Natu and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 753

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION		) ) No: N2006/268 )
Re:	Ambarish Shrikrishna NATU
Applicant
And:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal	The Hon R N J Purvis AM QC, Deputy President
Date	5 September 2006
Place	Sydney
Decision	The decision under review is affirmed.

___________________________
The Hon R N J Purvis AM QC
Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

CITIZENSHIP – granting of Australian citizenship – whether engaged in activities beneficial to the interests of Australia – issue as to whether to exercise the discretion to treat time spent outside of Australia as if it was time spent in Australia – permanent resident status – lack of significant hardship or disadvantage – likelihood of maintaining close ties with Australia

Australian Citizenship Act 1948; section 13(1)(e)

Re McCarthy and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 30 ALD 447

Re Tsui and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1991) 24 ALD 236

Liu and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] AATA 251

Re Ho and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 664 at 671

Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Roberts (1993) 41 FCR 82

Taechaubol and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] AATA 425

Re Yiu and Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 52

REASONS FOR DECISION

5 September 2006	The Hon R N J Purvis AM QC, Deputy President
the application

In a decision under date 10 March 2006 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (“the Respondent”) determined that Mr Ambarish Shrikrishna Natu (“the Applicant”) did not meet the residency requirements for a grant of citizenship. He had not completed a total of two years permanent residency in Australia in the five years prior to the lodgement of his application including a total of one year in the two years prior to such lodgement as required by section 13(1)(e) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (“the Act”). The discretionary power available to the Respondent was not exercised in the Applicant’s favour.
In the reasons for arriving at the decision the Respondent amongst other matters stated (T2 pp6, 8-10):
1.      BACKGROUND & LEGAL FRAMEWORK
…
1.3Mr Natu became a permanent resident on 22 September 2003. At the time of the application for grant of Australian citizenship Mr Rappolt (sic) had spent the following time in Australian as a permanent resident:
-520 Days present in Australia in the 2 years prior to application – meeting the requirement under s.13(1(d).
-582 Days present in Australia in the 5 years prior to application – not meeting the requirement under s.13(1)(e).
1.4As Mr Natu does not meet the requirements under s.13(1)(e) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948, he has sought the exercise of the discretionary powers outlined in s.13(4)(b)(i)-(v) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 (the Act), and the relevant policy as set out in the Australian Citizenship Instructions (ACI).
…
2.      SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
2.1Mr Natu has made claims that he is a key member of an International Consortium which works under the auspicious [sic] of ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC29 WG 1 (a joint collaboration between the International Organisation of Standardization and the International Electro- Technical Committee known as Joint Committee 1, Sub-Committee 29 and working Group 1. Membership is exclusive to members who wish to make technical contributions essential for the development of an International standard via a standards body present in each country. Mr Natu claims he has been an active contributing member of technical committee on Standards Australia. Membership to Standards Australia is available to [sic] only to people who are making technical contributions on behalf of Australia’s input to the international standards development process.
2.2Since July 2002, Mr Natu has stated that he has been [sic] actively been making technical contributions to the development on an international standard …
…
3.      ASSESSMENT & FINDINGS OF FACT
…
3.4Mr Natu has provided in his supporting documentation letter that he spent 125 days overseas (which were beneficial to Australia) in Italy from 28 September until 1 February 2005 and that he was financially supported by the University of Genoa, researching a new technology. …
3.5Mr Natu … traveled [sic] to Taiwan on 6 April 2005 and returned to Australia on 3 June 2005 and was away 58 days (which were beneficial to Australia). …
3.6Mr Natu has contributed to the Australian community in his work with Standards Australia and the IT-029 group, however it was Mr Natu’s own choice to take the visiting researcher positions in Italy and Taiwan. Therefore, this time cannot be counted towards the residence requirement under s13(1)(e) of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948.
…
3.8Mr Natu spent most of his time overseas involved in activities that cannot be considered to be in the interest of Australia, …
…

the issues for determination

As succinctly stated on behalf of the Respondent in order to satisfy the residency requirements of s.3(1)(d) and (e) of the Act it is necessary for an applicant to establish:
(a)The Applicant has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of, or for periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than one year during the period of 2 years immediately preceding the date of the furnishing of the application; and
(b)He has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for a period of, or for periods amounting in the aggregate to, not less than 2 years during the period of 5 years immediately preceding the date of the furnishing of the application.
In the event of an applicant not being able to satisfy the above requirements, which is the factual situation in this application, whether the Tribunal should:
(a)pursuant to s.13(4)(b)(i) of the Act treat a period during which the Applicant was a permanent resident and was not present in Australia as one when he was engaged in activities beneficial to the interests of Australia and thus as a period during which he was present in Australia as a permanent resident; or
(b)consider that the Applicant pursuant to s.13(4)(b)(iv) of the Act would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if citizenship were not granted to him and treat a period during which he was present in Australia as a period during which he was present in Australia as a permanent resident.
There is no issue as to 3 (a) and 3 (b) above not having been complied with. The Applicant did not advance an argument or adduce any evidence to support a claim for significant hardship or disadvantage if citizenship be not granted to him. Indeed an application on these grounds was earlier refused by the Respondent, this refusal being affirmed by the Tribunal on 2 December 2005.
There is further no issue as to the Applicant having spent three periods out of Australia between 22 September 2003 when he became a permanent resident and 23 November 2005 when he made application for citizenship. These periods were:
·28 September 2004 to 1 February 2005;
·22 February 2005 to 23 March 2005; and
·6 April 2005 to 4 June 2005.
The Applicant thus fell 148 days short of the requisite statutory period (s.13(1)(e) of the Act).
Accordingly, it is incumbent on the Applicant to establish that for the requisite number of days, during the above periods he was not present in Australia, he was nevertheless engaged in activities beneficial to the interests of Australia.
In his application for review of the Respondent’s decision, the Applicant stated:
I strongly believe that I have “increased the international respect and goodwill for Australia”. Even though it was my decision to take up positions overseas (its ultimate benefit was AUSTRALIA). It is appalling to me that there is no recognition from the Department of Immigration for my contributions which I did on behalf of Australia in spite of this being supported by the Federal Government through Standards Australia.

the hearing

The hearing of this application was by way of telephone connection with the Applicant, who appeared on his own behalf, he then residing in Bristol, United Kingdom, written material contained in the documents lodged with the Tribunal on behalf of the Respondent and additional documentary material tendered by each of the Applicant and the Respondent and marked as Exhibits namely:
Exhibit A:Facsimile dated 22 May 2006 from Fabio Lavagetto in Italy to the AAT;
Exhibit B:Printout dated 28 July 2006 from Standards Australia website;
Exhibit C:Facsimile receipted 29 May 2006 from Wen-Liang Hwang, Institute of Information Science to the AAT;
Exhibit D:Facsimile document receipted 28 July 2006 entitled Annex M Bibliography;
Exhibit E:Facsimile document receipted 28 July 2006 entitled Minutes of Meeting MTG-048;
Exhibit F:Document entitled Standards Australia, Submission to Productivity Commission, Review of Standards and Accreditation, April 2006;
Exhibit G:Applicant’s Statement undated and unsigned [3 pages unnumbered];
Exhibit H:Document undated entitled My ISO Job, Guidance for delegates and experts;
Exhibit 1:Letter of 15 May 2006 from Clayton Utz Lawyers to the Applicant.
The Applicant is presently resident out of Australia and has been so for some period of time. Written submissions were tendered on behalf of both the Applicant and the Respondent.

relevant statutory requirements and citizenship instructions

The Australian Citizenship Instructions (“the ACI”) detail policy guidance relevant to the exercise of the discretion available to the Respondent, and presently to the Tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of the Act.
The relevant legislative provisions are as follows:
13.Grant of Australian citizenship
(1)Subject to this section, the Minister may, in the Minister’s discretion, upon application in accordance with the approved form, grant a certificate of Australian citizenship to a person who satisfies the Minister that:
(a)…
…
(j)if granted a certificate of Australian citizenship, the person is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia, or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
(1A)The Minister shall not grant a certificate of Australian citizenship to a person under subsection (1) at a time when the person is not present in Australia unless:
(a)the person is a permanent resident; and
(b)the Minister considers that the person is engaged in activities outside Australia that are beneficial to the interests of Australia.
…
(4)For the purposes of the application of subsection (1) in relation to an applicant for the grant of a certificate of Australian citizenship:
(a)…
(b)subject to paragraph (a), the Minister may, in the Minister’s discretion:
(i) treat a period during which the applicant:
(A)was a permanent resident;
(B)was not present in Australia; and
(C)was engaged in activities that the Minister considers beneficial to the interests of Australia;
as a period during which the applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident;
(ii) treat a period ending before the period of 5 years referred to in paragraph (1)(e), being a period during which the applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident, as a period within that period of 5 years;
…

Australian citizenship instructions relevant to this application are:
…
4.2.21Subsection 13(1A) provides that the Minister shall not grant a certificate of Australian citizenship to a person under s 13(1) at a time when the person is not present in Australia unless:
·        the person is a permanent resident … ; and
·        the Minister considers that the person is engaged in activities outside Australia that are beneficial to the interests of Australia. Guidance on assessing this is given in 4.3.19-22, 4.3.26.
…
4.3.19Periods during which the applicant was a permanent resident and was outside Australia engaged in activities beneficial to the interests of Australia may be counted towards the residence requirements. This discretion applies to both residence requirements (ie, both “2 years in the last 5” and “1 year in the last 2”).
4.3.20The legislation is interpreted as requiring the following:
·        the applicant must have been a permanent resident (see 1.4)) during any of the periods counted;
·        the periods spent outside Australia to be counted must be:
-within the last 5 years for the 2 years in the last 5 years requirement; and
-within the last 2 years for the 1 year in the last 2 years requirement;
·        the applicant must have been personally engaged in activities overseas beneficial to the interests of Australia, not just, for example, the company or organisation for which the applicant worked;
·        the applicant must have been engaged in a series of activities, not just a one-off transaction;
·        the activities must also be during the relevant period/s under consideration;
·        the activities must have been “beneficial to the interests of Australia” during the relevant period/s. It is not intended that the provision apply where there are no current benefits irrespective of whether benefits may accrue in the future.
4.3.21Under Ministerial policy, the discretion will usually only be exercised if the applicant is in Australia and was either:
·        required to work overseas by a Federal, State or Territory Department, semi-government authority or private employer; or
·        self-employed and frequent travel abroad was essential to the successful operation of their business, whether for an extended period or on a regular short-term basis; or
·        engaged overseas in activities of a social, cultural, economic or political nature which are clearly beneficial to the interests of Australia and are widely recognised as such either by:
-the Australian community generally; or
-prominent persons associated with the applicant’s field of endeavour (for example, people engaged in aid programs, artists and entertainers of world standing)
4.3.22        If the applicant is overseas, the discretion will normally not be exercised.
…
4.3.26In assessing whether activities are beneficial to the interests of Australia, consider the following:
·        It requires “something in the nature of activities which provide some advantage to Australia, whether commercial or otherwise. The concept necessarily connotes some public interest of Australia… and means more than the private interests of the (applicant). The section requires some objective benefit to Australia.”
·        It requires “something in the nature of activities which achieve recognition of Australia or of Australia achievements or commercial advantage for Australia, or increase the international respect and goodwill for Australia… (it) refers to the public interests of Australia.”
·        “The claim that the applicant’s employer has enhanced the reputation of its Australian parent company and Australian companies in general, falls short of demonstrating the applicant’s activities were beneficial to the interest of Australia.”
·        “There should be a close nexus between the overseas activities and the subsequent benefit to Australia to exercise the discretion”. The benefit should be largely as a result of the applicant’s activities and must not be residual, remote, indirect or speculative.”
…

engaged in activities “beneficial to australia”

The relevant Australian citizenship instructions have been detailed above. The principles emerging from the instructions as discussed in decided cases and applications are as follows:
(a)The discretion contained in s.13(4) of the Act is not intended to offer an alternative method of complying with s.13(1)(d) and (e) of the Act. It is intended to allow some flexibility in exceptional circumstances when specific activities which are the Applicant’s substantial activities during specific periods can be demonstrated (Re Ho and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 664 at 671).
(b)The presence of the Applicant in Australia for specific periods is not an optional requirement interchangeable with certain activities outside Australia (Re Ho (supra)).
(c)The term “activities beneficial to the interests of Australia” means something in the nature of activities which provide some advantage to Australia whether commercial or otherwise (Minister for Immigration Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Roberts (1993) 41 FCR 82).
(d)The concept “activities beneficial to the interests of Australia” connotes some public interest of Australia even if of a general or non-specific character and means more than the private interests of the Applicant. The section requires some objective benefit to Australia (Roberts (supra)).
(e)Benefit to both Australia’s interests and to private interests is permitted to coexist (Taechaubol and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] AATA 425).
(f)Activities predominantly in furtherance of the private interests of the Applicant and his or her employer are not activities beneficial to the interests of Australia (Taechaubol (supra)).
(g)The overseas activities must be beneficial to the interests of Australia at the time when they are engaged in, not at some future time (Re McCarthy and Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1993) 30 ALD 447).
(h)A proposal to engage in a project that might provide future benefits to Australia does not suffice (Liu and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] AATA 251).
(i)The benefits from overseas activities must not be so remote, indirect and speculative as regards Australia’s interests that they cannot be taken into account (Re McCarthy (supra)).
(j)The activities undertaken overseas must confer a benefit to Australian interests at the time they are being undertaken (Re Yiu and Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 52).

applicant’s activities during the relevant periods

28 September 2004 – 1 February 2005

In his curriculum vitae (T18 p160 at p167) the Applicant set forth his employment history and amongst other matters states:
…
September 2004 – January 2005  University of Genoa, School of
Communication, Computer and System
Sciences (Genoa, Italy)
I was invited to conduct research under the project titled “Bandwidth allocation in multi-service wireless LANs and satellite networks” under the University of Genoa, decree R.D. # 2545 as an expert in the area of JPEG2000.
Position:               Visiting Researcher
Reported to:         …
Responsibilities:    -    Development and experimentation of power aware algorithms for the transmission of data streams (text, mark-up, voice, image and video) for mobile multimedia on-demand applications with joint parameterization of source and channel codes
-Invited Speaker on “Transmission of Multimedia Content over Unreliable Channels”.
…
The Applicant describes his position, when attending a meeting in Switzerland (28 - 29 October 2005), as “Head of the Australian delegation for 3^rd JPWL Interim Meeting, Lausanne, Switzerland October 2004. Funded by University of Genova, Italy” (T18/169), he states in his document titled “Supporting Facts and Claims” under a heading “Summary Purpose”,
…
5.… As a mark of respect they [University of Genova] even funded me to attend the 3^rd JPWL Interim meeting held in Lausanne … where I was the head of Australian delegation. I presented Australian body comments (they need to be approved by other relevant Standards Australia committee members before they can be presented as Australian body comments) at this meeting. This meeting was useful from the essence of investigating future options in the technology under consideration. As a result of which I published a paper co-authored with the Italian counterpart … I presented this work at the Lisbon (Portugal) standards meeting … I was the head of Australian delegation for this meeting. Australia got the recognition from my contributions. My research only made it possible for Australia to get recognition in the area of standards development which has brought in international respect for me as an Australian and at the same time a goodwill name to Australia. (ST8/19)
…

The University itself says (Exhibit A) that the Applicant was:
… a visiting researcher within the Department of Communication, Computer and System Sciences, University of Genoa, Italy from 29 September 2004 to 31 January 2005.
During this period he progressed the work carried out in the area of International Standardization know [sic] as … This work involved a technical investigation directly linked to the development of this international standard.
…

In the course of his evidence before the Tribunal the Applicant agreed that his time at the Italian University was not funded by any Australian body and that he did not represent Australia when in the research position with the University. His activities were directly linked to universal standardisation and their development. His work was published. The standard on which he was working emanated from his thesis at the University of New South Wales completed some years before. Its development he said is a continuous process.
The Respondent does not contend other than that the Applicant’s attendance at the meeting in Switzerland was an activity beneficial to the interests of Australia.

22 February 2005 – 23 March 2005

During this period the Applicant attended an ISO meeting from 14 March to 18 March 2005. Otherwise he was visiting his family in India.
The meeting was held in Lisbon, Portugal. Standards Australia funded his attendance. The focal point of the meeting was stated (T15 p155) as “coding of still pictures”. He was to be the “head of delegation” representing Standards Australia at the meeting. The Respondent concedes that attendance at this meeting was an activity beneficial to the interests of Australia. Otherwise his absence from Australia during this period was not beneficial to the interests of Australia.

6 April 2005 – 4 June 2005

In the Applicant’s curriculum vitae and again with reference to his employment history, the Applicant states (T18 pp166-167):
…
April 2005 – June 2005  Academia Sinica, Institute of
Information Science (Taipei, Taiwan)
Academia Sinica, founded in 1928, is the most prominent academic institution in the Republic of China (R.O.C.). While affiliated directly to the Presidential Office of R.O.C., Academia Sinica enjoys independence and autonomy in formulating its own research objectives.
I am invited to conduct research under the project titled “Robust transmission of Multimedia Content over wireless media” as an expert in the area of JPEG2000.
Position:               Visiting Researcher
Reported to:         …
Responsibilities:    -    Development and experimentation of algorithms for the transmission of data streams (text, mark-up, voice, image and video) for mobile multimedia on-demand applications with joint parameterization of source and channel codes
-Invited Speaker on “Transmission of Multimedia Content over Wireless media”.
…

The Applicant in the “Supporting Facts and Claims” document under the heading “Summary of Claims” says (ST8 p20):
…
Taiwan is not recognised as a country and therefore does not have any standards body as a result. Taiwanese people cannot be involved in any sort of standards development process. This was one of the main reasons for me inviting [sic] there so that they could have access to the latest developments in technology wherein I was a key technical contributor. They [Taiwan Institute] supported me financially to continue my research in the standards development process.
…

The Applicant said in the course of his cross-examination that he had been looking for a funding agency to continue his work on the standards. He “came across” a person at the Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica (“the Taiwan Institute”) “who was prepared to fund my work”. No Australian organisation provided funds. At the Taiwan Institute he “was an individual not representing any organisation”. His position at the Taiwan Institute was that of a full-time researcher.
The Taiwan Institute itself states (Exhibit C) that the Applicant was:
… a visiting researcher within the Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan from 06 April 2005 to 04 June 2005.
During this period he primarily progressed the technical work carried out by him while he was in Italy in the area of International Standardization know [sic] as JPEG2000 over Wireless …
…

factual situation generally

The Applicant is a graduate of the University of New South Wales having obtained his degree of Master in Engineering specialising in Electrical Engineering. He wrote a thesis entitled “Error resilience in JPEG2000” which formed the framework for an international standard.
The Applicant was granted a permanent resident visa (class DD subclass 880 skilled independent overseas student (residence)) on 29 September 2003.
He is a member of a technical committee of Standards Australia described as IT-029 Committee which committee has as a focal point of its research “the standardisation of coded representation of picture, audio and multi-media” (Exhibit 1). The Applicant has been a member of the committee since July 2002. He has made contributions as abovementioned as an Australian delegate at meetings of the International Organisation for Standardisation (“ISO”). He maintains an affiliation with Standards Australia described as an “individual technical expert”.
Standards Australia describes (T19 p171) the Applicant’s position with it as:
…
Mr. Ambarish S Natu has been an active member on Standards Australia’s technical standardization committee IT-029 …
He is one of the key contributors to Australia’s input to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 1, a collaborative effort between the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electro-technical Commission (IEC), popularly known by the name of JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group).
Ambarish’s expertise on international standards of the JPEG committee … has been influential in deciding Australia’s position on these standards. As part of his involvement in the standardization effort he has been financially supported by Standards Australia to participate on Australia’s behalf in a number of international standardization meetings.
Yours sincerely
…

The Applicant himself says (ST9 p21):
…
I am a key member of an International Consortium which works under the auspicious [sic] of ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC29 WG 1 … Membership to this consortium is exclusive to members who wish to make technical contributions essential for the development of an international standard via a standards body present in each country. I have been an active contributing member of technical committee on Standards Australia …
…

When attending meetings of the ISO the Applicant says that he presents an Australian point of view, that is, those of Standards Australia.
In his abovementioned curriculum vitae (T18 p165) it is stated that the professional memberships and contributions of the Applicant are as a :

·Member, Australian Standards Committee IT-029: Coded Representation of Picture, Audio and Multimedia/Hypermedia Information.
·Delegate (Head of Australian Delegation twice) …
·Reviewer, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.
·Member, IEEE

Reference is also made in the curriculum vitae to contributions that the Applicant has made to international standards either with another or on his own behalf.

contentions – submissions of the parties and decision

The Applicant says that he has represented Australia at international meetings and the country has obtained recognition from this representation even be it his research has brought recognition also for himself. The Respondent concedes that the Applicant’s attendance at the meetings in Switzerland and Portugal were activities beneficial to the interests of Australia.
The Applicant maintains that his thesis at the University of New South Wales formed the framework for a new international standard and that the majority of research and knowledge referable to the standard was gained by him during this work. He says that he has significantly and also actively contributed to the development of the international standard which has now also been adopted as an Australian standard. Countless hours he says of discussion, of linking with international organisations has taken place in order to develop a new standard.
Whilst at the University of Genoa and the Taiwan Institute there was a continuation of work earlier developed by him. The work was in the area of international standardisation. The Applicant maintains that he has significantly contributed to the development of the standard and the time spent overseas was in relation to the development of this standard. More specifically, the work carried out at the University of Genoa was to progress the work on the international standardisation project. He maintains that he was at the University of Genoa as an “individual expert”; this being because he does not hold a full-time permanent affiliation within a University in Australia. Even be this so he maintains that he still makes contributions as an Australian delegate “at the end of the day from all my technical investigations”. It is noted in the context of the issues discussed in these reasons that it is the obtaining of the expertise by the Applicant in his field and the work carried out that enables him to act as an Australian delegate to the conferences earlier discussed. As an individual having acquired expertise and knowledge he is then able to make a contribution to the benefit to the interests of Australia. It is further noted that the fact that the thesis formed the framework for the international standard illustrates that the work was not done in a significant manner whilst the Applicant was outside of Australia and indeed was carried out prior to the commencement of the relevant period.
The Applicant says that he had “already” contributed to the standard under development even before he went to the University of Genoa so that the knowledge gained by him and by the University was specific to the “investigation” which he carried out whilst he was there. The work carried out at the University gave the Applicant the expertise which did enable him to duly represent Australia at the Lisbon meeting. It is noted again that neither the Australian government nor Standards Australia supported the Applicant in obtaining his expertise at the University of Genoa or working on the standardisation originally developed in his thesis at that University or at the Taiwan Institute. Indicative of this was the benefit derived by the Applicant from his work at the University and the Taiwan Institute in not only developing the standard but as he put it in his written submissions networking “with international organisations and people working in a similar area of interest”.
There is no issue raised on behalf of the Respondent that the Applicant has made “significant contributions to the development of this standard”. Nor is there any issue as to the Applicant’s time spent and work done at the University and the Taiwan Institute as it related to the development of the standard which had already been the subject of his thesis. The time spent at the University and the Institute may well have better equipped him to present his submission to the conference in Portugal but the time and work so spent at the University and the Institute was not as Australia’s representative of Standards Australia. The work performed whilst out of Australia on the development of an international standard was carried out on his own volition and not as a representative of Standards Australia or any Australian government organisation. The study and research was on the development of a standard, a project initially put in place by the Applicant and detailed in his thesis. It is true that when attending the conference the Applicant made contributions towards the development of an international standard which in due course was adopted as an Australian standard. But it was a matter of the Applicant effectively informing himself so that he was able to promote his expertise in aid of representing Australia at the international meeting.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the relevant periods spent out of Australia other than the attendance at the conferences in Portugal and Switzerland were engaged in by the Applicant in activities that at the time were beneficial to the interests of Australia. At the time they were beneficial to the Applicant’s own interests even be it that at a later date the expertise obtained by him was used in promoting a position at an international meeting.
His time as a visiting researcher at the University of Genoa was not funded by any Australian body nor did he represent any Australian or governmental body at that time. He was invited to the University of Genoa to take up the position as visiting researcher. Standards Australia was not involved in the process. The Applicant’s activities at the University of Genoa were directed to advancing his knowledge and his ongoing continuing research. Other than by reason of the adoption of a standard in the formation of which the Applicant had participated, neither Standards Australia nor any other Australian body benefited from his activities at the University of Genoa.
The Applicant relies upon a paper entitled “Coding of Still Pictures” as evidencing his activities at the University of Genoa. The Respondent maintains that there is no direct evidence of this fact or of Australia having objectively benefited from the publication of this paper. This is undoubtedly true on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal. So with a paper entitled “Transmission of JPEG2000 Code-Streams over Mobile Radio Channels” the Applicant was not representing Australia or Standards Australia in the drafting of the paper and indeed no-one of the latter received any benefit of an objective nature in a relevant sense from its publication. Indeed its presentation was made by the Applicant at a time when he was in Australia.
The time spent by the Applicant at the Taiwan Institute was not funded by an Australian body and he did not represent any Australian or governmental body whilst he was at the Institute. Standards Australia did not have any involvement with his attendance. There is no direct link between the time so spent as a visiting researcher and any Australian body. There is not any evidence before the Tribunal that Standards Australia or any Australian body benefited as a result of his activities at the Institute.
It is true that whilst the Applicant is a member of the abovementioned committee of Standards Australia and did represent at the meeting in Portugal, there is no evidence that he was otherwise involved in or on behalf of Standards Australia while overseas during the relevant period. There is no evidence of the Applicant communicating with Standards Australia whilst he was then overseas. His involvement with Standards Australia was evidenced by his attendance at meetings in Australian and the communicating per medium of the committee activities and work carried out at the international conference.
There is evidence throughout the T documents of the Applicant seeking a grant of citizenship in aid of his being able to enter other countries as an Australian citizen and there obtain employment. Thus in a document headed “Supporting Information” (ST10 p24) the Applicant refers to “My application in the US cannot be even considered because the H1-B (work permit) quote for Indians has exhausted upto [sic] November 2006. If I am granted Australian Citizenship, I could then travel to the US on an E-3 Visa which employs only high skilled Australians wishing to work in the US”. Again he refers to an application for a position in France and work permit approval being required. He states that by “obtaining Australian citizenship he will be able to seek atleast [sic] contest for employment for his skills …”.
The Applicant has been working in the United Kingdom since 1 January 2006. He says that the duration will conclude at the end of October 2006. The Tribunal is not satisfied of the matters set forth in section 13(1)(j) of the Act, that is, that the Applicant would likely reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if granted citizenship. Indeed the history of his movements to Italy, Taiwan and the United Kingdom over recent years together with his above expressed sentiments is not supportive of an intent to reside in Australia.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the Applicant engaged in activities for the required duration when outside of Australia that were relevantly beneficial to the interests of Australia. Accordingly the decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the X preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon R N J Purvis AM QC, Deputy President

Signed: .....................................................................................
Associate

Date/s of Hearing
Date of Decision
Counsel for the Applicant
Solicitor for the Applicant
Counsel for the Respondent
Solicitor for the Respondent

[2006] AATA 753

5 September 2006