Januseviciute and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) - [2025] ARTA 1914

Januseviciute and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 1914 (26 September 2025)
Applicant/s:  Jurgita Januseviciute
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2024/3889

Tribunal:General Member J Cipolla
Place:Sydney
Date:26 September 2025

Decision:The Tribunal finds that the correct and preferable decision is to set aside the decision of the delegate on the basis that the Applicant satisfies the requirements of s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

.............................[SGD]...........................................
General Member J Cipolla
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – Application for conferral of Australian citizenship – general residence requirements – close and continuing association with Australia – Citizenship Procedural Instruction 11 – overseas absences – Decision under review set aside
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 11 - Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia (VM-5288)
Statement of Reasons
REVIEW APPLICATION

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Respondent) on 28 May 2024 to refuse the approval of the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral (the delegate’s decision).
The delegate refused the approval on the basis that the Applicant did not satisfy the general residence requirement as required by section 21(2)(g) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act) on the basis that the Applicant was likely to reside, or to continue to reside in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, as required by section 21(2)(g) of the Act.
On 10 June 2024, the Applicant made an application to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for a review of the delegate’s decision.
The respondent has conceded that the general residence requirement is not in issue at review and that the only issue before the Tribunal is confined to whether the Applicant was likely to reside, or to continue to reside in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, as contemplated by section 21(2)(g) of the Act.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the delegate’s decision should be set aside.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Section 21(2)(g) of the Act provides that:
(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;
Citizenship Policy
The Australian Citizenship Policy and the Citizenship Procedural Instructions provide guidance to decision-makers regarding interpretation and exercise of power under the Act. As a decision-maker, the Tribunal is required to give regard and apply policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[1] The Tribunal is satisfied that there are no cogent reasons not to apply the policy.
[1] Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
Relevantly, the Citizenship Procedural Instruction 11 (CPI 11) provides guidance as follows:[2]
[2] Ex 9, 205-210.
Likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia
The words comprising the phrase 'likely to reside or continue to reside' should be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear. The Macquarie Dictionary Online defines:
·‘likely’ as probably or apparently going or destined (to do, be, etc.) - in the context of the requirements of the Act, this means it is probable rather than possible that the person will reside in Australia;
·'reside' as to dwell permanently or for a considerable time; have one’s abode for a time - in the context of the requirements of the Act, this means the person's home in which they ordinarily live is in Australia.
The person's intention to reside in Australia should be investigated if the Applicant has indicated they will:
·be outside Australia during processing of their application; for example, they have asked to take the citizenship test or pledge overseas; or
·reside outside Australia after obtaining citizenship; for example, they have indicated an intention to migrate elsewhere or to take up employment outside Australia.
Past international movements may also indicate that a person's intention to reside in Australia should be investigated. For example, a person having spent significant periods of time outside Australia while a permanent resident and seeking to have the ministerial discretion in subsection 22(9) of the Act applied (refer to Citizenship Instruction 8 – Residence Requirements and Discretions) may be an indicator that they have not committed to residing in Australia. However, such travel movements must be considered in the light of evidence about the person's intended residence.
If the decision-maker finds that an Applicant is not likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia, the decision-maker must consider whether the Applicant will likely maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
Likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia
The words comprising the phrase ‘likely to maintain a close and continuing association’ should be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear. The Macquarie Dictionary Online defines:
·'maintain' as to keep in existence or continuance; preserve; retain;
·'close' as near, or near together, in space, time, or relation;
·'continuing' as to last or endure;
·'association' as the act of associating... connection or combination.
·It is important to note that the requirement to maintain a close and continuing association refers to an association with Australia, not with Australians. This means that a close and continuing association with immediate/extended family or other social relationships or networks in Australia may not be sufficient to meet this legal requirement, although the merits of every case must be carefully considered.
CPI 11 gives guidance with respect to the factors that may be relevant to assessing whether an Applicant satisfies eligibility requirements in section 21(2)(g). It states that:
·A person’s living arrangements and citizenship/migration status in their country of residence (whether that is Australia or elsewhere) may be indicators of their intention to reside in that country and whether they could act on that intent.
·Authority to reside in a particular place could be derived from the citizenship of that country, or by a visa or other form of permission that allows the person to reside and work in the country long-term (that may be extended if for a fixed period) or indefinitely.
·Factors that may indicate a person intends to reside in a particular place or will maintain a close and continuing association with that place include but are not limited to:
OWhether 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;
OWhether 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;
OWhether 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: What 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?
OIs 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)?
OFrequency 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?
OFrequency and reasons for absences from Australia if the person resides in Australia. For example, a 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; A 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? An 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.
OParticipation in the Australian community. For example, participation in a community group that provides services or engages in activities of benefit to the community, membership of a board or committee of a club, charity or other entity that provides services, recreational or educational opportunities in Australia. Note: 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.
oThe 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.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a citizen of Lithuania. She first arrived in Australia on 12 October 2015 as the holder of a Subclass 189 Skilled-Independent visa.
The Applicant was granted permanent residence via her Skilled visa on 29 July 2015.
The Applicant currently holds a Subclass 155 Five-year Resident Return visa which was granted to her on 7 May 2020. This visa has been recently renewed for 12 months and is currently in force.
The Applicant lodged an application for citizenship by conferral on 28 January 2021 that was refused by the Department of Home Affairs on 28 May 2024.
ISSUE
As noted, the only issue before the Tribunal is whether the Applicant 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.
On 17 September 2025, the Applicant attended a hearing accompanied by her legal representative Mr Northam. The Respondent Minister was represented by Mr Sheedy solicitor from Sparke Helmore Lawyers.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS
The applicant’s representative provided a statement of facts issues and contentions dated 13 February 2025, which has been duly considered by the Tribunal.
The submission provides a chronology of events relevant to the application before the Tribunal. It notes that the applicant was born in Lithuania on 7 June 1982. She first arrived in Australia on 12 October 2015 as the holder of a Subclass 189 skilled independent permanent residence visa. On 7 May 2020 she was granted a five-year Subclass 155 resident return visa which has since been renewed for 6 months. On 28 January 2021 she lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral.
On 30 April 2021, the applicant was granted an exemption by the Department of Home Affairs, enabling her to travel during the Covid-19 pandemic and evidence that the applicant had advised the Department of her intended travel which included a copy of her father’s medical report. The applicant provided evidence to the Department that she intended to travel to Qatar on 19 May 2021 and then travel on to Lithuania to visit her ailing father. She further advised that she was not able to provide a return date due to the unpredictability of her father’s health and the unpredictability surrounding Covid 19 travel restrictions. The applicant further advised that she would be travelling offshore on a regular basis with her husband due to her husband’s work commitments.
The applicant attended a citizenship appointment and passed the citizenship test on 17 May 2021 and departed Australia on 19 May 2021. During the processing of her citizenship application the Department requested further documents from the applicant. The applicant provided additional evidence to the Department between December 2023 and May 2024. On 28 May 2020 for the applicant’s application for citizenship by conferral was refused on the basis that she did not meet the requirements of paragraph 21(2)(h) of the Citizenship Act.
In terms of contentions the submission notes that the sole reason for the refusal of the applicant’s citizenship by conferral application was that the delegate could not be satisfied that the applicant 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.
The submission contends that the Tribunal should have regard to the circumstances of the applicant’s departure and temporary absence from Australia. These circumstances were described as ‘extraordinary’ in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, worldwide travel restrictions, and medical evidence pertaining to the applicant’s father’s illness.
The applicant gave evidence that her husband has Lebanese heritage. He had substantial savings invested in Lebanese banks. The applicant advised that when she and her husband moved to Australia that her husband held most of their life-saving funds in Lebanese banks. As a consequence of the economic collapse in Lebanon, the applicant claims she and her husband lost most of their life savings. As a consequence of the loss of life savings, her husband began looking for well paid jobs overseas as he was struggling to find employment in Sydney. The applicant stated that her husband secured employment in Qatar and that as a consequence of the pandemic, and she and her husband were kept apart by travel restrictions imposed by Australia and Qatar. The applicant stated that she eventually succeeded in joining her husband in Qatar with her two children being given special permission to enter Qatar during the border lockdown. During COVID the family had to limit their travel because of pandemic travel restrictions and due to immune issues that their eldest son experienced compromising his health.
The applicant claims that when she joined her husband in Qatar that her father had been incapacitated by a stroke and that he suffered a further stroke some months later, which caused paralysis to half his body and took away his speech. The applicant stated that she decided to travel to Lithuania to take care of her father and to enable both she and her children to spend as much time with her father as possible. The applicant stated that her father passed away in November 2023. The applicant stated that “this event was well out of my control, and I seek your compassionate view on this. Being impacted by all the inconveniences I mentioned for the last three years, I was constrained from flying back to Australia, but this did not shift my relationship with Australia or the fact that I have a continuous relationship with the country”.
The applicant’s representative submits that the extraordinary circumstances that the applicant found herself in during this period were beyond her control and that she was substantially impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, international travel restrictions, and the illness and eventual death of her father.
The submission noted that prior to departing Australia in 2021 the applicant had spent six years in Australia as a permanent resident. The submission noted that the applicant currently resides overseas with her husband in temporary accommodation in Qatar due to her husband’s work contract and that they were anticipating the conclusion this contract in August 2025. The applicant provided a raft of evidence in support of the families plans for returning to Australia.
The submission noted having regard to the evidence of specific plans to return to Australia that the criteria of the applicant being likely to reside in Australia as per subsection 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act was satisfied.
The submission notes that with respect to the likelihood of the applicant maintaining a close and continuing association with Australia that the applicant wished to make a number of points. That the applicant and her husband and two children had been temporarily living outside Australia due to her husband’s work requirements and the applicant and her husband have continued to maintain substantial connections and associations with Australia.
These connections include maintaining property ownership in Sydney, Australia, so they can move back into their property upon their expected return in late 2025, maintaining household goods and personal belongings in Australia for their return in late 2025, engagement with the Australian community in Qatar, fundraising for children’s cancer foundations in Australia and donating their younger son’s hair since birth to an organisation providing wigs for children with cancer in Australia.
The submission notes that in conclusion the applicant has been dealing with a set of extraordinary circumstances since 2021 during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic including separation from her husband with oversight of two young children, and needing to leave Australia to care for her Lithuanian father who was gravely ill.
It was submitted that the circumstances of the pandemic and travel restrictions, combined with the applicant and her husband’s life savings being held in a Lebanese bank had a substantial adverse economic impact on them.

The applicant’s husband struggled to obtain work in Australia however he found work in Qatar which will end in late 2025, and the applicant had planned to return to Australia in August 2025 with her children so that they can attend term four at their respective Australian schools.
The submission notes that the evidence shows that over the last 18 months the applicant has been planning and preparing to return to Australia in August 2025 and has provided extensive evidence of her connections to Australia such as property, the maintenance of relationships, charitable giving, financial connections and maintenance of contact with Australian friends.
The submission contends that the correct and preferable decision would be to set aside the decision under review and substitute it with a decision that the applicant meets subsection 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act.
RESPONDENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS
The Tribunal received a statement of facts issues and contentions from the respondent which is dated 28 February 2025 which has been duly considered.
The submission makes reference to the decision under review and the background of the applicant, noting the lodgement history with respect to her application for Australian citizenship by conferral. The background information notes that the applicant was requested by the Department on 30 April 2021 to provide further information with respect to her intention to reside in Australia. It noted that the applicant attended and passed the citizenship test on 17 May 2021, and departed Australia on 19 May 2021. It also notes that the applicant provided ongoing evidence between July 2021 and May 2024 with respect to her intention to reside in or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. It noted that on 28 May 2020, the applicant’s application for citizenship was refused by the Department.
The submission noted that the issue that arises in the review is whether the applicant is likely to reside, or to continue to reside in Australia if the application were approved, or whether the applicant is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were approved.
The submission makes reference to the legislative regime and the citizenship procedural instructions, relevantly, CPI 11. Reference is made to the policy considerations with respect to likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia or likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. The submission notes that CPI 11 identifies a range of factors that may be relevant in determining whether a person is likely to reside or continue to reside or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. These factors include the person’s pre-existing connection with Australia, their employment status, financial arrangements including the payment of tax, overseas employment or business, family relationships, return travel to and periods of residence in Australia, primary residence in and migration status in foreign countries, intention to reside in Australia and plans to return to Australia.
With respect to contentions, the respondent submits that the applicant has asserted that she intends to return to Australia upon completion of her husband’s work project in Qatar after August 2025. The applicant provided a range of evidence in support of this contention. The respondent submits however, that the applicant’s plans remain ‘hypothetical’ and that the Tribunal should not accept that she is likely to reside for a number of reasons. Firstly, that she departed Australia in May 2021 and has not returned for a period of four years. It was noted that the applicants Subclass 155 visa was due to expire in May 2025 and at the time of the submission she had not applied for a further visa (she has since renewed this visa for 12 months). Secondly that her intention of returning to Australia for holidays and family visits did not evince a firm intention to reside in Australia or to make Australia the applicant’s ordinary home and place of residence. Thirdly, that while the applicant contends that her husband’s job in Qatar will end in August 2025, the applicant previously indicated that his contract may be extended. Fourthly, the applicant contends that she and her husband could not travel to visit Australia since her departure due to a range of factors that included the Covid-19 pandemic, the high price of flights, and the fact that their children had autoimmune diseases.
The submission contends that with respect to whether the applicant is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia that this question has been found by previous Tribunals is to import a degree of emotional commitment or attachment involving participation, commitment or investment. The submission notes that these elements have not been demonstrated by the applicant.
The submission acknowledges the applicant’s contentions that she has maintained a close and continuing association through maintaining a property and household goods, participating in the Australian expatriate community in Qatar, fundraising for Australian children’s cancer foundations and the contribution of donating her younger son’s hair to a program for children suffering cancer. The submission notes that the Minister accepts that the applicant has some association with Australia through her previous residence from October 2015 until May 2021 however, the applicant had not returned to Australia since her departure in May 2021. The Minister contends that in circumstances where the applicant has only resided in Australia for six years and has not returned since May 2021, and has provided no evidence of employment, payment of taxes, or participation in the Australian community that the Tribunal should find that it cannot be satisfied that she is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
In summary the Applicant contends that she is likely to reside in Australia and maintain a close and continuing association. The Respondent argues that the available information does not support the Applicant’s contentions.
HEARING
The Tribunal conducted a review hearing on 17 September 2025. The applicant and her representative Mr Northam attended by video conferencing facilities. The Minister’s representative Mr Sheedy also appeared via video conferencing facilities.
Mr Northam submitted that the applicant had not been back to Australia since May 2021 and that her life and that of her family had been substantially impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite her absence from Australia the applicant has maintained an active connection to the country. Mr Northam posited that there is substantial evidence that the applicant 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.
Mr Sheedy for the Minister submitted that the Tribunal should not reach a positive state of satisfaction that the applicant is likely to reside or maintain a close association with Australia and that it is open to conjecture about the family’s plans with respect to their return.
The applicant provided evidence about her migration history noting that she and her husband applied for skilled visas in 2015 entering Australia in September 2015.
The applicant gave evidence about the circumstances that led to her departing Australia in May 2021 to Qatar. The applicant stated that she and her husband considered Australia to be their home, and they wanted to start a family together. They had savings held in a Lebanese bank. They purchased a property in Bankstown and had hoped that most of the costs associated with this purchase would be offset by life savings held in Lebanon by her husband. However, Lebanon experienced an economic collapse and the applicant advised that her husband was only able to get a small proportion of his funds out of Lebanon. The applicant stated that her husband lost a lot of money as a consequence of the economic collapse in Lebanon.
The applicant gave evidence that her husband received an offer of a contract to work in Qatar as a civil engineer in the oil and gas industry. Initially it was going to be a fly in fly out position with the applicant working in Qatar for a period and then returning to Australia for a period. The objective was to claw back lost savings as a result of the Lebanese economic collapse. The applicant gave evidence that she and her older son would remain in Australia with her husband joining the family from time to time.
The applicant stated that in 2020 the pandemic hit Australia, and her husband was not able to depart Qatar. The applicant advised that she was pregnant at the time with her second child. She advised that her husband managed to return to Australia when she was seven months pregnant and that he had to spend two weeks in quarantine before the family could be reunited. The applicant stated that after her second child was born she was by herself in Australia with two children during lockdown and held a strong belief the children needed their father. In due course the applicant advised that her husband was able to get an exceptional visa for the family to reunite in Qatar. The applicant advised because of the closure of the border she needed permission from the Australian government to depart Australia. She advised the first time she applied for this it was refused and that it was approved the second time around.
The applicant advised that both of her sons experienced a range of health issues whilst living in Qatar that curtailed their ability to travel and she advised that her father, resident in Lithuania suffered two strokes one in 2018, and one in 2020, which had a profound impact on his health. The applicant stated that she travelled from Qatar to Lithuania or a number of occasions to spend time with, and care for her father. She also managed to take her two sons to Lithuania so they could meet their grandfather before his health deteriorated further. The applicant advised that her father passed away in November 2023.
The applicant advised that her children are now aged 5 and 7. They are currently attending school in Qatar. The applicant advised that she had been in contact with a number of schools close to her residential property in Sydney and had made enquiries about enrolments. The initial plan was that her children would start school in the final term of the 2025 school year in Australia. However, her youngest child was not able to be enrolled until the start of term one of 2026 and the family decided it was in the children’s best interests they both start school in Australia in January 2026. The applicant advised that her husband’s contract was due to finish in August 2025 but will now finish in December 2025.
The applicant gave evidence of how she had maintained social and cultural connections to Australia in the time that she had been residing in Qatar. The applicant advised that her residential property in Bankstown had been rented in her absence that she had spoken to their real estate agent managing the rental, who has been instructed to evict the tenant’s by giving notice in November 2025 so that the family can return to live in the property from January 2026. The applicant stated that the rental received for the property was covering mortgage costs, however she and her husband had to pay council, water and strata levies for the property.
The applicant gave evidence that both she and her husband were actively looking for employment in Australia. The applicant advised that her husband had extensive experience as a civil engineer. The applicant further advised that she believed that it was easier to obtain employment from within the country rather than from outside. The applicant stated that in the event that she and her husband had any difficulty obtaining work upon their return to Australia in January 2026 that they were aware that they could apply for Centrelink benefits if required. The applicant further advised that she and her husband had AUD$240,000 in a redraw facility connected to their mortgage and that her husband had managed to acquire savings whilst residing in Qatar and that the family could rely on these sources of income whilst finding employment in Australia.
The applicant advised that the property that she and her husband reside in, in Qatar is fully furnished and that the family only have a few personal possessions that they are in the process of selling before departing Qatar and returning to Australia.
The applicant gave evidence that her children are excited about the prospect of returning to Australia and that she has been teaching them about the animals and the diverse sea life in Australia.
The applicant gave evidence that she had purchased a return airline ticket to Australia for 20 January 2026 and that she anticipates her husband will be able to derive funds from his employer in Qatar to pay for his airfare and the children’s airfare back to Australia.
The applicant’s husband gave evidence to the Tribunal. He advised that he was an Australian citizen and that he had lived in Australia since 2012 and that he worked as a civil engineer in Qatar. The applicant stated that he had worked on major infrastructure projects both in Australia and overseas and believed that his skills and experience would open up job opportunities for him when he returns to Australia.
The witness gave evidence that he accepted a contract in Qatar after losing substantial savings held in Lebanese banks because of the economic collapse in that country. The witness stated that when the pandemic hit that his wife was pregnant in Australia overseeing the care of their older son. The witness stated that because of border closures it was difficult to depart Qatar and to exit Australia and he eventually obtained permission to travel to Australia to be with his wife and support her in the latter stages of her pregnancy. He advised that he had to spend two weeks in quarantine after arriving in Australia. The witness confirmed that his father-in-law suffered several strokes and that his wife travelled to Lithuania to provide care and support to her father.
The witness provided evidence about how he and his wife maintained their connections to Australia whilst residing in Qatar. The witness stated that he and his wife maintained a mortgage with an Australian bank for their residential property and they maintained Australian bank accounts, Medicare cards, and drivers licenses.
The witness confirmed that they had been teaching their sons about Australia, particularly Australian animals and sea life. The witness stated that he believed that he would find employment in the engineering field within 1 to 3 months of returning to Australia. The witness confirmed that his contract was due to finish in August 2025 but will now finish at the end of 2025 with a plan that the family will return to Australia in January 2026. He confirmed that he has contacted his real estate agent in Sydney to organise the eviction of tenants. He advised that he had obtained a quote from a shipping company to transport their possessions from Qatar to Sydney. In addition to this the witness stated that he had contacted car dealers with respect to the purchase of a motor vehicle. The witness advised that he had also looked at private health insurers that he plans to re-engage with upon returning to Australia. The witness confirmed that both his children will be starting school in Australia in January 2026.
Mr Northam contended on behalf of the applicant that there was a ‘mountain of evidence’ to support the fact that the applicant and her family will return to Australia in January 2026. Mr Northam noted that the applicant and her husband had given evidence of a desire to return to Australia and a desire for their children to continue their education in Australia. They had instructed their real estate agent to evict the tenants currently occupying their property in Bankstown in Sydney. Notice will be given to the tenants in November 2025 to ensure that the property is available to the applicant and her family in January 2026.
Mr Northam noted that the family have contingency plans if there are delays in the applicant and her husband obtaining employment in Australia which include a redraw facility attached to their mortgage, savings accrued in Qatar, and if needed, access to the Centrelink support system.
Mr Northam noted the fact that the applicant and her husband had retained their residential property in Sydney, had paid all the outgoings for that property, had maintained their Medicare cards, there Australian telephone numbers, and their Australian bank accounts. Mr Northam also noted that the applicant had recently renewed her Subclass 155 resident return visa for one year and that in doing so she had to establish her substantial ties to Australia.
Mr Sheedy on behalf of the Minister noted that the Minister continued to rely on the respondent’s statement of facts issues and contentions. Mr Sheedy noted the amount of time that both the applicant and her husband had spent overseas since being granted permanent residence in Australia. Further that the applicant’s husband had predominantly worked overseas. Mr Sheedy expressed concern about the fact that the applicant had only purchased a one-way ticket to Australia in January 2026 for herself. Mr Sheedy questioned the applicant’s close association to Australia.
Mr Northam in response noted that for immigration purposes a person is considered to be a settled Australian resident after two years of continual residence in the country.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The evidence indicates that the Applicant has been residing in Qatar since May 2021, when she and her two young children were given permission to join her husband in Qatar, during a period of pandemic related border closures in that country, and in Australia.
The Applicant has argued that she and her husband’s relocation to Qatar was temporary and that her husband, a civil engineer, managed to obtain a lucrative fixed term contract in Qatar in 2019. Evidence was also provided that indicated that the Applicant and her husband had lost considerable savings held in Lebanese Banks during the economic collapse in that country.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant’s husband was initially going to take the position in Qatar on a fly-in fly-out basis. However, the onset of the global pandemic in 2020 changed this and the applicant found herself alone in Australia with an infant son and pregnant with her second child and at the mercy of international border closures.
The evidence indicates the applicant’s husband managed to get permission to enter Australia to spend time with his wife during the latter stages of her pregnancy, and that prior to the family reuniting, he spent two weeks in quarantine.
By May 2021 the applicant was struggling with two young children on her own in Australia and her husband managed to get special dispensation from the Qatari authorities to enable the family to be reunited in Qatar for the duration of her husband’s contract, despite strict border closures being in place at the time.
The evidence that has been provided to the Tribunal at review is that that Applicant’s husband’s employment contract will end in December 2025. The applicant and her husband own a residential apartment in Bankstown in Sydney. During the period that they have been residing in Qatar that property has been rented to tenants. The managing agent of the property will be giving the tenants notice in November 2025 to ensure that the property is vacant for the applicant and her family’s return to Sydney in January 2026.
The Tribunal is not concerned by the fact that the applicant and her husband do not have a position of employment confirmed in Australia at this point. The evidence indicates that both the applicant and her husband have been making active endeavours to pursue employment opportunities in Australia online. Both the applicant and her husband gave evidence that they believed that being on the ground in Australia gave them a stronger possibility of obtaining employment than doing it remotely. The evidence indicates that the applicant has tertiary qualifications and experience in her area of expertise and her husband has considerable experience as a civil engineer in the gas and oil industry. The evidence suggests that they will not have problems obtaining employment upon return to Australia. Further to this if there are any delays in finding employment the couple have funds in place to meet cost of living expenses.

The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant’s two children have been enrolled in Australian schools and will be commencing in their respective schools in January 2026 coinciding with the start of the Australian school year.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant’s husband’s Qatari contract was going to finish in August 2025, however, it will now conclude in December 2025. The family had considered returning to Australia before January 2026 but could not obtain enrolments for both children in Australian schools in term four of 2025. Hence the decision was made that the children will remain in their educational institutions in Qatar until the end of the Qatari school year and recommence their education in Australia in January 2026.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant and her husband have a mortgage with the National Australia Bank. The applicant and her husband have maintained their Australian bank accounts, their Medicare cards, their driver’s licences, mobile telephone numbers, and the applicant’s husband is currently looking at private health insurance options for the family for their return to Australia.
The evidence indicates that the applicant has purchased a ticket to depart Qatar for Australia on 20 January 2026 and that her husband is likely to be supported by his Qatari employer with respect to return airfares for himself and his two sons. The Applicant’s husband has also approached shipping companies with respect to having their possessions sent to Sydney.
The requirements under the Citizenship Act are that the applicant 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.
The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that the applicant 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.
DECISION
The Tribunal finds that the correct and preferable decision is to set aside the decision of the delegate on the basis that the Applicant satisfies the requirements of s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act.

Date(s) of hearing: 17 September 2025

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Northam, Northam Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Sheedy, Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Date(s) of hearing:	17 September 2025
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr Northam, Northam Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Sheedy, Sparke Helmore Lawyers