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

The matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral by Mrs Natalwala, a citizen of the Republic of India. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs had found that Mrs Natalwala did not meet the general residence requirement for citizenship. Mrs Natalwala contended that pandemic travel restrictions had prevented her return to Australia, impacting her ability to satisfy this requirement.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether any discretion was exercisable to allow a partial exemption from the general residence requirement in Mrs Natalwala's circumstances. The Tribunal was required to consider the provisions of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth) relating to the general residence requirement and any applicable exceptions or partial exemptions.

The Tribunal noted that Mrs Natalwala departed Australia on 24 January 2020 and returned on 11 January 2022, having been in India and Saudi Arabia. Section 21(4)(d) of the Act requires applicants to satisfy the general residence requirement, or a special residence requirement or defence service requirement, at the time of application. Mrs Natalwala did not claim eligibility under the special residence or defence service requirements, nor did she seek partial exemption on grounds of being born in Australia or being a former Australian citizen. The Tribunal found that the specific partial exemptions available under the Act, such as those relating to administrative error, imprisonment, or relationships with Australian citizens, were not applicable to her situation. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the Minister's submission that the provision for significant hardship or disadvantage under s 22(6)(b) of the Act was only relevant if the applicant was otherwise lawfully in Australia for the requisite period prior to applying, a condition Mrs Natalwala did not meet.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mrs Natalwala did not meet the general residence requirement and that no discretion was available to grant a partial exemption in her circumstances. The decision does not affect Mrs Natalwala's permanent residency status, and she remains free to lodge a fresh application for citizenship in the future, subject to meeting the general residence requirement calculated from the date of any new application.