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

This case concerned an application for Australian citizenship by Myra Quilatan and her child, Alfonso. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs had refused to approve Myra's application, finding that she was not likely to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continued association with the country, as required by section 21(2)(g) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). Alfonso's application was contingent on Myra's. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether Myra satisfied the criteria under section 21(2)(g) of the Act.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was the interpretation and application of the phrase "likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia" within section 21(2)(g) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007*. This involved assessing whether the evidence presented demonstrated a sufficient connection to Australia, despite the applicant's current residence overseas and the reasons for that absence. The Tribunal had to consider various factors, including the applicant's marital status, property ownership, financial ties, and stated intentions, in light of the delegate's previous assessment which had given minimal weight to these factors.

Deputy President Boyle P reasoned that the delegate had placed undue weight on the applicant's temporary absence from Australia and the reasons for it, particularly the need to support her Australian citizen spouse's US visa applications. The Tribunal found that there was no temporal limitation to the requirement of being "likely to reside" in Australia, and that the applicant's established ties, including property ownership, bank accounts, superannuation, and a clear intention to return and divide her time between Australia and the US, were sufficient to satisfy the legislative requirement. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's obligation to reside in the US was temporary and driven by her spouse's migration process, and that her intention to reside in Australia was evidenced by her ongoing financial and property interests.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the matter with a direction that Myra Quilatan satisfied section 21(2)(g) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007*. This meant that Alfonso's application would also be successful.