Maali and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

The applicant, Mr Maali, sought to have his absences from Australia treated as time spent in Australia under section 22(9) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). Mr Maali, a Jordanian citizen, had arrived in Australia on a permanent residency visa in 2009 but left shortly thereafter. He returned to Australia with his family in 2012, commencing employment with IBM Australia. However, he departed again in August 2015 to take up an employment opportunity with IBM Global in Dubai, which required him to return to Jordan to fulfil visa and work permit conditions. His wife and children subsequently acquired Australian citizenship in December 2015, while Mr Maali was still overseas. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the decision to refuse his application for citizenship by conferral.

The primary legal issues before the court concerned whether Mr Maali met the eligibility requirements for citizenship by conferral, specifically the residence requirement, and whether he was likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia. The court was also required to consider whether Mr Maali's absences from Australia could be excused under the provisions of the Act, particularly in light of his employment obligations overseas and the fact that his spouse and children had become Australian citizens.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on several factors outlined in the Citizenship Policy. It noted that while Mr Maali had lived and worked in Australia for a period, his absences were significant and driven by his pursuit of overseas employment opportunities. The Tribunal found that his intention at the time of his departure was to work in the Middle East for an extended period, and that his employment in Australia had been terminated. Furthermore, his wife and children were not Australian citizens during the period of his absence, and there was no evidence of extended family in Australia or active participation in Australian community activities. The Tribunal concluded that Mr Maali had failed to meet the eligibility and residency requirements for citizenship and had not demonstrated a sufficient connection to Australia to warrant the exercise of ministerial discretion.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning Mr Maali's application for citizenship by conferral was refused.