Leong and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for citizenship by conferral by Ms Man Sin Leong (the Applicant) following a decision by a Delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the Respondent) to refuse her application. The Applicant, born in Macau, first arrived in Australia in 2005 and was granted permanent residency in 2014. She lodged her citizenship application in April 2017 but subsequently departed Australia for extended periods between July 2017 and September 2019, despite assurances that she intended to reside in Australia permanently. The Delegate refused the application on the grounds that the Applicant was not likely to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, as required by section 21(2)(g) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth).

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether the Applicant met the requirements of section 21(2)(g) of the Act, specifically concerning her likelihood to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. The Tribunal also considered the impediment under section 24(5) of the Act, which requires an applicant to be resident in Australia at the time of the decision, and noted that the Delegate had not formally assessed the Applicant's good character under section 21(2)(h).

The Tribunal reasoned that the Applicant's presence in Australia at the time of the Tribunal's decision rendered the section 24(5) impediment irrelevant. It found that the weight of evidence supported the Applicant's stated intention to reside in Australia, citing her family ties in Australia, her de facto relationship with an Australian citizen, and the care she provided to her mother. The Tribunal accepted that her absences from Australia were explained by her responsibilities as an eldest daughter following her father's death and viewed these absences within the context of her overall residential history, which indicated predominant residence in Australia. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant had demonstrated a close and continuing association with Australia through her education and family ties.

The Tribunal set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration, with a direction that the Applicant satisfied the requirements of section 21(2)(g) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that while it could not formally determine the Applicant's good character, there was nothing before it to suggest she was not of good character, a matter still requiring assessment by the Respondent.