Lassa and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) - [2025] ARTA 2077

Lassa and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 2077 (15 October 2025)
Applicant:Jonatan Anderias Lassa
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2025/2079

Tribunal:General Member J Cipolla
Place:Sydney
Date:15 October 2025

Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review with a direction that the Applicant meets the requirements of section 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act on the basis that he is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved.

……………..[S.G.D] ……………..
General Member J Cipolla
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – Application for conferral of Australian citizenship – general residence requirements – close and continuing association with Australia – CPI 11 – overseas absences – Decision under review affirmed
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (the Respondent) on 14 January 2025 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 was not 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.
On 11 February 2025, the Applicant made an application to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of the delegate’s decision.
The respective issue before the Tribunal is 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, pp. 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:
• Whether 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;
• Whether 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;
• Whether 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?
If 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?
What 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?
Is 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)?
Frequency 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?
Frequency 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;
What 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;
Departmental movement records may be used to establish periods of residence. passenger cards, where available, may assist in identifying reasons for being outside Australia.
Participation 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.
The 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 Indonesia. He first arrived in Australia on 16 May 2016 as the holder of a Temporary Work (Skilled) (Class UC) (Subclass 457) visa. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that he currently holds an Employer Nomination Scheme (Class EN) (Subclass 186) visa granted on 8 September 2020.
The Applicant lodged an application for citizenship by conferral on 13 January 2024 that was refused by the Department of Home Affairs on 14 January 2025.
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.
EVIDENCE
The Applicant contends that he has a close and continuing association with Australia. The Applicant provided a range of evidence to support that contention.
The applicant provided evidence of an honorary appointment to engage in pro bono services as an academic for the Charles Darwin University (CDU).
The Applicant provided evidence of him having an active academic profile at CDU and of him having a formal association with the Northern Institute (NI) at CDU.
The applicant provided evidence of his ongoing supervision of Doctor of Philosophy students undertaking studies in his area of expertise at CDU.
The applicant has been involved in applying for, receiving and managing research grants on behalf of CDU.
The applicant provided a range of evidence with respect to publications over 2025 in association with CDU.
The applicant provided evidence of his tax payments up until 30 January 2025. He also provided evidence of donations to Save the Children Australia.
The applicant also provided evidence of job applications that he has made in his area of academic expertise indicative of an intention to return to Australia from New Zealand.
The applicant provided evidence of ownership of an apartment in Adelaide to which he has a mortgage with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.
The applicant provided evidence of share investments in Australia along with receipt of Australian Treasury bonds in the form of advice with respect to dividends received.
The applicant noted that his daughter is currently residing in Adelaide and studying at Flinders University and that she is an Australian citizen as is his son.
The respondent provided the Tribunal with a statement of facts, issues and contentions dated 24 July 2025 which has been duly considered by the Tribunal.
That submission notes that the key issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the Tribunal should 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 his application were to be approved, pursuant to s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act (the Act).
The submission notes that section 21(2)(g) of the Act namely, whether an applicant is likely to (a) reside in Australia; (b) continue to reside in Australia; or (c) maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. The submission notes that the applicant need only establish one of these limbs in order to satisfy this criterion.
The Minister’s position is that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant is likely to reside or to continue to reside in Australia where he is currently residing and working outside Australia in New Zealand, as a Senior Scientist, at the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Science of New Zealand.
The Minister contends with respect to whether the applicant is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia that the Minister accepts that the applicant’s partner is a permanent resident of Australia and that his daughter and sons are both Australian citizens. The Minister also accepts that the applicant’s daughter is currently residing in Adelaide and studying at Flinders University. The submission notes that both the applicant’s children are over the age of 18 and therefore the applicant does not have formal caring obligations towards them.
Further the Minister accepts that the applicant previously resided in Australia from May 2016 working as a university lecturer in the Northern Territory prior to leaving Australia in January 2024 and subsequently resigning from his full-time role at CDU. Further, the Minister accepts that the applicant had engaged in community activities prior to leaving Australia and had contributed to the Australian community through his employment activities at university.
Further the Minister accepts that the applicant owns a property in Adelaide and has provided evidence with respect to payment of strata fees, rates and utilities for that property over 2024 and that his daughter currently resides in that property. The Minister also accepts the applicant’s evidence that he has invested in Australian Treasury bonds and shares in the financial year ending 30 June 2024.
The Minister notes that since departing Australia in January 2024 that the applicant had only returned for one short visit to complete the citizenship test.
With respect to the applicant’s assertion that he intends to reside in Australia and is applying for jobs in Australia the evidence indicates that he is committed to his New Zealand contract until the end of 2025. The Minister noted that the applicant had applied in May 2025 for a job at the Australian Institute of Marine science but had not provided any subsequent information with respect to that position and prospective relocation for that position if he was to receive an offer of employment.
The Minister’s position is that the Tribunal could not be satisfied that any close and continuing association with Australia would be established, or maintained, after the prospective approval of the application.
REVIEW HEARING
On 10 October 2025, the Applicant attended a hearing via video conferencing facilities from New Zealand. The respondent was represented by Ms Miriam Williams, solicitor from Minter Ellison Solicitors who also appeared via video link.
At the outset of the review hearing the Tribunal went into detail about the respective issues in the review, how the review hearing would be conducted and the prospective outcomes of the review. As the Applicant was not legally represented the Tribunal suggested that it could proceed to ask the Applicant general questions with respect to his application for citizenship, the respondent’s representative had no objections to this proposal.
The applicant stated in opening that he wished to highlight what he believes are his strong associations with Australia. The applicant made reference to his pro bono initiatives with CDU involving research, academic papers and the supervising of PhD students. The applicant stated that despite being in New Zealand, he had represented CDU for the past almost 24 months.
The applicant confirmed his immigration history noting that he arrived in Australia on 16 May 2016 as the holder of a Subclass 457 visa. The applicant advised that he was sponsored by CDU for an academic position with that institution. The applicant advised that he was granted permanent residence under the ENS, Subclass 186 visa category on 8 September 2020.
With respect to his history in Australia the applicant advised that he and his wife decided to purchase a property in Darwin in November 2020. He subsequently purchased a property in Adelaide in March 2022. The applicant stated that he was maintaining repayments on both properties but when interest rates started to escalate, he sold the Darwin property in April 2024.
The applicant stated that up until January 2024 he resided in Australia with his wife, son, and daughter. The applicant advised that his two children were Australian citizens. The applicant advised that his daughter was studying a Bachelor of Digital Arts in Adelaide and that she was residing in the family property. She had been living alone but had just recently taken in a roommate.
The applicant made reference to his employment history from the time he acquired permanent residence in September 2020. The applicant stated that he worked at CDU from September 2020 through to August 2024. The applicant stated that he had a tenured position with the University. The applicant stated that over 2023, he experienced a number of calamities including the death of his father in May 2023, in Indonesia, the acquisition of a bacterial infection in Darwin in August 2023, and his son experiencing mental health issues as a teenager over this period. The applicant stated that as a consequence of these events, he spoke to the Dean of Studies seeking access to some long service leave. The applicant stated that he was given verbal approval to use and exhaust his long service leave and take a period of unpaid leave that covered January 2024 through to January 2026. The extended period of leave approved verbally by the Dean of Studies was later refused by the pro-Vice Chancellor of CDU. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had long service leave from January 2024 to August 2024 and asked why he had to resign from his tenured position. The applicant stated that he had committed himself to a position in New Zealand from 16 January 2024 to 16 January 2026

The applicant stated that his wife lived with him in New Zealand and his son spent approximately 50% of his time in Australia and 50% of his time in New Zealand.
The applicant advised that he had made a number of applications for jobs in Australia in his field of expertise but noted that jobs in his area of expertise were limited to about 5 to 6 universities. The applicant stated that he had made an application to the Australian Marine Science Institute for a position that would be based in either Darwin or Perth. The applicant stated that the position had not yet been finalised, that he had been shortlisted, but the problem to date was this was an indigenous identified position, and no successful indigenous application had been identified.
The applicant stated that his current contract finished in January 2026 and that if he was to breach the contract earlier that he would have to repay the New Zealand government the costs of his relocation and any return travel costs to Australia. The applicant stated that until he receives a solid job offer in Australia that he maintains an intention to continue in his current role until such time that he finds employment in his field of expertise in Australia. The applicant advised that he had made an application for a lesser academic position at Charles Sturt University which he had decided not to take up.
The applicant advised that he has been widely published in his area of expertise and that he has published a number of articles for CDU over 2025 appearing in the Journal of Ocean and Coastal Management and in the Journal of Environmental Management.
The applicant stated that he maintains a pro-bono role with CDU. He is currently overseeing five PhD students. The applicant also stated that he has been actively involved in applying for funds from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Australia for which he has been successful, directed at disaster relief programs in Indonesia.
The applicant gave evidence that his son had been studying at technical college in Australia and was currently spending 50% of his time in Australia and 50% of his time in New Zealand.
The applicant stated that his wife was keen to relocate to Australia at the end of his current contract in New Zealand.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he lost his tenured position at CDU, and the applicant stated that it was attributable to his absence from CDU beyond his long service leave entitlements and that he decided to stay in New Zealand in his current position as he saw it as career advancement.
Ms Williams asked the applicant several questions. She referred to page 99 of the joint tender bundle with the applicant confirming that this was his application for citizenship form and the applicant advised that he had no assistance in completing it.
Ms Williams made reference to page 117 of the joint tender bundle noting that the applicant indicated in the form for citizenship of his intention to travel on a business trip for five months. The applicant stated that this date changed because of the decision to refuse an extended period of leave by the pro-Vice Chancellor at CDU. The applicant was questioned about whether he believed he would be in New Zealand for more than five months. The applicant stated that he was not sure how his period of probation would go with his New Zealand employers and was aware of significant job cuts in New Zealand by this employer. The applicant stated that the position had a degree of uncertainty.
Ms Williams noted that the applicant departed Australia on 15 January 2024 and has only returned once for a short period arriving back on 4 August 2024. The applicant confirmed that this was the case. The applicant stated that he had a meeting with his old boss in August 2024 and the applicant confirmed this and that he undertook his citizenship examination.
The applicant was asked why he continued to provide voluntary services to CDU given a divergence of views he had with the Head of the Northern Institute at CDU. The applicant stated that he was committed to his ongoing research and committed to the ongoing supervision of PhD students. The applicant stated that he had not returned during the term of his contract apart from in August 2024 because his income was being derived from his two-year contract position in New Zealand.
The applicant confirmed that he had continued to undertake research and oversight of PhD students for CDU on a pro bono basis and had been engaged in fundraising for various projects. It was noted that the applicant had applied for positions at the University of Adelaide and at Curtin University and the applicant confirmed that this was the case, but he was not successful because the positions applied for did not closely align with his area of expertise.
It was noted that the applicant published articles in Australian academic journals in March 2025 in April 2025 on behalf of CDU as a contributing author. The applicant confirmed this. The Tribunal noted from the two research publications that the applicant had co-authored that his name on one publication was in first position and in a second publication was in second position and that the authors did not appear in alphabetical order. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the significance of this. The applicant advised that his name appeared first in one of the papers because he was the lead researcher and in position two in the second paper because he was the second lead researcher.
The applicant was asked whether his qualifications were in demand in Australia. The applicant stated that the areas of disaster management because of climate change was a significant priority for the Australian Government and formed a significant part of the Australian Government’s foreign policy.
The applicant advised that in his professional capacity he had been providing advice to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with respect to the administration of grants for various disaster management programs particularly in Indonesia. The applicant described these as pro-bono initiatives on top of his position in New Zealand.
The applicant was asked whether he appealed the decision of the pro Vice-Chancellor at CDU, and he advised that he wanted to lodge a complaint with Fair Work Australia but decided not to pursue it because he did not want to compromise his relationships with the institution. The applicant stated that he had high regard for his students and for his long association with CDU and it was not appropriate for him to pursue further action.
The applicant was asked whether his vision in his area of expertise aligned with that of CDU. The applicant stated that it did align with CDU but did not align with the head of the Northern Institute. The applicant confirmed that his current employment in New Zealand went through to January 2026. The applicant confirmed that if he breached the contract by leaving earlier that he would have to repay part of his relocation costs and reimburse the institution for travel expenses. The applicant stated that his priority is to obtain a relevant job in Australia, and that he would like to return to Australia at the expiration of his current contract in January 2026. The applicant stated that the grant of citizenship would increase by 50%, his job opportunities in Australia.
The applicant was asked if a position arose in Australia before January 2026 whether he had the capacity to take it up. The applicant stated that he had accumulated significant recreation leave in his current role in New Zealand and by the end of 2025 would have around two months leave.
In terms of the applicant’s family, the applicant confirmed that his wife lived with him in New Zealand and that his son had spent approximately 50% of his time in New Zealand and 50% in Australia. He confirmed again that his daughter lived and studied full-time in Australia. The applicant advised that apart from his immediate family he had a number of cousins in Australia and that his wife had cousins in Melbourne and Darwin.
The applicant stated that he supplemented costs associated with his daughter’s study in South Australia because she was not eligible for any Austudy benefits from the Australian Government because of the application of the income test.
The applicant stated that his wife’s desire was to return to Australia as soon as possible.
The applicant was asked whether he considered his primary residence to be New Zealand. The applicant stated that in the immigration system their permanent address is the Adelaide address and that he considers the position in New Zealand and his address in New Zealand to be temporary in nature. The applicant stated that he is 50 years old and that he hopes to be able to work until he is 60-65. The applicant described his wife as having a strong social network in Darwin and believed that the chance of returning to Darwin was around 50%. The applicant advised that he had a lot of social connections in Darwin through university and colleges. The applicant also stated that he had church connections in Darwin as he and his family had attended the Casuarina Baptist Church in Darwin and at times the Indonesian Christian church. The applicant stated that he had undertaken volunteer work for the church.
The applicant restated his pro bono and voluntary work with CDU noting that when he was teaching at CDU that his additional job responsibilities meant that he was carrying an excessive caseload measured at 350%.
The applicant confirmed the fact that he paid all the outgoings on the property in Adelaide. He confirmed a number of investments in Coles, Woolworths and in Australian Treasury bonds. The applicant conceded that these investments were able to be managed online.
The applicant confirmed that since departing Australia in January 2024 that he had continued to pay tax in Australia. The applicant confirmed that he had been able to conduct his supervision of PhD students at CDU remotely and noted that CDU had been in the online space for 20 years, noting that its campuses were spread across South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory.
The applicant confirmed that testimony with respect to his ongoing association with CDU had been provided by associate Professor Surjan at CDU and the applicant advised that he was a long-term colleague and as they had worked together for eight years, they became friends.
The applicant advised again that he had been identified as a suitable for appointment to the Australian Marine Institute and that the position there had not yet been formalised, but he was still in the running.
It was put to the applicant that his proposed return to Australia was speculative. The applicant stated that he will continue to travel to Australia, and that his home is in Adelaide. He added he has children and relatives in Australia and that he and his wife consider Australia to be their home.
The applicant was asked what he would do if his citizenship application was approved, and he advised that he would return home for the citizenship ceremony. He advised that the grant of citizenship by conferral meant that his chance of obtaining a job would increase by 50%. He advised that some jobs are only open to Australian citizens such as those with the Murray Darling Basin.
With respect to his close and continuing association to Australia the applicant stated that he was proud to serve Australia on the global stage and to serve its strategic interests in the area of climate change and disaster management. The applicant believed that his ongoing close associations with CDU and with students of that institution demonstrated him as having a close and continuing association with Australia.
In closing the applicant stated that he was reliant on his oral submissions and his written evidence.
Ms Williams for the Minister stated that the Minister accepted the applicant’s evidence at hearing about his connection to his church in Australia but submitted that overall, the applicant’s return to Australia was speculative and that the Minister was reliant on its statement of facts issues and contentions.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The legislation and CPI 11 which provides guidance to decision makers envisages that an Applicant for citizenship by conferral has maintained a close and indeed a continuing association with Australia. The provision and it’s wording according to CPI 11 should be given its ordinary meaning. Reference to the Macquarie dictionary definition of ‘maintain’ is to keep in existence or continuance, to preserve, retain. With respect to ‘close’ as in near or near together, in space time or relation. With respect to ‘continuing’ to last or endure and ‘association’ the act of associating…connection or combination.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant arrived in Australia on a long stay business visa in May 2016 sponsored as an academic by CDU.
He acquired his permanent residence through the ENS stream on 8 September 2020 and once again he was sponsored by CDU.
The evidence indicates that the Applicant worked as an academic with CDU until his resignation in August 2024 whilst on leave.
The Applicant described 2023 being a challenging year due to the death of his father in Indonesia, health problems he experienced as a result of a bacterial infection that he acquired in Darwin and due to his son experiencing mental health issues as a teenager. As a consequence, he sought time away from work comprising of long service leave and unpaid leave. This was approved by the Dean of Studies but later refused by the pro Vice Chancellor leading to the Applicant resigning from a tenured position and taking up a two-year contract in New Zealand that he saw as directly advancing his career. This position commenced in January 2024 and is due to finish in January 2026.
During the time the Applicant had been in New Zealand he has only returned to Australia on one occasion, in August 2024 to sit the citizenship test referable to this application.
The Applicant has claimed that despite his absence from Australia that he has maintained a close and continuing association with Australia for the reasons provided to the Tribunal at review.
Conversely, the Minister submits that this requirement is not satisfied for the reasons they have posited and contend that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia in the event that his citizenship application is approved.
FINDINGS
The Tribunal has had regard to the citizenship procedural instructions in this case CPI 11.
The policy direction states that the phrase ‘likely to maintain a close and continuing association’ should be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear.
Maintain as to keep in existence, preserve or retain, close as near or near together in space, time or relation, continuing as to last or endure, and association an act of associating an active connection or combination
The policy guidelines note that the requirement to maintain a close and continuing association refers to an association with Australia, not with Australians. The policy directions note that this means that a close and continuing association with an immediate or extended family member may not be sufficient to meet this legal requirement, however, the merits of every case needs to be carefully considered.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant worked as an academic in Australia from May 2016 until the end of 2023 at which time he took extended leave from CDU. The evidence indicates that the applicant has worked in the areas of disaster governance looking at institutions and governance practice and disaster reduction throughout the world.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant had a long association with CDU from 2016 to 2024. The applicant for personal reasons sought an extended period of leave from CDU in 2023. The applicant was given verbal approval for the leave by the Dean of Studies however this was later rescinded by the pro-Vice-Chancellor.
In January 2020 for the applicant accepted a contract working in New Zealand as a Senior Scientist at the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Science in New Zealand a contract which he is committed to until the end of 2025. The Applicant stated that if he ended the contract early he would have to make a number of reparations to his employer. The Applicant stated that if he was offered a position in Australia before the end of the contract that he has sufficient leave to not be in breach of his current contract.
The applicant gave evidence at the review hearing that his area of expertise is limited and that job prospects in Australia after he ceased his employment at CDU were limited to about 6 to 7 institutions nationally. The applicant saw the position in New Zealand as one that offered him significant career advancement.
Despite the fact that the applicant has been working in New Zealand on a two-year contract, the evidence provided by the applicant indicates that he has maintained a strong connection to CDU. The applicant provided evidence of an honorary appointment to CDU which commenced on 4 September 2024 and is valid through to 6 September 2027. The account gives the applicant access to academic staff services within CDU. The applicant provided evidence that he maintains an active profile at CDU with a copy of his profile as at May 2025 also provided to the Tribunal.
The applicant provided evidence that he has being overseeing several PhD students on a pro-bono basis over 2024 and 2025.
The applicant provided evidence that he was noted to be one of Australia’s top 250 researchers in 2025 in the Australians Research Magazine in the field of emergency management. Evidence provided indicates that this is the second year that the Applicant has made the top 250 Australian researchers list with a link to his research biography. This in the view of the Tribunal is indicative of a close and continuing association with Australia.
The applicant owns residential premises in Adelaide, South Australia, for which he has a mortgage with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. He pays the outgoing mortgage costs on this property along with strata fees and council rates. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant’s daughter is currently residing in this property as she studies a Bachelor of Digital Arts at Flinders University in Adelaide. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant’s son, who was struggling with mental health issues in 2023 is currently residing in New Zealand with his parents but currently spends 50% of his time in Australia and 50% of his time in New Zealand. The evidence indicates that both of the applicant’s adult children are Australian citizens.
The applicant has provided evidence of a number of Australian shares and Treasury bonds that he maintains which evidences dividends that have been paid during 2025.
The applicant has provided evidence of publications made in association with his connection to CDU in March 2025 and April 2025. The April 2025 publication located in the joint tender bundle at page 327 notes the applicant to be the lead author of the paper, noting his association with CDU and noting his email address at CDU.
The applicant has provided evidence under oath of his attempts to obtain suitable employment in his area of expertise in Australia beyond his current New Zealand contract. Once again, the applicant provided evidence of the limited field available to him particularly given that some positions require applicants to be Australian citizens such as those with the Murray Darling Basin. The applicant provided evidence of his attempts to find appropriate work in Australia. He advised that the grant of Australian citizenship will open this up by 50%.
The applicant gave evidence that he and his wife consider Adelaide South Australia to be their home, where they have purchased and retain property, and the applicant expressed that they hoped to retire in that city.

The applicant gave evidence that he has been shortlisted for a position with the Australian Marine Institute. However, this position was designated as an Indigenous identified position. The applicant noted that to date a suitable Indigenous applicant has not been found and he remains in the running for this position which will be located in either Queensland or Western Australia.
Policy notes that 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.
The applicant gave evidence at the review hearing that the contract in New Zealand will be completed in January 2026 but noted that it is an open-ended in the event that he is not able to secure employment in Australia.
The applicant gave evidence that both he and his wife strongly wish to return to Australia. They want to be close to their adult children, the applicant wants to pursue further academic opportunities in Australia and the applicant has continued on a voluntary and pro bono basis to engage with CDU, and in the supervision of PhD students, in contributing as a lead author to Australian academic publications in Australian journals, and in the view of the Tribunal the applicant in doing this, is continuing to foster his commitment to, his future career in Australia.
On the cumulative evidence, the Tribunal finds that the correct or preferable decision is to set aside the decision under review with a direction that the Applicant meets the requirements of section 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act on the basis that he is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved.
DECISION
The Tribunal set aside the decision under review with a direction that the Applicant meets the requirements of section 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act on the basis that he is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved.

Date(s) of hearing: 10 October 2025

Applicant: In person (MS Teams)

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Williams, Minter Ellison

Date(s) of hearing:	10 October 2025
Applicant:	In person (MS Teams)
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Williams, Minter Ellison