witnessing the dog attack upon her daughter Fiona in January 2021.
The witness advised that his wife suffered with post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of birth trauma and the dog attack. He advised that this created problems with her concentration and attention. The witness stated that it was his belief that the citizenship test was not hard. He advised that if his wife did not have these issues, he believed that she would pass the test.
The witness stated that his wife found the Certificate III course at TAFE to be easy, given that she had completed a Masters degree and honours degree in English. She had undertaken the TAFE course to assist with future work prospects. He advised that if his wife had remained in Bangladesh that she would be a branch manager of the bank because of her skillset.
In her closing statement to the Tribunal, the Applicant stated that she wanted Australian citizenship as her husband and children lived in Australia with the protection of citizenship. She advised that she had a good job in Bangladesh and left that country for a better life in Australia. The Applicant stated that women in Australia are respected and that she loves the people in Australia and that she would be proud to obtain Australian citizenship.
Ms Liu in her closing submissions on behalf of the Minister made a number of points.
Ms Liu noted that the application for citizenship by conferral, that is the subject of this review, was lodged by the Applicant on 29 June 2023.
Ms Liu noted that during the processing of the application, there had been two occasions in which the Department had reached out to the Applicant, in writing, asking her to provide further medical evidence. The Department sought evidence to corroborate the Applicant having a permanent or enduring mental incapacity required to meet s.21(3)(d) of the Act. The Department provided the Applicant with a check list of the types of evidence that could be submitted to corroborate this. Ms Liu stated that the evidence submitted to support the Applicant having a permanent or enduring incapacity was deficient.
Ms Liu noted that with respect to establishing mental incapacity an Applicant was required to provide evidence from a psychiatrist or from a medical practitioner who is a Fellow of the Australian Society for Psychological Medicine, or from a psychologist who is registered with the Psychology Board of Australia. Further that general practitioners are not defined as specialists for this purpose and that a report from a general practitioner is generally not acceptable.

Ms Liu noted that the medical evidence provided by Dr Teoh was provided with respect to an Impairment Assessment for potential future legal action with respect to the impact that the dog bite incident had upon the Applicant. Ms Liu noted that the report by Dr Teoh indicated that the Applicant was suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder. However, there was no evidence of psychotic symptoms or suicidal ideation and that the Applicant’s cognitive functions were intact and there was no evidence of short or long-term memory impairments.
Ms Liu noted there was no evidence in the two reports of Dr Teoh addressing the legislative test required to establish that the Applicant suffered with a permanent or enduring mental incapacity which meant she was not capable of understanding the nature of the citizenship application at the time of lodgement; not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; and not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.
Ms Liu noted that the report of Dr Anne-Marie Rees dated 20 June 2022, a year prior to the Applicant lodging a citizenship application on 29 June 2023, noted that the Applicant was suffering with postnatal depression and post-traumatic stress disorder and was attending the Royal Hospital for Women’s psychology and perinatal mental health outreach service. There is nothing in the report referable to whether the Applicant was suffering with an enduring mental incapacity that meant that she was not capable of understanding the nature of the citizenship application, not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time, and not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.
Ms Liu noted that the Applicant gave evidence at hearing that she lacked the confidence and concentration to sit the citizenship test. Ms Liu noted that none of the medical evidence addressed why this was the case.
Ms Liu noted that the Applicant gave evidence with respect to her current functional capacity which indicated that she undertakes most of the housework and is the predominant carer for her younger daughter. Further that she can attend parent teacher interviews and go shopping with the support of her husband. Ms Liu posited that the Applicant’s poor concentration and lack of confidence was not enough to satisfy the legislative requirements of s.21(3)(d) of the Act.
Ms Liu with respect to the Applicant’s English language ability noted that the Applicant had completed both an Honours and Masters degree in English at a tertiary level in Bangladesh. Further, that the tuition with respect to these courses was conducted solely in English.
Further to this, during 2021, after the dog bite incident of January 2021, the Applicant despite the trauma associated with the incident successfully completed and was awarded a Certificate III in Business Administration. This fact demonstrated the Applicant’s English language ability.
Ms Liu stated that overall, the Minister contends that the Applicant does not satisfy the strict evidentiary requirements of s.21(3)(d) of the Act.
CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS
The Tribunal is required to determine whether the Applicant had a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity at the time of her citizenship application, such that she meets the requirements in paragraph 21(3)(d) of the Act.
In order to meet the requirements of section 21(3)(d) the Applicant needs to establish that due to her permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity, that at the time she made the application for citizenship (29 June 2023) she was not capable of understanding the nature of the application at the time, or that she was not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at the time or that she was not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at the time.
The Tribunal finds that none of the medical evidence before it establishes that the Applicant had an ‘enduring mental incapacity’ at the time she made the Application for citizenship by conferral on 29 June 2023. At best a Centrelink ‘verification of medical condition’ form dated 12 December 2023 from Dr Irani-Lewis notes that the Applicant’s post-traumatic stress disorder and her depression were likely to persist for 2 years or more.
Further, the medical evidence before the Tribunal fails to address that as a consequence of a permanent or enduring mental incapacity, the Applicant was not capable of understanding the nature of the citizenship application; not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; and not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.
The policy directives found in CPI 2 are clear, that when a person is seeking exemption from the citizenship test on the grounds of mental incapacity, that the evidence required to be provided must be from a psychiatrist or from a medical practitioner who is a Fellow of the Australian Society for Psychological Medicine or from a psychologist who is registered with the Psychology Board of Australia. A report from a general practitioner is generally not acceptable.
The Applicant has provided evidence from Dr Anne-Marie Rees, a psychiatrist, dated 20 June 2022, written more than a year before she lodged her application for citizenship by conferral. Dr Rees’ report refers to the fact that the Applicant at that time was suffering with postnatal depression and post traumatic stress disorder. The report was completed a year before lodgement of the citizenship application and hence it does not provide evidence at the time of application which addresses the Applicant’s permanent or enduring mental incapacity to sit the citizenship test at that point in time. The Tribunal on this basis gives limited weight to the report of Dr Rees, other than it provides a confirmation of two diagnoses in existence on 20 June 2022, post-natal depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The reports of Dr Teoh dated 19 December 2023 and 25 June 2024 were sought by Gerard Malouf and Partners Solicitors under instruction from the Applicant and her husband with respect to a future/prospective cause of action for “impairment” arising from the impact of the dog attack of January 2021. Dr Teoh notes that prior to the dog attack incident the Applicant had no psychiatric history, and her life was described as “happy and spontaneous”. He notes that after the incident she was suffering with post traumatic stress disorder and preoccupied with negative thoughts. It is apparent from the content of both reports that they were only referable to the dog incident in January 2021 and whether in Dr Teoh’s view it caused a permanent psychological impairment that may ground a future legal action for impairment.
The Tribunal notes that Dr Teoh’s reports were based on assessments of the Applicant on 8 December 2023 and 14 June 2024, however, in the first report and the supplementary report there is no reference to the Applicant’s birth trauma after the birth of her third daughter in January 2022. Nor is there any reference to the fact that after her third daughter’s birth, the Applicant had been diagnosed by Dr Rees with post-natal depression. The reports note that the Applicant had been taking anti-depressant medication for her post traumatic stress disorder and had been seeing a psychiatrist “every month”. However, the reports do not address who had prescribed the drugs, the reason they had been prescribed, or why she had been seeing a psychiatrist. It is clear from the reports of Dr Teoh, and the information provided to him for the purposes of those reports, are not referable to the Applicant’s postnatal depression and had only been compiled with respect to an impairment assessment referable to the dog incident of January 2021.
The reports of Dr Teoh note that at the time of his assessments in December 2023 that the Applicant was not suffering with psychotic symptoms or suicidal ideation. Indeed, she was described by Dr Teoh as being “reactive” during the interviews and her speech was described as coherent and not thought disordered. She was also described as “cooperative and spontaneous”.
There is no evidence that the interviews with Dr Teoh were conducted with an interpreter meaning that the interviews and assessments (conducted via telehealth consultations) were conducted in English. Dr Teoh makes no reference to issues with comprehension and understanding.
Dr Teoh also describes the Applicant’s cognitive functions as being intact with no evidence of short or long-term memory impairment at that time.
CPI-2 states that with respect to a finding of a permanent or enduring mental incapacity that a report from a general practitioner is generally unacceptable. Even if reliance could be had on the general practitioners reports that have been submitted by the Applicant, none of the reports tendered, address whether at time of application, on 29 June 2023, the Applicant suffered with a permanent or enduring mental incapacity that meant she was not capable of understanding the nature of the citizenship application at the time of lodgement; not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; and not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.
Dr Irani-Lewis in a report which was written 2 days before the lodgement of the citizenship application on 27 June 2023 and which provides contemporaneous medical evidence pertaining to the Applicant does not address whether the Applicant had a permanent or enduring mental incapacity that meant that she was not capable of understanding the nature of the citizenship application at the time of lodgement; not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; and not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.
Nor does the general practitioner report of Dr Snedha Wadhwanu also dated 27 June 2023, 2 days before the application for citizenship was lodged. It refers to the Applicant suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder and postnatal depression following birth trauma and refers to the medications administered to her for depression. The brief report opines that due to her mental health conditions “her performance in the citizenship test may be affected”. Once again, the report fails to address whether the Applicant as a consequence of a permanent or enduring mental incapacity is not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; and not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.
The Citizenship Procedural Instructions provide that the Applicant’s incapacity must be the direct cause of an Applicant’s inability to fulfil the requirements outlined in paragraph 21(3)(d) of the Act.
The Tribunal finds that none of the medical evidence that has been provided by the Applicant establishes to the requisite degree of satisfaction, that the Applicant’s was suffering with a permanent or enduring mental incapacity at the time she applied for citizenship by conferral on 29 June 2023 Further that as a consequence of a permanent or enduring incapacity the Applicant was not capable of understanding the nature of the citizenship application at the time of lodgement; not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; and not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.
The medical evidence from the two psychiatrists, Dr Rees and Dr Teoh, do not address the Applicant having a permanent or enduring mental incapacity at the time she applied for citizenship by conferral. The closest evidence to time of Application provided from a psychiatrist is the evidence of Dr Teoh (6 months after lodgement on 8 December 2023) which as discussed found that the Applicant despite her post traumatic stress disorder, referable to the dog incident, was coherent, not thought disordered, cooperative and spontaneous, cognitively intact, with no evidence of short or long-term memory impairment.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant completed an Honours and Masters degree in English at a tertiary level in Bangladesh, with the tuition delivered in English. In addition to this in 2021, the Applicant successfully completed a Certificate III in Business Administration at TAFE NSW. During the course of the hearing the Applicant, despite her reliance on the interpreter was able to understand the proceedings and elected at times to answer in English. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that establishes that due to a permanent or enduring mental incapacity the Applicant was not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at the time of application on 29 June 2024.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal accordingly is unable to find, on the basis of the evidence before it, that the Applicant at the time of applying for citizenship by conferral on 29 June 2023, suffered with a permanent or enduring mental incapacity that meant that she was not capable of understanding the nature of the citizenship application at the time of lodgement; not capable of demonstrating a basic knowledge of the English language at that time; and not capable of demonstrating an adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at that time.
DECISION
The decision under review that the Applicant not be exempted from undertaking the Australian Citizenship test is affirmed.

Date of hearing: 29 May 2025

Solicitor for the Respondent:
Ms Liu, Hunt and Hunt Lawyers

Date of hearing:	29 May 2025
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms Liu, Hunt and Hunt Lawyers