Kiragu and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for citizenship by conferral by Ms Kiragu, which was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Ms Kiragu sought review of this decision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms Kiragu met the general residency requirement under section 22 of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if Ms Kiragu satisfied the third criterion of this requirement, which mandates that an applicant must not have been absent from Australia for more than 90 days in the 12-month period immediately preceding their application for citizenship. The Tribunal also considered whether any Ministerial discretions under sections 22(5) or 22(6) of the Act were enlivened and, if so, whether they should be exercised.

The Tribunal found that Ms Kiragu was absent from Australia for a total of 119 days during the relevant 12-month period, due to two separate journeys to Kenya. The first absence was for 119 days, with 46 days falling within the 12 months prior to her citizenship application, necessitated by her mother's serious illness. The second absence was for 67 days, due to her father's death and funeral. The Tribunal accepted Ms Kiragu's evidence regarding the circumstances of these absences, finding her to be a credible witness. Despite the compelling reasons for her absences, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Kiragu did not meet the mandatory third criterion of the general residency requirement, as her total absence exceeded 90 days in the preceding 12 months. The Tribunal further found that the circumstances did not enliven the Ministerial discretions under sections 22(5) or 22(6) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse Ms Kiragu's application for citizenship by conferral. The Tribunal noted that this decision did not preclude Ms Kiragu from lodging a new application in the future, provided she met all eligibility requirements at that time.