Nhayoung HONG and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] AATA 100
•20 February 2012
[2012] AATA 100
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2010/2156
Re
Nhayoung HONG
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President R P Handley
Date 20 February 2012 Place Sydney Decision Summary The decision under review is affirmed.
.............[sgd]...........................................................
Deputy President R P Handley
Catchwords
IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP – refusal to grant citizenship – applicant between 16 and 18 years of age at time of application – Australian Citizenship Instructions – applicant does not meet policy requirements - circumstances not unusual – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
Hong and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 242
Hong v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 842
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials
Australian Citizenship Instructions
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President R P Handley
Nhayoung Hong’s application for Australian citizenship was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship on the ground that her circumstances did not meet the relevant policy requirements in the Australian Citizenship Instructions (the ACIs). Ms Hong sought a review by the Tribunal which affirmed the decision: Hong and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 242. On an appeal to the Federal Court, Buchanan J set aside the decision on the ground that the Tribunal had made an error of law and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for further decision: Hong v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 842.
BACKGROUND
As stated in my original decision, Ms Hong was born in South Korea in January 1993. She is now aged 19. She arrived in Australia with her parents in July 2005 on a subclass 976 Electronic Travel Authority (temporary) visa – a tourist visa - valid for three months. Three months later, she applied for a subclass 457 Business (long stay – temporary) visa as a dependant of her father and was granted a bridging visa in association with her application. Her father’s application was refused and he applied for a review by the Migration Review Tribunal which affirmed the decision. Ms Hong then applied for a Protection Class XA visa as a dependant of her mother and was granted a bridging visa in association with this application. There followed a series of other applications by her parents and dependent applications by Ms Hong and associated bridging visas. None of her parents’ applications have been successful. (Ms Hong’s current bridging visa expires 28 days after the resolution of her application for citizenship.)
On 2 October 2009, Ms Hong (then aged 17) lodged an application for citizenship by conferral pursuant to s 21(5) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act). Similar applications were lodged by Ms Hong’s younger sister, Hyerhim, who was then aged 13, and her younger brother, Sungjohn, who was then aged 8. All three applications were refused by a delegate of the Minister on 11 May 2010 on the ground that their circumstances did not meet the relevant policy requirements outlined in the ACIs. On 31 May 2010, each of the three children applied to the Tribunal for a review of these decisions. After a review, I affirmed all three decisions.
Each of the applicants appealed to the Federal Court. Buchanan J affirmed my decisions in respect of Hyerhim and Sungjohn and dismissed their appeals. He set aside my decision in respect of Ms Hong. I had assumed, incorrectly, that it was open to Ms Hong to apply for a student visa to enable her to complete her secondary education in Australia. I said, at [46]:
Weighing up the facts as they affect Ms Hong, I am satisfied that, in the short term, her best interests favour her being able to complete her secondary education in Australia. To send her back to Korea before this is likely to cause significant hardship or disadvantage at this stage in her secondary education and adversely affect her psychological state. Although I recognise that I have no specific power in this regard, I would nevertheless recommend that Ms Hong be allowed to complete her HSC year at school in Australia. Presumably, the uncertainty over Ms Hong’s visa status could be resolved in the short term through, for example, her submitting an application for a student visa.
Written submissions for the Minister in the Federal Court proceedings stated:
58. In fact, the Applicant cannot apply for a student visa because she holds a Bridging Visa E and has been refused a Protection Class XA visa. As a result, she is barred from applying for another visa while she remains in Australia by sections 48 and 48A of the Immigration [sic] Act 1958 (Cth). Therefore, it is likely that the Applicant will have to return to Korea if her application for citizenship is refused.
Buchanan J found, at [27], that I had made an error in my assessment of Ms Hong’s case. He said it was not clear what view I would have taken about her application for citizenship if it had been apparent that in all likelihood she would be prevented from completing her secondary education here. He could not, therefore, exclude the possibility that this might have been sufficient to warrant favourable consideration of her application for Australian citizenship. For these reasons, his Honour upheld Ms Hong’s appeal and remitted her case to the Tribunal for further consideration.
THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND POLICY
The relevant legislative framework and policy is as stated in my decision in the original proceedings at [4] to [12], about which Buchanan J said he was satisfied there was no legal error. I said:
4. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. At the time Ms Hong applied for citizenship, s 21(5) provided:
A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person is aged under 18 at the time the person made the application.
5. The power to approve, or to refuse to approve, a person becoming an Australian citizen is set out in s 24 of the Act, which states:
Minister's decision
If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
(1A) The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
The Minister may refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen despite the person being eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (7).
6. Section 24(2) does not state the factors that may be taken into account when refusing to grant citizenship, and the discretion of the decision-maker is therefore similarly unconfined (see Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 per Mason J at 40).
7. The Government has, however, developed policy in the form of the Instructions to provide guidance to decision-makers. The relevant version of the Instructions is that in effect immediately before 9 November 2009 when s 21(5) of the Act was amended. The introduction to the Instructions states that their role is:
... to support the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. The instructions provide guidance on policy in relation to the interpretation of, and the exercise of powers under, the Act and the Regulations. Decision makers should be mindful that policy must not be applied inflexibly. Policy cannot constrain the exercise of delegated powers under the Act.
8. Decision-makers should generally apply policy such as the Instructions unless the policy is unlawful or its application produces an unjust result in the circumstances of a particular case: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634. I am not satisfied that there is any good reason why the Instructions should not be followed in the present case.
9. The Instructions specify criteria for determining citizenship applications. The Instructions in effect immediately prior to 9 November 2009 stated relevantly:
Person aged under 18 years (s 21(5))
… The discretion in section 24(2) to refuse to approve an applicant becoming an Australian citizen despite being eligible under section 21(5) would usually be exercised where the applicant does not meet the policy guidelines. In making a decision whether to refuse or approve an application, the primary considerations that need to be taken into account are the legislative requirements, the best interests of the child and the policy guidelines set out below.
Best interests of the child
The best interests of the child are to be considered as one of the primary considerations when assessing the application. This consideration only applies if the child is or would be less than 18 years of age at the time of decision on the application and the child is living in Australia.
…
POLICY GUIDELINES
Applicants aged 16 years and over and under the age of 18
…
Applicants aged 16 years and over and under the age of 18 would usually be approved under s24 if they meet the following policy guidelines:
*is a permanent resident
*satisfies the residence requirements
*the applicant need not meet the residence requirements if this would cause significant hardship or disadvantage. See Attachment B - Significant hardship and disadvantage for guidance
*understands the nature of an application
*possesses a basic knowledge of the English language
*has an adequate knowledge of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship at the time of decision
*is likely to reside or continue to reside, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
…
In the case of an applicant who does not meet the policy guidelines above, decision makers must consider the full circumstances of the case, including the best interest of the child, to determine whether the application nevertheless warrants approval because of the unusual nature of those circumstances.
10. Attachment B to the Instructions provides guidance on what constitutes significant hardship and disadvantage. Attachment B states that the onus is on the applicant to provide evidence to support the application and that the applicant would normally be required to demonstrate some or all of (1) an inability to gain employment because employment is restricted to Australian citizens, (2) difficulty of international travel because a person is unable to obtain or use a passport from their country of nationality/citizenship, and (3) academic or other potential is limited or restricted because of a lack of Australian citizenship. Each application must be assessed on its merits but while “policy is not to be applied inflexibly, it must be applied, unless there are special circumstances that would warrant consideration outside that policy”.
11. Thus the Instructions relevantly identify three primary considerations to be taken into account by the decision-maker: the best interests of the child, the legislative requirements and the policy guidelines. Ms Hong was aged under 18 at the time she made an application and therefore meets the legislative requirements in s 21. Ms Hong does not satisfy the policy guideline requiring that she hold a permanent visa. However, consideration must also be given to whether she would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if her application for citizenship is not approved. Where the policy guidelines are not met, the decision-maker must consider the full circumstances of the case, including the best interests of the child, to determine whether the application should, nevertheless, be approved because of the unusual nature of the circumstances.
12. The issues before the Tribunal are, therefore, the best interests of the child, whether Ms Hong would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if her application for citizenship is not approved, and whether there are unusual circumstances in her case warranting consideration of her application outside the stated policy requirements.
THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
In addition to the evidence before the Tribunal in the original proceedings, referred in paragraphs 13 to 36 of my Reasons, I was provided with a further statement from Ms Hong dated 14 February 2012 and she gave further oral evidence at the hearing. I was also provided with a copy of Ms Hong’s 2011 HSC results (which are excellent) and an ‘Offer of Admission’, dated 6 January 2012, from the Universities Admission Centre (UAC) offering her a place in a Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery program at the University of NSW (UNSW) for the first semester of 2012. Attached to the UAC Offer, is a ‘Course Offer Summary’ from UNSW indicating that the offer is made to Ms Hong as an overseas student (ie one who is not a permanent resident or Australian citizen), and there is some email correspondence about the offer and information about assistance with fees. Additionally, the Tribunal has been provided with a reference from the Principal of Asquith High School dated 30 March 2011 stating that Ms Hong is an “outstanding student” who is “very conscientious and highly motivated”, a reference from the proprietor of the restaurant where Ms Hong works part-time together with a payslip, two newspaper articles about Korean and Australian education, an email from Seoul National University, and reports from Dr Susan (Sook Hee) Lee dated 30 August 2011 (on Ms Hong’s degree of assimilation into Australian education from a literacy perspective) and 30 January 2012 (on entry criteria for medicine in Korean universities for returned students). Dr Lee is a Korean born migrant whose expertise is in teaching English as a second language and who is currently the Student Support Coordinator for the Charles Sturt University Study Centre in Sydney. Dr Lee also gave evidence at the hearing.
Ms Hong’s Evidence
Ms Hong said if she is granted Australian citizenship, she will have a chance of achieving her dream of becoming a doctor. Whilst it is likely her parents will be required to return to Korea, she will be capable of supporting herself in their absence and has friends to whom she can turn for help. All her friends are in Australia, and she has none in Korea. Ms Hong said she will still be able to talk with her parents by phone and via the internet and seek their advice where necessary. She had discussed with her family staying on by herself in Australia and they agreed this was best for her. She hopes to have sufficient income from her employment to support herself, but their family friend, Mrs Lee (who gave evidence in the original proceedings), is also still prepared to help support her.
Ms Hong said she achieved an Australian Tertiary Admission Ranking (ATAR) of 98.15 as a result of her HSC results, and that for admission into the Bachelor of Medicine programs at UNSW, domestic students are required to get an ATAR score of at least 96.00; pass the Undergraduate Medicine and Health-Related Science Admission Test (UMAT); and perform satisfactorily at interview. Ms Hong said that overseas students are required to get an ATAR score of at least 98 to be eligible for an interview in which they must perform satisfactorily, but she is not aware of any difference in the interviews which domestic and overseas students attend. She thinks the requirements for admission of both categories of student are of approximately equal difficulty.
Ms Hong produced a receipt for the $4,000 deposit she has paid, and which is required for overseas students to enrol in the Bachelor of Medicine program at UNSW. Further, she has enquired of UNSW as to what effect her being granted Australian citizenship would have on her enrolment as an overseas student. Information supplied by an Admissions Clerk at UNSW states that she would be required to notify UNSW within seven days of her change of status and provide copies of the relevant documents, and she would then be transferred into a domestic fee-paying place. Ms Hong said she was advised that she could apply to UNSW for assistance in paying the fees ($52,000 per annum) which, if granted, would cover two years of medical study without her having to pay any further fees up front. In the meantime, in August 2012, she would be able to apply for a Commonwealth supported place for 2013.
Ms Hong was very pessimistic about her chances of being able to study medicine if she has to return to Korea, due to many Korean universities only offering medical degrees at a postgraduate level. In the case of those offering undergraduate medical programs, as a Korean citizen, she would probably have to apply as a local student, having first sat the domestic Korean exams, or alternatively as an international student, in which case she would be required to undertake the Korean university entry test and perform satisfactorily at interview. However, she is not eligible to apply to some universities (for example, Seoul National University) as an international student because she did not complete both her primary and secondary education overseas, which may be a requirement for such an application. If eligible, the Korean university entry test, which costs between $100 and $200, requires proficiency in mathematics. As the method by which mathematics is taught in Korea differs to that in Australia, Ms Hong said that she would need to undertake private tuition to attain proficiency, together with tuition to prepare her for a subsequent interview.
Moreover, Ms Hong said her Korean language skills are limited, having not learned Korean since 2005, (when she left Korea and came to Australia), and might need two or three years’ private tuition to bring her Korean language skills up to university standard. She doubted that she would be able to afford the necessary private tuition required to prepare for university admission. In cross-examination, Ms Hong was asked about how she had managed to learn English so quickly on arrival in Australia. She said this was because she was able to attend a special intensive program for overseas students coming to Australia.
Ms Hong said that the university tuition fees for medicine in Korea are equivalent to AU$10,000 per annum, and did not think she would be able to obtain a government loan to assist in paying those fees. Further, her parents would not be able to pay such fees, given that they are likely to be in lower paid unskilled employment. Indeed, Ms Hong would probably have to work to provide financial support for her family in re-establishing themselves in Korea.
Ms Hong said a friend of hers who went back to Korea told her that casual work is very poorly paid compared to Australia. She doubts she would be able to continue studying because she would be unable to afford the high university fees. Moreover, because she has completed her secondary education in Australia, it is likely to be difficult for her to gain entry into a tertiary course due to her lack of proficiency in the Korean language, Korean language, and the time and expense that she will incur in obtaining the necessary private tuition. All of this will be stressful and undermine her self-esteem.
The proprietor of the Japanese restaurant where Ms Hong works provided a reference for her dated 13 December 2011. He said she had been working for him as a waitress on a permanent casual basis for 20 hours a week since 16 November 2011. He describes Ms Hong as a “very bright student who learns very quickly”. Ms Hong said she is also now working as a casual employee for KFC at Westfield, Hornsby, four days a week for four or five hours and, additionally, she does one hour’s tutoring every week. If she commences full-time study, she will reduce her employment to one part-time job.
Dr Susan (Sook Hee) Lee’s Evidence
Dr Lee provided a report dated 30 August 2011 “on Nhayoung Hong’s degrees [sic] of assimilation into Australian education from a literacy perspective”. Dr Lee states that Ms Hong’s proficiency in written English is much higher than her proficiency in Korean, which is severely limited and approximately equivalent to that of a student in Year 5. Ms Hong displays a Western style of writing using a structure that is the opposite of that used in Korea: “while she has some awareness of the Korean style of communicating, she has been well integrated and accommodated into the Australian system.” Dr Lee expressed the opinion that this would make it hard for Ms Hong to adapt to the Korean education system.
Dr Lee told the Tribunal that it would take at least two years for Ms Hong to achieve the required Korean language skills for admission to a Korean university. This would require her to undertake private tuition at a cost of up to AU$10,000.
In her report dated 30 January 2012, Dr Lee summarised information she had obtained about university entry to study Medicine in Seoul, near where Ms Hong is likely to be living if she has to return to Korea with her family. Dr Lee said there are 40 universities offering medical degrees in Korea of which eight are in Seoul. Of those in Seoul, only three offer undergraduate programs. Further, the way in which the term ‘returned student’ (ie a student returning from living overseas) is defined, restricts entry as a returned student to the children of public servants or those who have completed both their primary and secondary education overseas in all but two universities. However, at the two universities to which Ms Hong would be eligible to apply, the competition from returned students for the limited places made available is very strong.
Dr Lee said if Ms Hong wished to apply for admission other than as a returned student, she would need to pass the College Scholastic Ability Test which is accepted by all Korean universities, but in doing so she would be competing against other local Korean students in a very competitive education environment.
Dr Lee said tuition fees for medical degrees appear to be approximately AU$9,000 to $10,000 per annum with little difference between public colleges and private universities. There are government loan schemes for students which aim to reduce the burden of college fees on low income households. Students also work part-time to support their studying but such casual employment is poorly paid by Australian standards.
SUBMISSIONS
Mr Kolomyjec, for Ms Hong, said she has now lived in Australia for seven years, her friends are here and she loves living here. Ms Hong is a very bright student who is independent and self-supporting and prepared to spend a year or two working to save in order to remain in Australia and study. In Australia, Ms Hong would not have to pay university fees up front and, after a year, can apply for a Commonwealth supported place. She should be able to make a fairly smooth transition from being an overseas student to a domestic student.
Mr Kolomyjec said that this should be contrasted with Ms Hong having to return to Korea, which would stymie her advancement in life. Entry requirements for medicine in Korea are very different to those in Australia and there is fierce competition. In Korea, Ms Hong would probably need to spend two years undertaking private tuition in order to achieve the required proficiency in the Korean language and in mathematics. But, in any event, she would be unable to afford tertiary study. She will need to work to assist in supporting her family financially. Mr Kolomyjec said that if Ms Hong has to return to Korea, she may be subject to unpredictable hardships and is likely to be marginalised. He submitted that her circumstances are exceptional and warrant exercise of the Minister’s discretion to grant her citizenship.
Written submissions for Ms Hong state that she has spent her formative years in Australia and now considers herself to be an Australian. She is well assimilated into the Australian community and wishes to pursue her tertiary studies here. If she is unable to pursue her studies immediately due to financial reasons, “she is quite happy to take a year or two years off, work and save a bit of money”. She currently has employment and, in the absence of her parents, will have the support of friends in Australia. A return to Korea would cause her significant hardship and disadvantage because of her lack of Korean language skills, and the cost of tertiary education in Korea.
Written submissions for the Minister note that as the holder of a Bridging Visa E, Ms Hong would normally be prohibited from applying for a substantive visa offshore within three years of her departure from Australia.
The Minister contends that Ms Hong does not suffer from significant hardship or disadvantage such that she should not be required to meet the residence requirements. She may suffer some degree of disruption to her education in pursuing tertiary study in Korea, but this is not unusual for a person who has arrived in Australia as a child and is returning to their country some years later. Her circumstances are no different from those of other children who hold a temporary visa and are not permitted to stay in Australia permanently. The difficulties Ms Hong may face in re-adjusting to life in Korea do not amount to unusual circumstances that warrant the approval of her citizenship application outside the policy requirements. The Minister submits that because Ms Hong is no longer a child, her best interests as a child are no longer a relevant consideration.
The Minister notes that in her report dated 30 August 2011, Dr Lee mentions that 168 Korean universities are instructed by the Government “to allocate 2% of special places for overseas students sitting university entrance exams” but she says that “overseas returned students’ competition still remains fierce”. Dr Lee also mentions that a university loans system is in place to reduce the burden on low income households and that students will need to work part-time to continue studying.
The Minister states that if Ms Hong is happy not to attend university for a year or two to work and save money, as her representatives claim in relation to her studying in Australia, there is no reason why she could not do the same in Korea while improving her proficiency in the Korean language.
Mr Eteuati, for the Minister, noted Justice Buchanan’s comment, at [27], that in my original decision, I took into account the fact that Ms Hong might not be able to undertake her tertiary education in Australia and that “such a potential consequence was not regarded by the AAT as providing a sufficient circumstance to warrant the conferral of Australian citizenship upon her”. Mr Eteuati said that Ms Hong has now completed her secondary education and thus this is no longer a relevant consideration.
Mr Eteuati submitted that the evidence provide by the Applicant about undertaking a medical degree in Korea is unsatisfactory and makes it difficult for the Tribunal to make relevant findings. The evidence is not of an expert nature and is largely based on internet research, phone calls, newspaper articles and anecdotal evidence. Dr Lee’s evidence does, however, indicate that there is loan scheme in place to assist with the payment of university tuition fees.
Mr Eteuati said the Minister does not suggest that Ms Hong will not suffer difficulty in pursuing her studies in Korea. However, the evidence suggests that she is a person who is able address such difficulties. Unlike the situation facing her when she arrived in Australia, she has knowledge of the Korean language and culture, she did exceedingly well in mathematics in the HSC, and has shown she has aptitude, determination and can work hard to achieve her goals.
Mr Eteuati concluded by saying that it is not unusual for a person who has spent time in one country to have to return to their country of origin and encounter some difficulties in doing so.
DISCUSSION
As I said in my original decision, there is no dispute that Ms Hong is eligible for conferral of citizenship pursuant to the wording of s 21(5) of the Act in effect at the time of her application. Equally, it is clear the Minister has a discretion to refuse a grant of citizenship pursuant to s 24(2). The guidance for decision-makers provided by the ACIs indicates that applications by children aged 16 and over and under the age of 18 (at the time of application) should not usually be approved if the applicant does not hold a permanent visa, unless the child would otherwise suffer significant hardship or disadvantage. However, where an applicant does not meet the policy requirements, the full circumstances of the case must be considered, including the best interests of the child, to determine whether the application nevertheless warrants approval because of the unusual nature of those circumstances.
Ms Hong is not a permanent resident. The issue for the Tribunal, therefore, is whether, having considered the full circumstances of her case, the policy requirement for permanent residency should be waived because she would otherwise suffer significant hardship or disadvantage and the application warrants approval because of the unusual nature of those circumstances. As Mr Eteuati pointed out, Ms Hong is now an adult and her best interests as a child need no longer be considered.
In my original decision I said that in the short term, Ms Hong’s best interests favoured her being able to complete her secondary education in Australia. This is, of course, no longer a relevant consideration: Ms Hong has successfully completed her secondary education and achieved excellent HSC results, sufficient to attract an offer of admission to a Bachelor of Medicine program at a leading Australian university, a program for which the competition is fierce. The fact that she has achieved such a result since arriving in Australia in July 2005, coming from a non-English speaking background, is a testament, in the words of her school Principal (reference dated 30 March 2011), to Ms Hong being “an outstanding student … very conscientious and highly motivated … [and with] the drive and determination to do very well”.
In my original decision, at [44], I found that Ms Hong has become acculturated into the Australian community and identifies strongly with that community and not with the community of her birth. I said:
44. … However, that is in itself not unusual and nor is the fact that a child who has studied for a period of over five years in Australia would face difficulties in adjusting to different circumstances on a return to their country of origin and suffer stress as a result. Many children come to Australia to study and have to cope with not being permitted to remain here once their studies are completed. It will often be open to those students to apply for further student visas in their own right to enable them to also undertake tertiary education in Australia.
45. Australian citizenship is not to be conferred lightly. The fact that the Hong children’s situation is not of their making but is the result of decisions made by their parents, is not unusual: children are inevitably affected by decisions made by their parents. Equally, the fact that the children may also suffer some detriment as a result – in this instance as a result of the parents bringing them to Australia on tourist visas and then trying to find ways to remain here - is not unusual.
I do not resile from anything I said in this regard although I note the information provided by the Minister that as the holder of a Bridging Visa E, Ms Hong would normally be prohibited from applying for a substantive visa offshore within three years of her departure from Australia.
I have found the evidence provided about employment and living conditions in Korea, and, in particular, about university entry requirements, fees and medical education, lacks sufficient detail and clarity to enable me to make any specific findings. I accept that tertiary education in Korea is very competitive and that Ms Hong will need to address some different admission requirements and gain proficiency in the Korean language. However, moving between different countries and, in particular, returning to one’s country of origin to live after a long absence, commonly poses such difficulties and a period of re-adjustment is required. Again, this is not unusual.
Ms Hong has said that she is prepared to postpone commencing her medical studies in Australia for a year or two in order to work and save to support herself. Her evidence indicates that she has become more independent recently and is currently working hard towards this. In my view, Ms Hong could equally spend a year or two working in Korea with the same end in mind while becoming proficient in the Korean language and addressing other university admission requirements. The language and admission requirements may well be obstacles to be overcome but, given her abilities, especially, her intelligence, drive and determination, they do not appear to be insurmountable obstacles and do not amount to such significant hardship.
I note that submissions on Ms Hong’s behalf have focused on undergraduate medical programs. However, as Dr Lee indicated in her evidence, many Korean universities offer graduate rather than undergraduate medical programs as is not uncommonly the case with universities in other countries. It may be that admission to and the completion of another undergraduate degree, such as in science, may prove to be a way into studying for a medical degree.
My conclusion, therefore, is that Ms Hong’s circumstances are not so unusual as to warrant approval of her application for citizenship outside the usual policy requirements set out in the ACIs.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 41 (forty one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President R P Handley.
.............[sgd]...........................................................
Associate
Dated 20 February 2012
Date of hearing 3 February 2012 Counsel for the Applicant T Kolomyjec Solicitors for the Applicant G Seo & Associates Solicitor for the Respondent T Eteuati, Clayton Utz
0
4
0