MORJARIA and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned applications for citizenship by conferral made by Mr Parag Bhagwanji Dayalal Morjaria and his son, Deshan. The applicants sought review of decisions by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse their applications. The delegate had not been satisfied that Mr Morjaria was likely to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, and further, that Mr Morjaria was prohibited from approval under section 24(5) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* as he was not in Australia at the time of the delegate's decision. For Deshan, the delegate found he did not meet the permanent resident requirement under section 21(5)(b)(ii) of the Act, as his Skilled – Nominated (subclass 190) visa had ceased.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Morjaria was likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, as required by section 21(2)(g) of the Act. It also had to consider whether section 24(5) of the Act prohibited the approval of his application. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine whether Deshan met the definition of a permanent resident for the purposes of section 21(5)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decisions. Regarding Mr Morjaria, the Tribunal noted that he had departed Australia in December 2017 and had not returned since, with his Skilled – Nominated visa ceasing in October 2018. While Mr Morjaria provided submissions regarding his intention to return and establish a business, the Tribunal considered his prolonged absence and the cessation of his visa. The Tribunal also noted that Mr Morjaria was not in Australia at the time of the delegate's decision, which triggered the prohibition under section 24(5) of the Act. For Deshan, the Tribunal found that as his Skilled – Nominated visa had ceased and he had not been granted another visa since, he did not satisfy the permanent resident requirement under section 21(5)(b)(ii) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the correct or preferable decision in both matters was to affirm the decisions under review.