Kanis and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the application of Mr. Kanis for citizenship by conferral. Mr. Kanis, a permanent resident, sought to have his application considered under special provisions due to his inability to satisfy the general or special residency requirements. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr. Kanis could be considered the de facto partner of an Australian citizen during periods of his absence from Australia, and if so, whether the Minister's discretion to grant citizenship should be exercised in his favour.

The Tribunal was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to ascertain whether Mr. Kanis met the requirement under section 22(9)(a) of the relevant Act, which pertains to being the de facto partner of an Australian citizen during periods of absence. Secondly, if this condition was met, the Tribunal needed to decide if the discretion under section 22(9) was enlivened. Thirdly, if the discretion was enlivened, the Tribunal had to consider whether it should be exercised in Mr. Kanis's favour. Finally, the Tribunal was tasked with assessing whether Mr. Kanis met the special residence requirement under section 22B of the Act.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal first examined the definition of "de facto partner" as it applies under the Act, noting that the Act itself does not provide a definition. It referred to the definition of "de facto relationship" in section 2F of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), which requires persons to be not legally married, not related by family, and to have a genuine domestic relationship as a couple. The Tribunal also considered the guidance provided by the Citizenship Policy, acknowledging that while not binding law, it must be given due and proper consideration. The Tribunal ultimately found that Mr. Kanis's absences from Australia were not related to a de facto relationship, nor did he satisfy the criteria for being a member of an aircraft crew required to travel outside Australia due to work.

The decision under review was affirmed. Mr. Kanis, as a permanent resident, remains eligible to re-apply for citizenship in the future. If he subsequently meets the general or special residence requirements and other criteria for citizenship, he will be welcomed as a full member of the Australian community.