Judd and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by Mr Judd, the applicant, against a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the general residence requirements for citizenship, specifically the need to have been present in Australia for a sufficient period as a permanent resident. The applicant sought to rely on ministerial discretion, arguing he maintained a close and continuing association with Australia despite not meeting the strict timeframes. The decision was made by Mrs J C Kelly, Senior Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant four-year period, as contemplated by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and associated policy. This involved assessing various factors indicative of such an association, including the applicant's physical presence in Australia, his family connections, his intention to reside in Australia, and the presence of assets and community participation within Australia. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's absence from Australia and the reasons for that absence in its assessment of his ongoing connection.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had established a significant connection with Australia between late 2003 and his departure in January 2013, including purchasing a home, moving his family, and turning down a promotion that would have required him to leave Australia, his subsequent absence was not adequately explained. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been absent from Australia for almost two and a half years during the four-year period under consideration, and provided no explanation for this absence. While the applicant expressed an intention to return to Australia in approximately 2020 and maintained some financial ties, such as a superannuation account and membership in a club, these factors were not sufficient to demonstrate a close and continuing association during his extended period of absence. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the general residence requirements.