Reddy and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral. The applicant, an Engineering Manager employed by a private company contracted to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) for a project in Papua New Guinea, sought to rely on special residence requirements due to extended absences from Australia. The applicant contended that his work on the ANGAU Memorial Hospital Redevelopment Project was of benefit to Australia and necessitated his travel, causing him to exceed the standard 90-day absence limit within the 12 months prior to his application. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the Minister's decision to refuse the citizenship application.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the special residence requirements under sections 22A and 22B of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth), and whether any ministerial discretions applied to excuse his failure to meet the general residence requirements. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's employment constituted an activity of benefit to Australia as defined by relevant ministerial policy (IMMI 13/056), and if his work duties fell within the categories specified in the policy for excusing absences. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's submission that a compassionate approach should be taken.

The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of the applicant's work and his connection to Australia. However, it found that the applicant did not meet the requirements of section 22A because his employment by a private company providing services to a government department did not fall within the types of activities specified in Schedule A of IMMI 13/056. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's work duties did not align with the categories outlined in Schedule C of IMMI 13/056 for the purposes of section 22B. The Tribunal affirmed the principle that ministerial policy, if lawful and not leading to an unjust decision, should be applied, and found no discretion within the *Citizenship Act* to waive the residence requirements.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the general residence requirements, nor did any ministerial discretions or special residence requirements apply. Accordingly, the decision under review to affirm the refusal of the citizenship application was upheld.