Lo and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)
[2016] AATA 579
•8 August 2016
Lo and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2016] AATA 579 (8 August 2016)
Division
GENERAL DIVISION
File Number
2015/6636
Re
Kenneth Lo
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member CR Walsh
Date 8 August 2016 Place Perth The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
.........[Sgd]...............................................................
Senior Member CR Walsh
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – whether applicant met the general residence requirement at the time he applied for Australian citizenship – whether the applicant is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing relation with Australia if his citizenship application were to be approved – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 1948 – s 13(1)(j)
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 – s 3 – s 3(b) – s 5(1) – s 21(2) – s 21(2)(c) – s 21(2)(g) – s 22 – s 22(1) – s 22(1)(a) – s 22(1A) – s 22(1A)(a) – s 22(1B)(a) – s 22(9) – s 22(11) – s 22A – s 22B – s 24(1) – s 24(5)
CASES
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2), Re (1979) 2 ALD 634
Ho & Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Re (1994) 34 ALD 664
Lin and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Re [2009] AATA 938; BC200910963
Lo and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 736
Taher and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] AATA 917Ul Haque and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 118
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Citizenship Policy
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member CR Walsh
8 August 2016
INTRODUCTION
Dr Lo is a Hong Kong born British citizen who first arrived in Australia on 8 February 2011 as the holder of a temporary Business (subclass 457) visa.
On 6 December 2013, Dr Lo became a permanent resident when he re-entered Australia on a Skilled Independent (subclass 189) visa.
On 6 February 2015, Dr Lo lodged an “Application for Australian Citizenship by Conferral – General Eligibility (Electronic Lodgement)” (the Citizenship Application).
By letter dated 9 November 2015, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister) made on 9 November 2015 to refuse to grant him Australian citizenship under s 24(1) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Citizenship Act) on the basis that Dr Lo did not satisfy the “general residence requirement” in s 22 of Citizenship Act (as required by s 21(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act) and did not satisfy the requirement in s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act regarding residing in, or maintaining a close and continuing association with, Australia (the Decision).
On 2 December 2015, Dr Lo applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Decision.
In support of his review application, Dr Lo provided a statement and various supporting documents. Mr Lo’s statement provides:
The reasons for my denial of citizenship were stated as:
1) "Residence requirement not satisfied".
a.My e457 visa was granted on the 6th February 2010, and immediately on notification of the visa, I began my journey to Australia, arriving on the 8th February. I started my employment with Sir Charles Gairdner hospital as a doctor almost immediately. I had assumed (wrongly) that the electronic citizenship lodgement system would NOT allow me to lodge an application without the appropriate length of residency. The system had previously denied starting application stating l had not met the residency requirements. Therefore when I began the application process, and it was accepted I assumed I had met all the residency requirements. I accept that I made a clerical error and essentially left 2 days before the official 4 years of residency, but I appeal to the board for leniency on this matter. If I had known l would have happily delayed or changed my flights.
2)“You do not meet 22(9), 22(10) or 22(11) relating to the spouse or de facto partner”
a.- although I note that this discretion will not assist me to meet the 4 year lawful requirement, I am currently engaged to be married to Amanda Feige, my lovely partner for over 3 years and an Australian citizen. I have included a copy of the engagement ring receipt, her passport, a photo of us together.
3)“You have stated on the application form that you are a doctor, and that your current absence from Australia is due to your employment with doctors without Borders… (on) 30th April 2015 you state you are in tide UK pending your deployment with the organisation. You have provided no evidence to support these claims”
a.- I enclose copy of emails between me and MSF regarding waiting for deployment Although my plan had been for an earlier deployment the nature of humanitarian work resulted in a delayed deployment date. I have also enclosed a letter from MSF regarding my eventual deployment to South Sudan.
4)Paragraph 21(2)(g) a) - …you have provided no evidence of when your employment is due to cease or of any active steps to return to permanently reside to Australia.
c)...you have provided no statement or supporting evidence to show you will maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.”
a.-I am currently an advanced trainee with the Australasian College of emergency medicine (ACEM). Having completed the College's primary exams (at a cost of over 3000 dollars including flights and accommodation), and working to finish the requirements of the training program, I still have at least 23 months in emergency medicine in Australia before completion of my program. I have attached a copy of my training summary with ACEM.
b.I am also currently enrolled in a Masters of public health and tropical medicine in James Cook University (JCU). A Masters I am currently completing. Course summary included.
c.I have included this statement to highlight that l am extremely unlikely to not return to Australia having committed so much time and money in my career progression there.
In conclusion:
I admit that due to a misunderstanding on my part, I had submitted the application for citizenship 2 days early in advance. I hope l have provided evidence to the panel that l have every intention in residing permanently in Australia as evidenced by my personal life, my commitment to train as an emergency physician with ACEM and my continuing studies with JCU. On a personal note, I have found Australia to be a wonderful country and feel honoured and privileged to be able to serve the community and its people. I feel that Australia only stands to benefit both economically and culturally from my citizenship. [Emphasis added]
CONSIDERATION
Legislation
Section 24 of the Citizenship Act states:
Minister's decision
(1)If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
…
(1A)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8). [Emphasis added]
Only s 21(2), as referred to in s 24(1A) of the Citizenship Act (above), is relevant to this application.
Section 21(2) of the Citizenship Act provides:
General eligibility
(2)A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(a) is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and
(b) is a permanent resident:
(i) at the time the person made the application; and
(ii) at the time of the Minister's decision on the application; and
(c)satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and
(d) understands the nature of an application under subsection (1); and
(e) possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; and
(f)has an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; 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; and
(h)is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application. [Emphasis added]
To be eligible to become an Australian citizen by conferral under s 21(2) of the Citizenship Act, Mr Lo must meet all of the criteria in (a) to (h) of that subsection.
It is not in dispute that Mr Lo satisfies (a), (b), (d), (e), (f) and (h) of s 21(2) of the Citizenship Act. What is in dispute is whether Mr Lo satisfies (c) and (g) of s 21(2) of the Citizenship Act. In relation to s 21(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act, it is common ground that the “special residence requirement” (in s 22A or s 22B of the Citizenship Act) and the “defence service requirement” (in s 23 of the Citizenship Act) have no application in this case[1].
[1] In his evidence at the hearing, Mr Lo conceded that the “special residence requirement” (in s 22A or s 22B of the Citizenship Act, did not apply in the circumstances of his case.
Issues
Accordingly, the issues for determination in this application are:
(i)Did Mr Lo meet the “general residence requirement” in s 22 of the Citizenship Act; at the time of his application for Australian citizenship, such that he satisfies s 21(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act?; and
(ii)Is Mr Lo likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if his application for citizenship by conferral were to be approved, such that he satisfies s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act?
Each of these issues is considered, in turn, below.
(i) Did Mr Lo meet the “general residence requirement” in s 22 of the Citizenship Act at the time of his application for Australian citizenship, such that he satisfies s 21(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act?
Section 22(1) of the Citizenship Act provides:
(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;...
Section 22(1A) of the Citizenship Act makes the following provision to allow a person to be deemed to satisfy s 22(1)(a) despite a period of absence from Australia:
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.
The Department has developed policy in the form of the Citizenship Policy to support the Citizenship Act[2]. The introduction to the Citizenship Policy provides the following guidance regarding the role of the Citizenship Policy:
The role of Citizenship Policy is to support the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act). Citizenship Policy provides guidance on the interpretation of, and the exercise of powers under, the Act and the Australian Citizenship Regulations 2007 (the Regulations). Policy cannot constrain the exercise of delegated powers under the Act or the Regulations.
[2] From 1 July 2016, the Citizenship Policy replaced the policy guidance that was previously provided in the Australian Citizenship Instructions.
Decision-makers should generally apply policy such as the Citizenship Policy unless there are cogent reasons not to, such as the policy is unlawful or its application produces an unjust result in the circumstances of a particular case: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) [1979] AATA 179; (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645 per Brennan J.
There is nothing in Mr Lo’s circumstances which indicate that the Citizenship Policy should not apply in his particular case.
Mr Lo first arrived in Australia on 8 February 2011, 2 days less than 4 years before he applied for Australian citizenship (on 6 February 2015). Mr Lo is therefore unable to satisfy s 22(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act unless he falls within the s 22(1A) deeming provision.
Mr Lo accepts that, due to his own misunderstanding, he lodged the Citizenship Application “2 days early in advance” but requests, in effect, that the Tribunal waive his non-compliance: refer to paragraph 6 above. Whilst the Tribunal is sympathetic to Mr Lo’s situation, there is nothing in the Citizenship Act or the Citizenship Policy which allows the Tribunal to effectively waive Mr Lo’s non-compliance with s 22(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act.
The Citizenship Policy provides the following policy guidance (at p 91) in relation to s 22(1A) of the Citizenship Act:
Overseas absences (s22(1A) and s 22(1B))
Section 22(1A) allows for absences from Australia of up to 12 months within the 4 years immediately before applying for citizenship. A period of time cannot be counted as an absence from Australia unless the person has already been present in Australia. This means that a person does not meet the residence requirement if they have three years continuous presence in Australia (with the last 12 months as a permanent resident) unless they were previously in Australia.
Further, the Citizenship Policy states (at p 92):
If a person’s first arrival in Australia is less than four years before they apply for citizenship, they cannot meet the general residence requirement, even if they spend three years continuously in Australia.
The Citizenship Policy makes clear that, as a matter of policy, a person in Mr Lo’s position cannot avail himself of the s 22(1A) deeming provision to meet s 22(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act.
The Citizenship Policy is consistent with the correct construction of s 22(1A) of the Citizenship Act.
As contended by the Minister, for the following reasons, the phrase “absent from Australia” in s 22(1A)(a) of the Citizenship Act should be read as meaning “absent after having been present in Australia” such that Mr Lo’s first arrival in Australia (on 8 February 2011), less than 4 years before his application for Australian citizenship (on 6 February 2015), means that he cannot meet the “general residence requirement”:
(i)the Citizenship Act uses the binary language “present” or “not present” when referring to a requirement that a person be in a geographical location for citizenship purposes: see ss 5(1), 22(1), s 22(9), s 22(11), s 22A, s 22B and s 24(5) of the Citizenship Act. In contrast, s 22(1A)(a) of the Citizenship Act does not use the standard language of a person being “not present in Australia” but, instead, refers to a person being “absent from Australia”’. This suggests that the word “absent” in s 22(1A)(a) should be read as something other than “not present”. Interpreting the word “absent” in s 21(1A)(a) as “not present” would fail to give significance to the language Parliament has chosen to use;
(ii)Other than in s 22(1A)(a), the Citizenship Act only uses the word “absent” in the s 3 definition of “ordinarily resident”, and in s 22(1B)(a) (the deeming provision in relation to s 22(1)(b) limb of the general residence requirement). In both instances, the word “absent” refers to, and can only refer to, a situation where a person has been in a particular location and then leaves that location. Regarding s 3(b) of the Citizenship Act, a person can only be temporarily “absent” from the country of his or her permanent abode if that person had previously been present in that county to establish a permanent abode. Similarly s 22(1B)(a) of the Citizenship Act, read in the context of s 22(1)(a) and s 22(1A), can only ever allow a person who has previously been “present in Australia” to meet the general residence requirement. The word “absent” in s 22(1A)(a) of the Citizenship Act, read in the context of, and consistently with, s 3(b) and s 22(1B)(a) of the Citizenship Act, should be taken to refer only to a person who has entered, and then departed, Australia; and
(iii)this construction accords with the use of the phrase “period of the absence or absences” in s 22(1A)(b) of the Citizenship Act: refer to paragraph 15 above. It strains the language of that subsection to describe the time spent outside of Australia by a person who has never entered Australia as a “period” of absence, and suggests that a “period of absence” (and the state of being “absent”) can only occur after a person has entered and left Australia.
For the above reasons, Mr Lo, having never entered Australia prior to 8 February 2011, cannot be regarded as having been “absent” from Australia from as required by s 22(1A)(a) of the Citizenship Act.
Consequently, the s 22(1A)(a) deeming provision has no application in Mr Lo’s case and, it follows, Mr Lo is unable to satisfy s 22(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act.
(iii) Is Mr Lo likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if his application for citizenship by conferral were to be approved, such that he satisfies s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act?
As the Minister submitted, s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act refers to three separate notions, namely whether an applicant is “likely to”:
(i) reside in Australia;
(ii) continue to reside in Australia; or
(iii) maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
It is self-evident from the use of the word “or” in s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act that an applicant need only establish one of the above three limbs in order to satisfy s 21(2)(g)[3].
[3] See Lin v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor (2009) 176 FCR 371 at [28] and [108].
The Citizenship Policy provides the following guidance on s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act:
Likely to reside, or continue to reside in Australia
Intention to reside should be investigated further in situations where:
· the applicant has spent significant periods outside of Australia since becoming a permanent resident or
· has requested a citizenship test or citizenship ceremony be conducted overseas.
If a person indicates that they intend to leave Australia or remain overseas for an indeterminate period, officers must consider whether they have a close and continuing relationship with Australia. Officers should note that the applicant must meet either likely to reside, or continue to reside, in Australia OR maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, not both, to meet requirements of this provision.
Maintain a close and continuing association with Australia
Factors that may contribute to a close and continuing association with Australia include:
· Australian citizen spouse or de facto partner
· Australian citizen children
· length of relationship with Australian citizen spouse or de facto partner
· extended family in Australia
· return visits to Australia
· periods of residence in Australia
· intention to reside in Australia
· employment in Australia (for example, public or private sector)
· ownership of property in Australia and
· evidence of income tax payment in Australia.
At the time of his application for Australian citizenship, Mr Lo was residing in the United Kingdom.
In the Citizenship Application, in response to the question 36 “Do you intend to spend time outside Australia within the next 12 months?”, Mr Lo indicated that he would be working for doctors without borders for approximately 9 months from 1 May 2015.
Further, the Citizenship Application contained the following declaration:
I declare that I intend to reside or continue to reside in Australia, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
Mr Lo did not sign this declaration in the Citizenship Application and, despite the Department’s request, has not since provided a signed declaration. Mr Lo’s evidence at the hearing was that his failure to sign the declaration was a “clerical error”.
In his letter in support of his review application, Mr Lo stated:
· he is engaged to marry Ms Amanda Feige, an Australian citizen, who has been his partner for over 3 years;
· he was deployed to South Sudan with Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF);
· he is currently an advanced trainee with the Australasian College for Emergency medicine (ACEM) and, having completed the primary exams, is working to complete the (at least) 23 months of emergency medicine in Australia before completing the program;
· he is enrolled in a Master of Public Health and Tropical Medicine at James Cook University, Queensland (JCU);
· he is “extremely unlikely to not return to Australia having committed so much time and money in my career progression there”; and
· he has “every intention in residing permanently in Australia as evidenced by my personal life, my commitment to train as an emergency physician with ACEM and my continuing studies with JCU”: refer to paragraph 6 above.
Mr Lo provided the following supporting documents:
(i)records of an account held by Mr Lo with the Bank of Queensland in 2014 and 2015, addressed to Mr Lo’s Australian addresses;
(ii)a certificate of valuation, in Mr Lo’s name, for an engagement ring, dated 8 July 2015;
(iii)a letter from MSF, dated 27 November 2015, confirming that Mr Lo worked with MSF as a medical doctor in South Sudan between 31 July 2015 and 8 November 2015;
(iv)a Course Application Summary document from JCU indicating that Mr Lo was admitted to a Masters of Public Health and Tropical Medicine course at JCU in 2014, attendance mode “External”, and an enrolment advice indicating that he was enrolled in 2 units as at 27 April 2016;
(v)a training summary from ACEM indicating that Mr Lo registered on 18 April 2012, started his advanced training on 23 March 2013, and that his advanced training is incomplete; and
(vi)documents indicating Mr Lo stock holdings, which include shares in Australian companies.
Mr Lo’s movement records as at 9 June 2016 indicate that he is currently offshore, having last departed Australia on 18 July 2015.
At the hearing of this application, Mr Lo gave evidence by telephone from London. Mr Lo confirmed that he is currently living in London and working as a Registrar in the Emergency Department of a London Hospital.
Is Mr Lo likely to reside or to continue to reside in Australia?
In Re Ho and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 664 (Ho), DP McMahon examined the first limb of s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act as it appeared in s 13(1)(j) of the now repealed Australian Citizenship Act 1948. In relation to the phrase “likely to reside or to continue to reside in Australia” the Deputy President said at [31]:
It cannot mean "likely to take up residence in 18 months or 2 years’ time" or "likely to reside sometime in the indefinite future if economic conditions permit and if a suitable job can be found". The juxtaposition of the phrase with the opening phrase of the paragraph, indicates that the Minister must be satisfied that the Applicant is likely to reside in Australia immediately, or very soon after, being granted a certificate of Australian citizenship.
In Lo v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 736 at [20] to [23] Deputy President Constance referred to Ho and decisions adopting the approach in Ho before stating (at [23]):
In my view, each application should be decided on the facts proved without any additional restriction being read into the subsection. The longer the period between the potential time of the grant of citizenship and the possible time at which residence will commence, the more difficult it will be to establish that residence is ‘likely’. However, in my view, an interpretation should not be adopted which imposes a timeframe not established by the legislature. It may be that a situation will arise in which a decision-maker can be satisfied that residence is ‘likely’ even though it is only ‘likely’ some years in the future... In my view the Tribunal should not restrict its consideration of the facts of a particular application by imposing a temporal limit as to the time in which likely residence is to be proved.
Mr Lo’s evidence at the hearing was he intended to return to Australia “sometime in the next year”. However, Mr Lo also said that he moved where the career opportunities are.
In relation to Mr Lo’s relationship with and engagement to Ms Feige (an Australian citizen), Mr Lo’s evidence at the hearing was that he and Ms Feige “parted ways last month”. Even if it were the case that Mr Lo and Ms Feige were still in a relationship, that would not necessarily indicate an intention on Mr Lo’s part to reside in Australia. Further evidence from Mr Lo or Ms Feige, regarding their future plans to reside in Australia, would be required. Also, Mr Lo’s absence from Australia between July 2015 and present indicates that his former engagement with Ms Feige was not mutually exclusive with him residing outside of Australia.
Similarly, Mr Lo’s training with the ACEM does not appear to have impacted on his ability to reside outside of Australia. There is nothing to indicate that training with ACEM will restrict Mr Lo to working in Australia exclusively, or that the skills acquired by Mr Lo in his training with the ACEM are applicable to Australia only. Further, Mr Lo’s employment history with MSF indicates that he may wish to pursue work overseas.
Mr Lo’s evidence at the hearing was that he was still a “training doctor” but that in the future he “aspired” to work in Australia as a consultant emergency physician and to continue to go on overseas humanitarian missions every “so many months” as he considered such work added to the “tapestry of his career”.
However, Mr Lo’s evidence did not explain why his qualifications indicate an intention to reside in Australia. The fact that Mr Lo’s training has occurred in Australia does not necessarily indicate an intention to reside in Australia, and may simply reflect his choice, perhaps based on considerations of cost and quality, to undertake emergency medicine training in Australia as opposed to overseas.
Similarly, Mr Lo’s enrolment in a Masters course at JCU does not necessarily indicate an intention to reside in Australia. This qualification appears entirely portable (i.e. it can be completed externally), and there is no evidence that Mr Lo intends to undertake further research or tertiary education in Australia once he has completed his Masters course. Further, Mr Lo’s external enrolment in the Masters course at JCU indicates that the decision to study at an Australian university may be based on factors other than a desire to reside in Australia.
A Training Summary from the ACEM shows that Mr Lo has worked at Alice Springs Hospital, Joondalup Health Campus (Public) and Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital. Mr Lo’s Australian work history does not necessarily support a continued intention to reside in Australia, as his employment in Australia appears to be tied to (and may cease at the same time as) his ACEM training.
As contended by the Minister, Mr Lo’s evidence of a financial connection with Australia is tenuous at best, and Mr Lo has not explained how it demonstrates an intention to reside in Australia. Mr Lo has provided no evidence that he holds or intends to hold real property in Australia, or of any rental or other living arrangements which suggest an intention to reside in Australia at some ascertainable point in the future.
Absent further evidence from Mr Lo regarding his future plans to reside in Australia, and documentary evidence indicating that he is likely to return to Australia, to reside here, in the near future, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that Mr Lo has an intention to reside or continue to reside in Australia.
Is Mr Lo likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia?
The close and continuing association limb of s 21(2)(g) does not necessarily require that an applicant for citizenship maintain a personal presence in Australia: Lin v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor (2009) 176 FCR 317 at [111].
In Ul Haque and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 118 SM Britton said (at [45]):
[t]he words that make up the phrase “close and continuing association" are ordinary English words and should be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear. The Australian Oxford Dictionary defines “close" as “having a strong or immediate relation or connection", “continuing" as meaning “to remain in existence or unchanged" and association as “the act or an instance of associating; fellowship or companionship". The Macquarie Dictionary offers similar definitions, defining “close" as “near, or near together, in space, time, or relation", “continuing" as “to last or endure" and “association" as “the act of associating ... connection or combination".
As stated, Mr Lo’s evidence was that he is no longer in a relationship with Ms Feige. Even if he were, a close and continuing association with an Australian citizen, does not necessarily equate to a close and continuing association with Australia: Taher and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] AATA 917 at [47].
There is no evidence that Mr Lo has extended family in Australia which may indicate a close and continuing association.
Mr Lo’s employment history in Australia does not necessarily indicate that the applicant is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
Mr Lo’s visits to Australia appear to largely coincide with the Australian work components of his ACEM training, and do not necessarily indicate that he will maintain a connection with Australia once that training is completed. Further evidence is required from Mr Lo regarding his work plans in this regard. It is not enough for Mr Lo to simply say he “aspires” to work as a consultant emergency physician in Australia in the future or that he would like to “settle down” and “live in Australia” one day.
Absent further evidence the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Lo is likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
Even if Mr Lo satisfied s 21(2)(g) of the Citizenship Act, he would still not be eligible for Australian citizenship as he does not satisfy the “general residence requirement” (in s 22(1) of the Citizenship Act), as required by s 21(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act, and, as noted above (in paragraph 10), for an applicant to be eligible for Australian citizenship all of the criteria in (a) to (h) of s 21(2) must be satisfied.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Tribunal affirms the Decision.
I certify that the preceding 58 (fifty -eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member CR Walsh .....[Sgd]...................................................................
Administrative Assistant
Dated 8 August 2016
Date of hearing 3 August 2016 Applicant Self-represented (By telephone) Representative for the
RespondentMr A Gerrard Solicitors for the Respondent
Australian Government Solicitor
5
4
0