Liang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) - [2018] AATA 3782

Liang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3782 (10 October 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2017/5794
Re:Li Liang
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Linda Kirk
Date:10 October 2018
Place:Sydney

The Tribunal affirms the decision to refuse the application for Australian citizenship by conferral.

..........................[sgd]..............................................
Senior Member Linda Kirk
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – application for Australian citizenship by conferral – general residence requirements not satisfied – whether Ministerial discretion can be applied to treat the Applicant’s periods of absence from Australia as a period in which he was present as a permanent resident – whether Applicant likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia – whether Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during relevant period – Citizenship Policy applied – Applicant had continuing, but not close, association with Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – ss 21, 22, 24
CASES
Aston and Secretary, Department of Primary Industry, Re (1985) 8 ALD 366
Atkins and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1438
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2), Re (1979) 2 ALD 634
Judd v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 827
Khazzam and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 1269
Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 446
Li and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 270
Paula and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] AATA 543
Taher and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] AATA 917
UI Haque v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] AATA 118
Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (NSW) v Browning [1947] HCA 21; (1947) 74 CLR 492
Yang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 364
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Government, Citizenship Policy, 1 June 2016 – Ch 7A
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Linda Kirk
10 October 2018

Mr Li Liang (‘the Applicant’) is a citizen of China who first arrived in Australia on 17 July 1997.[1] Following a period offshore from 1999 to 2006, he returned to Australia on a subclass 136 (Skilled Independent) visa.[2] The Applicant was granted a Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa on 7 February 2011 and was subsequently granted two further Subclass 155 visas on 15 January 2016 and 21 November 2016.[3]
[1] T Documents, T8, page 74.
[2] T Documents, T8, page 74.
[3] T Documents, T8, page 73.
On 4 June 2016, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral.[4] On 7 September 2017 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (‘the Respondent’) refused the application because the Applicant did not satisfy the general residence requirements of sections 21(2)(c) and (g) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (‘the Act’) (‘the reviewable decision’).[5] The delegate determined that the Applicant was only present in Australia for a total of 87 days in the four year period prior to lodging his application, namely between 4 June 2012 and 4 June 2016 (‘the relevant period’) and present in Australia as a permanent resident for 29 days in the 12 months preceding the date of application. The delegate found that none of the Ministerial discretions in the Act could be applied to his circumstances to assist him to meet the general residence requirement and further was not satisfied that the Applicant is likely to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
[4]T Documents, T4, pages 19-37, Application for Australian Citizenship dated 4 June 2016.
[5]T Documents, T3, pages 10-18, Decision Record, Application for Conferral of Australian Citizenship 7 September 2017.
On 27 September 2017, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the reviewable decision with this Tribunal.[6]
[6] T Documents, T2, pages 3-9, Application for Review of Decision dated 27 September 2017.
The matter was heard in Sydney on 11 July 2018. The Applicant attended the hearing in person and was self-represented.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Australian Citizenship Act
Pursuant to section 24(1A) of the Act, the Minister must not approve an application to become an Australian citizen unless, among other things, the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2) of the Act.
Section 21(2) of the Act relevantly provides:
A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(c) satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) … at the time the person made the application; and
…
(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;
Section 22 of the Act sets out the general residence requirement. It provides:
General residence requirement
(1) Subject to this section, for the purposes of section 21 a person satisfies the general residence requirement if:
(a) the person was present in Australia for the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application; and
(b) the person was not present in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen at any time during that 4-year period; and
(c) the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident for the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application.
Overseas absences
(1A) If:
(a) the person was absent from Australia for a part of the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application; and
(b) the total period of the absence or absences was not more than 12 months;
then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the person is taken to have been present in Australia during each period of absence.
(1B) If:
(a) the person was absent from Australia for a part of the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application; and
(b) the total period of the absence or absences was not more than 90 days; and
(c) the person was a permanent resident during each period of absence;
then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the person is taken to have been present in Australia as a permanent resident during each period of absence.
…
Ministerial discretion--spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto partner of Australian citizen
(9) If the person is the spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen at the time the person made the application, the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if:
(a) the person was a spouse or de facto partner of that Australian citizen during that period; and
(b) the person was not present in Australia during that period; and
(c) the person was a permanent resident during that period; and
(d) the Minister is satisfied that the person had a close and continuing association with Australia during that period.
(emphasis added)
Citizenship Policy
Chapter 7A of the Citizenship Policy (‘the Policy’), provides guidance to decision-makers on the interpretation and exercise of the powers under the Act. The Tribunal is not bound to strictly apply the Policy, as it is not law. As the Tribunal stated in Re Aston and Secretary, Department of Primary Industry (1985) 8 ALD 366 (6 November 1985) at 376:
Policy is not law. A statement of policy is not a prescription of binding criteria.
However, policy should be given due and proper consideration and weight unless there are cogent reasons not to do so: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645 per Brennan J.
In reference to the tests to be met under sections 22(9) and 22(10) of the Act related to applications by “spouse and de facto partners”, the Policy provides:
In all cases, applicants must provide evidence that they maintained close and continuing association with Australia while overseas. Factors that may demonstrate this close and continuing association with Australia include, but are not limited to:
·evidence that the person migrated to and established a home in Australia prior to the period overseas
·Australian citizen children
·long term relationship with Australian citizen spouse or de facto partner
·extended family in Australia
·regular return visits to Australia
·regular periods of residence in Australia
·intention to reside in Australia
·the person has been on leave from employment in Australia while accompanying their spouse or partner overseas
·ownership of property in Australia
·evidence of income tax paid in Australia over the past four years and
·evidence of active participation in Australian community based activities or organisations.
In assessing whether a person has a close and continuing association with Australia for the purposes of s22(9)(d) more weight should be given to the listed factors if the person has been lawfully and physically present in Australia for at least 365 days in the four years immediately before making an application for Australian citizenship (including at least 90 days as a permanent resident). Less weight should be given to these factors if they have not been present in Australia for at least this period.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
The issues for determination by the Tribunal are whether the Applicant satisfies the general residence requirement in sections 21(2) and 22 of the Act which involves a consideration of whether:
(a)he satisfies the criteria in section 22(9)(a) – (d) of the Act;
(b)the discretion in section 22(9) of the Act should be exercised to treat any or all of his periods of absence from Australia as a period in which he was present in Australia as a permanent resident;
(c)he is likely to reside, to continue to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing relationship with Australia.
General Residence Requirement
The Applicant acknowledges and the Tribunal finds that in the relevant period he was only present in Australia for 87 days in the four year period prior to the date of his citizenship application on 4 June 2016 and 29 days in the 12 month period prior to his citizenship application.
The issue for determination is whether the Applicant can rely on the deeming provisions in sections 22(1A), 22(1B) or 22(9) in order to satisfy the criteria in section 22(1) of the Act.
Overseas absences provisions
The Applicant acknowledges and the Tribunal finds that he does not meet the criteria in section 22(1A) of the Act because in the four years prior to lodging his citizenship application, he was absent from Australia for 853 days - more than a total of 12 months.[7] The Applicant cannot therefore rely on section 22(1A) of the Act.
[7] Exhibit R1.
The Applicant also does not meet the criteria in section 22(1B) of the Act because in the 12 months prior to lodging his Citizenship Application, he was absent from Australia for 226 days - more than 90 days.[8] This is not disputed by the Applicant and the Tribunal finds that he cannot rely on section 22(1B) of the Act.
[8] Exhibit R1; T Documents, T8, pages 73-77, DIBP Interval Calculator.
Ministerial Discretion
The Applicant does not meet the general residence requirement in section 21(2)(c) of the Act because he was not present in Australia in the four years prior to his application for citizenship as required by section 22(1)(a). The question therefore is whether section 22(9) of the Act is available such that the Applicant can be deemed to have been present in Australia during the periods he was not.
Before the Minister can exercise the discretion provided for in section 22(9) of the Act to treat a period of absence as one in which a person was present in Australia, the four criteria set out in section 22(9)(a)–(d) inclusive must be satisfied.
Even if those criteria are met, the Minister is not required to exercise his or her discretion in favour of an applicant: Atkins and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 1438 at [21]-[22]. The section specifically uses the word “may,” not must. The Federal Court in Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2015] FCA 446 (“Kumar”) said:[9]
[23]…the word “may” permits the Minister to consider any matters, either in favour of or against “treat[ing] a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident”, provided those matters are not “definitely extraneous to any objects the legislature could have had in view”.
[9] Following Dixon J (as his Honour then was) in Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (NSW) v Browning[1947] HCA 21; (1947) 74 CLR 492 at 505.
If the four criteria are met, the next step for the decision maker is to 'examine the reasons why the applicant has not been able to meet the general residence requirements and whether those reasons are appropriate for the grant of special consideration': Taher and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] AATA 917 at [23]. Matters which can be considered can include 'any matters, either in favour of or against "treat[ing] a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident': provided those matters are not "definitely extraneous to any objects the legislature could have had in view": Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 446 at [23].
Further, pursuant to section 24(2) of the Act, the Minister may still refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen despite the person being eligible to become an Australian citizen under section 21(2) of the Act.
Are the criteria in section 22(9)(a)-(d) of the Act satisfied?
It is agreed between the parties that the Applicant satisfies the criteria in section 22(9)(a)-(c) of the Act because:
(a)he was a spouse of an Australian citizen during his periods of absence from Australia;[10] and
(b)he was not present in Australia for the majority of the four-year period prior to lodging his citizenship application; and
(c)he was the holder of a permanent resident visa (subclass 155) during that period.
[10] Applicant’s statement dated 4 May 2018.
The Applicant argues that he also satisfies s 22(9)(d) of the Act, specifically that he had a close and continuing association with Australia during the periods of his absence from Australia.
‘Close and continuing association with Australia’
There is no definition of “close and continuing association” in the Act. Consistent with previous Tribunal decisions and Judd v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection,[11] the Tribunal is satisfied that although the expression close and continuing is a broad one, it does require an objective assessment giving regard to “a qualitative assessment of the ultimate significance of an applicant’s circumstances”.
[11] Judd v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 827 at [14].
In Yang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] AATA 364 at [26], Senior Member Cotter described the Tribunal’s approach to determining the question of whether a person had a close and continuing association with Australia for the purposes of s 22(9) of the Citizenship Act:
Previous decisions of this Tribunal have emphasised that whether an applicant for citizenship had "a close and continuing association with Australia" throughout the relevant period(s) is ultimately a question of fact to be objectively assessed having regard to all the relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the factors listed in the Policy. The forming of an opinion as to whether a person has demonstrated the requisite association is "not a simple mechanical exercise to be undertaken by merely tallying the relevant factors", or by treating the listed factors in isolation or simply "ticking" them off individually as having been satisfied. What is required is:
... a qualitative assessment of the ultimate significance (of) an applicant's circumstances and whether or not they merited characterisation as evidence of ‘a close and continuing association with Australia’. In that assessment the fact and extent of the applicant's periods of Australian presence were highly relevant considerations.
[extract from Li and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 270, at [27]]
Although a qualitative assessment is appropriate, that does not mean that the assessment need not consider the factors contemplated by the Policy listed in paragraph 10 above.
The Policy stipulates that in assessing whether a person has a close and continuing association with Australia for the purposes of s 22(9)(d), more weight should be given to the relevant factors if the person has been lawfully and physically present in Australia for at least 365 days in the four years immediately before making an application for Australian citizenship.
The total period of the Applicant’s presence in Australia during the relevant period is 87 days, which is 23.83% of the time specified in the Policy (87 days out of 365).
The Tribunal finds that the 365 day requirement in the Policy should not be strictly applied. As the Tribunal stated in Khazzam and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 1269 (14 May 2018) at [21]:
The Policy is not a directive that must be followed but rather it provides guidance for decision-makers to consider a number of factors. The wording of the Policy refers to “weight” to be given to the 11 factors indicating that failure to meet the 365 days does not mean that no further consideration is required or that the application fails simply on this basis.
Accordingly, in circumstances as here, where the Applicant does not meet the 365 day Policy guidance, the Tribunal should ‘consider and give proportionate weight to the 11 factors’. This requires ‘an assessment of the applicant’s circumstances objectively and in totality, giving regard to the 11 factors or any other relevant circumstances’: Khazzam and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 1269 (14 May 2018) at [22].
(1)Evidence that the person migrated to and established a home in Australia prior to the period overseas
The Applicant first arrived in Australia on 17 July 1997 and was granted a subclass 136 (Skilled Independent) visa on 30 March 2006.[12] He married his wife, Ying Zhang, in June 2004 and their son Chen Liang was born on 14 December 2005.[13] Both his wife and his son are Australian citizens. In June 2009 they purchased an apartment in Hurstville which is leased and is managed by a real estate agent. During his overseas absences, he has maintained communication with Australian banks in relation to refinance and repayment of the home loan. They purchased a car in 2011 which they continue to own and have maintained car insurance. During their absences overseas, their neighbours looked after their car.
[12] T documents, T8 page 73.
[13] Applicant’s statement dated 4 May 2018.
The Applicant is a successful Business Builder and has close to two decades experience delivering rapid growth and market penetration in the ICT, ITP/BPO, Software and Technology industries.[14] He told the Tribunal that he worked for a multinational corporation from 2010 to 2012 which required a lot of international travel including to New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore. He relocated to Hong Kong in September 2012 as his parents were in bad health. He took a job with Telstra with the North Asia partner program. After his application for Australian citizenship was refused, he asked to be relocated to Australia. When this was refused, he resigned his job at Telstra and returned to Australia in September 2017.
[14] Applicant’s statement dated 4 May 2018.

In May 2018 they leased a property in Chatswood and have started looking to buy a home on the North Shore. His son commenced at Knox Grammar School on 3 May 2018 and he is achieving good grades. His wife is an accountant and she is not currently working but is looking for a job. He works as a volunteer in the local community and is a member of the Chatswood tennis club and Hurstville Club Central.
The Applicant has recently been offered employment with APPG as Sales Manager commencing on 16 July 2018.[15] His base salary is $55,000 per annum plus commission. He is not a tax resident in Australia.
[15] Exhibit A1.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that during the relevant period he took every opportunity to visit Australia with his family, particularly during holidays. During these visits they visited friends and neighbours.
The Applicant has held Australian visas with work and permanent residence rights since 2006. The Tribunal has given considerable weight to the Applicant’s explanations and reasons for his extended absences overseas during the relevant period. The Tribunal acknowledges that family considerations were important in the Applicant’s decision to remain offshore for the majority of the time during the relevant period including his desire to live in closer proximity to his parents.
However, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that during the relevant period the Applicant’s home was in Hong Kong and that he had not established a home in Australia. The Tribunal gives significant weight to this factor in its consideration of whether he had a close and continuing association with Australia during the periods of his absence from Australia.
(2)Australian citizen children
The Applicant has one Australian citizen child aged 12 years. His son has lived with his parents in Australia and Hong Kong. His schooling has been primarily in Hong Kong and he has only recently enrolled in school in Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that an Australian citizen child establishes that the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period. However, the Tribunal has given this factor some weight in favour of the Applicant.
(3)Long term relationship with Australian citizen spouse or de facto partner
The Applicant has been in a spousal relationship with his wife since June 2004. The Tribunal is satisfied that the relationship is long, genuine and continuing, but finds that this association with an Australian is not indicative of a close and continuing association with Australia: UI Haque v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] AATA 118 at [52]. However it gives this factor some weight favourable to the Applicant in determining whether he had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
(4)Extended family in Australia
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has extended family in Australia.
(5)Regular return visits to Australia
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant regularly returned to Australia to visit and that during the relevant period, he returned on seven occasions. The Tribunal observes that those visits were brief, ranging from seven to 21 days.[16] The Tribunal acknowledges that work and other commitments overseas limited the opportunities the Applicant had for return visits to Australia. However the Tribunal finds that although the Applicant visited Australia during the relevant period, these visits were very brief, and accordingly the Tribunal gives this aspect limited weight in determining whether he had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
(6)Regular periods of residence in Australia
[16] Exhibit R1.
The evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant visited Australia regularly during the relevant period, albeit for short periods of time. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant did not reside in Australia during the relevant period. During this time, the Applicant’s family home was in Hong Kong. The family did not return to Australia and establish a home here until May 2018. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant’s regular visits to Australia during the relevant period show that the Applicant had periods of residence in Australia.
The Tribunal is satisfied that on balance, the Applicant’s visits to Australia were in the nature of a visitor rather than a resident who has established a home in Australia. The Tribunal has therefore given limited weight to this factor in determining whether he had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
(7)Intention to reside in Australia
The Applicant explained that they have wanted and intended to reside in Australia but have not done so due to work commitments overseas and the refusal of his request to be transferred by Telstra to Australia. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant and his family returned to Australia in September 2017 and have now rented a home close to his son’s school. The Applicant has also recently secured employment as a Sales Manager commencing on 16 July 2018 with a three month probationary period. The Tribunal finds that these matters are evidence of the Applicant’s claimed intention of wishing to remain in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that a fair assessment of the evidence is that although the Applicant has an intention to reside in Australia, this remains conditional. The Tribunal therefore gives this intention limited weight in determining whether he had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
(8)The person has been on leave from employment in Australia while accompanying their spouse or partner overseas
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the Applicant was on leave from employment to accompany his spouse overseas.
(9)Ownership of property in Australia
The Applicant and his wife own a property in Hurstville which they purchased in 2009, outside the relevant period. They have not lived in the property which has been leased and managed by a real estate agent. The Tribunal finds that the purchase of the property was for commercial/investment purposes rather than being indicative of an intention to establish a home in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that the ownership of the property does not mean that the Applicant has established a home in Australia or that the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia on this basis. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives limited weight to this factor.
(10)Evidence of income tax paid in Australia over the past four year
The Applicant confirmed that he is not a tax resident in Australia. The Tribunal gives some weight to this factor in determining whether he had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
(11)Evidence of active participation in Australian community based activities or organisations
The Applicant provided some evidence of his participation in community based activities and/or organisations including membership of two sporting clubs. The Tribunal notes that there is no evidence that this involvement was during the relevant period. The Tribunal has therefore given limited weight to this factor in deciding whether he had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
Cumulative consideration
The Tribunal has considered the Policy factors independently and the Tribunal recognises that a cumulative approach is required in assessing whether the applicant has a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period. Of the 11 factors, on the Tribunal’s assessment, two of those factors are favourable to the Applicant. However, the fact that during the relevant period, the Applicant was in Australia for 87 days out of 365 means that the Tribunal gives less weight to those favourable factors: Paula and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] AATA 543 at [30]-[31].
Looking at the evidence cumulatively, the Tribunal is satisfied that whereas the Applicant had a continuing association with Australia during the periods of absence, a fair appraisal of the evidence indicates that it was not close. Despite having a permanent visa, during the relevant period the Applicant did not have a home in Australia, nor did he reside, work in, or engage with Australia in a way to support his claim that he had a close and continuing association.
The Tribunal is satisfied that overall the evidence assessed independently and cumulatively indicates that the Applicant did not have a close and continuing association with Australia during his absences in the relevant period. The Tribunal is satisfied that his connection with Australia during this time was consistent with that of a regular visitor rather than a resident. Accordingly, the Applicant does not satisfy s22(9)(d) of the Act.
Should the Tribunal exercise the discretion?
In a case where an Applicant does not meet the general residence requirements, it is important to look at the circumstances as a whole and consider whether the Applicant’s reasons for not meeting those requirements warrant the exercise of discretion. The Applicant currently has a permanent Australian visa which enables him, amongst other things, to enter and reside in Australia and to work.
As outlined above, the Tribunal has concluded that there are only two factors in the Policy which are favourable to the Applicant. Moreover, the Applicant’s presence in Australia is substantially short of the 365 day requirement specified in the Policy. Therefore, even if the Tribunal had reached different conclusions in relation to the 11 factors, the Tribunal would give less weight to those favourable factors because the Applicant falls short of this standard.
Having carefully considered the Applicant’s circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the s 22(9) discretion should be exercised in the Applicant’s favour. It is open to the Applicant to lodge another citizenship application in the future which will be considered in accordance with the relevant law and policy.
The finding that the Applicant does not satisfy the general residence requirement makes it unnecessary for the Tribunal to consider whether the Applicant meets section 21(2)(g) as every sub-clause of section 21(2) must be met for him to be eligible for the conferral of Australian citizenship.
In light of these conclusions, in consideration of the evidence as a whole and for the stated reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision to refuse the application of Australian citizenship by conferral.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to refuse the application for Australian citizenship by conferral.

I certify that the preceding 56 (fifty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Linda Kirk

............................[sgd]............................................
Associate
Dated: 10 October 2018

Date of hearing: 11 July 2018

Applicant: In person

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms S Prasad, Minter Ellison

Date of hearing:	11 July 2018
Applicant:	In person
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms S Prasad, Minter Ellison