Ivany and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Ms. Ivany, a Canadian citizen, for the conferral of Australian citizenship. Ms. Ivany had been a permanent resident of Australia since 2018 and her husband had acquired Australian citizenship in 2019. Her application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs on the grounds that she did not satisfy the requirement under section 21(2)(g) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) that she was likely to reside, or continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms. Ivany met the criteria stipulated in section 21(2)(g) of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the evidence demonstrated that Ms. Ivany was likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia, or alternatively, whether she was likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. This assessment was to be made in light of the applicable citizenship policy and the statutory provisions, including the prohibition under section 24(5) of the Act against approving an application where the applicant is outside Australia, unless certain exemptions or special circumstances apply.

The Tribunal reasoned that while Ms. Ivany had provided evidence of her intention to return to Australia, including the fact that her husband and son were Australian citizens and that she had family and business ties in Australia, the delegate's decision had not adequately considered all relevant factors. The Tribunal noted that the policy guidance indicated that a close and continuing association refers to an association with Australia itself, not solely with individuals in Australia. However, the Tribunal found that the delegate's conclusion that Ms. Ivany was not likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, was not sufficiently supported by the evidence and the application of the relevant policy. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration.