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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by Mr Leverenz, who was refused citizenship by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute centred on whether Mr Leverenz met the residency requirements for citizenship, specifically concerning his absences from Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Leverenz had established a close and continuing association with Australia and was likely to reside in Australia, as required by the *Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). A key issue was whether Mr Leverenz's absence from Australia for 91 days in the 12 months immediately preceding his application disqualified him from meeting the general residency requirements under section 21 of the Act, or if his absence was in fact 90 days as he claimed. The Tribunal also considered the impact of Citizenship Procedural Instruction 11 and subsection 24(5) of the Act, which relates to the prohibition of granting citizenship if certain conditions are not met.

The Tribunal found that Mr Leverenz's claim of having booked return flights to Sydney approximately two months prior to an email dated 31 March 2021 was not supported by documentary evidence. Given that Australia's international borders reopened on 21 February 2022 and the invasion of Ukraine occurred on 24 February 2022, the Tribunal considered it unlikely that a decision not to travel was made between these dates and 31 March 2022. The Tribunal also noted that Mr Leverenz's oral evidence regarding his intention to apply for citizenship concurrently with his wife and son was contradicted by departmental records indicating his absence from Australia for 91 days in the relevant period. This exceeded the 90-day limit stipulated in subsection 22(1B) of the Act for an applicant to be taken to have met the residency requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the original decision to refuse Mr Leverenz's application for citizenship by conferral. However, the Tribunal noted that this decision did not prevent Mr Leverenz from making a future application once he satisfied the requirements of subsection 24(5) and had physically returned to Australia.