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

This matter concerned applications for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse citizenship by conferral. The applicants were a father and his son, who had applied for citizenship on 28 February 2021. The delegate had refused the father's application on 1 February 2021, finding that he was not satisfied of the likelihood that the applicant would reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, and that the application was prohibited under section 24(5) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* as the applicant was not in Australia at the time of the decision. The delegate also refused the son's application, finding that 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 on 10 October 2018 and he had not been granted another visa since.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the father was likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia, pursuant to section 21(2)(g) of the Act, and whether his application was prohibited by section 24(5) of the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine whether the son was a permanent resident for the purposes of section 21(5)(b) of the Act. The father had been living in Australia with his son on a skilled visa until December 2017, when they departed and had not returned. Their skilled visas ceased in October 2018. The father applied for a resident return visa in November 2020, which was granted in February 2021, but it appeared to have since ceased due to his non-entry into Australia.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decisions. It found that the father's claims of intending to return to Australia to establish a new business were not sufficiently compelling, particularly given his prolonged absence from Australia since December 2017 and the cessation of his skilled visa. The Tribunal also noted that the prohibition under section 24(5) of the Act applied because the applicant was not in Australia at the time of the delegate's decision. Regarding the son, the Tribunal found that as his skilled visa had ceased in October 2018 and he had not been granted another visa since, he did not meet the definition of a permanent resident for the purposes of his citizenship application.