Ricci and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship)
[2025] ARTA 2189
•21 October 2025
Ricci and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 2189 (21 October 2025)
Applicant:Ronit Ricci
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2024/6848
Tribunal:General Member L M Gallagher
Place:Perth
Date:21 October 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Statement made on 21 October 2025 at 12:42pm
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – Citizen of United States of America and Israel – application for citizenship by conferral – failure to satisfy general residence requirement – spouse of Australian citizen – Ministerial discretion – s 22(9) Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – whether present in Australian four years prior to application – whether permanent resident in Australia 12 months prior to application – whether exceeded allowable absences – whether had close and continuing association with Australia during periods of absence – discretion not enlivened – reviewable decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), ss 21(2), 22(1), 22(1A), 22(1B), 22(9), 24
CASES
Judd v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 827
Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 446
Minister for Home Affairs v G and Another [2019] FCAFC 79
Vo and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) AATA 2520SECONDARY MATERIALS
Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction 8 – Residence Requirements and Discretions
Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction 11 – Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia
Statement of Reasons
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated 21 August 2024, to refuse an application for Australian citizenship by conferral under s 24 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act) (the Reviewable Decision).[1]
[1] Exhibit R1, TB1, T2.
The basis for the refusal was that the delegate was not satisfied that at the time of the Reviewable Decision the Applicant satisfied the general residence requirement in s 21(2)(c) of the Act.
In particular, the delegate found that the Applicant had not been present or permanently resident for the required periods, in that she exceeded the allowable absences set out in ss 22(1A) and 22(1B) of the Act.
The delegate also decided not to exercise the spousal discretion s 22(9) of the Act in respect of the Applicant periods of absence from Australia.
The application for review of the Reviewable Decision is made in accordance with s 52(1)(b) of the Act, which allows applications to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal)[2] for review of a decision under s 24 of the Act.
[2] As it was then known. On 14 October 2024, a new federal administrative body called the Administrative Review Tribunal commenced, replacing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has ceased operations, with all current matters now transferred to the Administrative Review Tribunal. References to ‘the Tribunal’ in this decision refer to whichever of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Administrative Review Tribunal was in operation at the relevant time.
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant satisfies the general residence requirement in s 21(2)(c) of the Act.[3]
[3] There is no suggestion, evidence or claim that the Applicant seeks to satisfy the special residence requirement or the defence service requirement (see s 21(2)(c) of the Act).
In turn, this requires the Tribunal to consider:
(a)Whether, for the purposes of s 22(9)(d) of the Act, it is satisfied that the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during her periods of absence from Australia:
(i)In the four years immediately before the date she made her application for Australian citizenship; and
(ii)In the 12 months immediately before the date she made her application for citizenship; and
if so,
(b)Whether it should allow the discretion under s 22(9) of the Act to treat those periods as ones in which the Applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident.[4]
[4] See Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 446 at [23].
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a citizen of the United States and Israel.
Key facts relevant to the present application are set out in the Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.[5]
[5] Exhibit R1, TB3 at [3]. The Applicant affirmed these general factual matters as correct: For e.g., Exhibit R1, TB2 at [1], [2], [4] and [5].
Applicant’s claim history
On 25 August 2022, the Applicant lodged an application for Australian citizenship by conferral under s 21(3) of the Act.[6]
[6] Exhibit R1, TB1, T4.
On 29 January 2024, the Applicant was granted a Resident Return (subclass 155) visa.[7]
[7] Exhibit R1, TB1, T2.
On 21 August 2024, a delegate of the Respondent made the Reviewable Decision.
On 5 September 2024, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Reviewable Decision.[8]
[8] Exhibit R1, TB1, T1.
On 25 February 2025, the Applicant was granted a Resident Return (subclass 155) visa.[9]
[9] Exhibit R1, TB2, p 285 [8].
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
The Preamble to the Act states that:
The Parliament recognises that Australian citizenship represents full and formal membership of the community of the Commonwealth of Australia, and Australian citizenship is a common bond, involving reciprocal rights and obligations, uniting all Australians, while respecting their diversity.
The Parliament recognises that persons conferred Australian Citizenship enjoy these rights and undertake to accept these obligations:
(a) by pledging loyalty to Australia and its people; and
(b) by sharing their democratic beliefs; and
(c) by respecting their rights and liberties; and
(d) by upholding and obeying the laws of Australia.
Section 21 of the Act sets out the general provisions for the making of applications and eligibility for citizenship.
Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
Section 21(2)(c) of the Act provides that a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or satisfies the defence service requirement, at the time the person made the application.
General residence requirement
For the purposes of s 21 of the Act, pursuant to s 22(1) a person satisfies the general residence requirement if:
(a) the person was present in Australia for the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application;[10] and
[10] This requirement is supplemented by s22(1A) of the Act.
(b) the person was not present in Australia as an unlawful non - citizen at any time during that 4 year period;[11] and
[11] This requirement is supplemented by s22(1B) of the Act.
(c) the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident for the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application.
Overseas absences
(1A) If:
(a) the person was absent from Australia for a part of the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application; and
(b) the total period of the absence or absences was not more than 12 months;
then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the person is taken to have been present in Australia during each period of absence.
(1B) If:
(a) the person was absent from Australia for a part of the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application; and
(b) the total period of the absence or absences was not more than 90 days; and
(c) the person was a permanent resident during each period of absence;
then, for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the person is taken to have been present in Australia as a permanent resident during each period of absence.
…
Ministerial discretion--spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto partner of Australian citizen
(9) If the person is the spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de factor partner of an Australian citizen at the time the person made the application, the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if:
(a) the person was a spouse or de facto partner of that Australian citizen during that period; and
(b) the person was not present in Australia during that period; and
(c) the person was a permanent resident during that period; and
(d) the Minister is satisfied that the person had a close and continuing association with Australia during that period.
Close and continuing association with Australia
The term ‘close and continuing association with Australia’ is not defined in the Act.
It is accepted that the expression is broad, should be given its ordinary meaning, that the related assessment of an applicant’s circumstances is qualitative and objective and that this exercise requires a multi-factorial approach.[12]
[12] See Judd v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 827 (Judd) at [14].
The requirements of s22(9) of the Act are considered further in Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction 8 – Residence Requirements and Discretions (CPI 8) and Revised Citizenship Procedural Instruction 11 – Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia (CPI 11) as follows:
CPI 8 at [4.7.5] explains that the Ministerial discretion set out in s 22(9) of the Act allows periods of time spent outside Australia as a permanent resident to be counted as time spent in Australia for the purposes of meeting the requirements in ss 22(1)(a) and 22(1)(c) of the Act, in circumstances where the applicant has exceeded the allowable absences set out in s 22(1A). Para [4.7.5] of CPI 8 goes on to state that:
The discretion can only be applied to periods when:
· the applicant was a spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto partner of the Australian citizen during that period; and
· the applicant was not present in Australia during that period; and
· the applicant was a permanent resident during that period; and
· the applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during that period. Refer to CPI 11 - Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
…
4.7.5.1. Evidence to be provided for the purposes of subsection 22(9)
Applicants seeking the application of ministerial discretion under subsection 22(9) of the Act need to provide:
· evidence of their spouse’s, or de facto partner’s, Australian citizenship, and
· their marriage certificate or, if a de facto partner, evidence of their de facto relationship.
‘De facto partner’ is defined in section 3 of the Act as having the meaning given by the
Acts Interpretation Act 1901(the AIA). Section 2D of the AIA refers to a de facto partner as being a person (of the same sex or a different sex) who is in a de facto relationship under section 2F of the AIA. Subsection 2F(1) of the AIA requires that the persons are not legally married, are not related by family, and have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis. Subsection 2F(2) of the AIA provides that in determining whether two persons have a relationship as a couple, all of the circumstances of the relationship are to be considered, which may include any or all of the following:
· the duration of the relationship;
· the nature and extent of their common residence;
· whether a sexual relationship exists;
· the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them;
· the ownership, use and acquisition of their property;
· the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
· the care and support of children;
· the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.
However, an absence of the circumstances described above does not necessarily mean the claimed partners are not in a relationship.
…
Guidance on the concept of ‘close and continuing association with Australia’ is set out in CPI 11 at [3.5], as follows:
It is important to note that the requirement to maintain a close and continuing association refers to an association with Australia, not with Australians. This means that a close and continuing association with immediate/extended family or other social relationships or networks in Australia, on its own, may not be a sufficient factor to meet this requirement, although each case must be considered on its own merits.
While not defined in legislation, the purpose of this part of the requirements is that the applicant demonstrates that they are participating in the Australian community, although they are not residing in Australia. This may include, but is not limited to:
· participation in a community group that provides services or engages in activities of benefit to the Australian community;
· undertaking education or profession-based studies with an Australian institution; or
· membership of a board or committee of a club, charity or other entity that provides services, recreational or educational opportunities in Australia.
Paragraph [3.6] of CPI 11 contains a table that includes factors that may be relevant when assessing an applicant under s 21(2)(g) of the Act (whether a person is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the Applicant were to be approved), however delegates must be mindful that the following factors are a guide only and that each case must be assessed on its facts. These factors are:
(a)Pre-existing connection with Australia;
(b)Employment status;
(c)Financial;
(d)Overseas employment or business;
(e)Family relationships;
(f)Return travel to, and periods of residence in, Australia;
(g)Primary residence and migration status in foreign country;
(h)Intention to reside; and
(i)Applicants who claim they will return to Australia.
As established in Minister for Home Affairs v G and Another [2019] FCAFC 79 (G), the Tribunal is to apply Ministerial policy, unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[13]
[13]G at [57]-[62].
HEARING AND EVIDENCE
The matter was heard in Perth on 26 and 27 August 2025. The Applicant was represented by Ms Kim Rubenstein. The Respondent was represented by Mr Ben Nam of Clayton Utz. All parties appeared by Microsoft Teams.
The joint hearing bundle was filed by the Respondent on 5 August 2025 was tendered and marked ‘Exhibit R1.’
The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the Applicant. No other witnesses were called.
The Tribunal has reviewed all of the material before it. The Tribunal is satisfied that all relevant evidence was before it and that both parties were provided an opportunity to address the evidence, either orally or in writing. Relevant aspects of the evidence and material before the Tribunal will be analysed and referred to below.[14]
[14] The numerous factual and evidentiary matters, and related submissions, presented by the Applicant that are outside the scope of the issue for review, and hence these proceedings, were considered as part of the overall material before the Tribunal, but are not specifically addressed in this decision.
Applicant’s evidence
The Applicant gave evidence that her children were approximately three and a half, eight and a half, and thirteen and a half when they arrived in Australia following her full-time appointment as a lecturer at ANU in 2010.
The Applicant said that over time, she has had the same continuing appointment at ANU, however on a smaller faction (0.2). The Applicant said that she felt a strong connection with ANU from the start and emphasised that she returned to Canberra ‘every winter.’
When asked about her decision in 2013 to relocate to Israel, the Applicant said that the move was for family reasons, as her parents-in-law were unwell. The Applicant said that she does not describe this move as permanent, as it was unclear at the time if she would stay in Israel beyond her two-year leave of absence from ANU and that even now, she would not say it was a permanent move. The Applicant said that realising she was not going to return to Australia, she arranged to maintain her association with ANU on a 0.2 fractional basis. The Applicant said her 0.2 role includes teaching every winter when she comes to Australia, mentoring, advising, supervising, working with PhD students and giving talks, but to a lesser extent that in her professor role in Israel.
The Applicant said that since 2013 she has been consistent with the obligations of her role at ANU, other than in 2020 and 2021 when she could not teach face-to-face due to Covid-19.
When asked to comment on the Respondent’s position that the Applicant’s visits to Australia (during the four years prior to her application for citizenship) were ‘akin to a visitor,’ the Applicant said she does not feel like a visitor or a tourist when in Australia and that she feels ‘at home’ when in Australia.
When asked about the impact her husband’s business has had on her life and on her connection to Australia, the Applicant said her husband travels to Australia two to three times per year (other than when he was unable to travel during Covid-19, save for his being in Canberra when the first Covid-19 related lockdown occurred), for several weeks at a time, and at times this has coincided with her travel to ANU during winter. The Applicant said her husband has always run his business’ workday on Australian time (as does she, ‘at least partly’) irrespective of his physical location. The Applicant said she did not accompany her husband on any of his business trips to Australia, her own visits being for the purpose of ANU appointment.
As to why she did not apply for citizenship in 2013, the Applicant said she had not spent the required minimum period in Australia as she was travelling a lot, following her having won a research award which allowed her to teach less and travel for research. The Applicant also noted her application for citizenship in 2015 was refused following a lapse in her permanent resident status.[15]
[15] See Exhibit R1, TB1, T7.
When asked a series of questions so as the answers relate to the relevant period (being 25 August 2018 to 25 August 2022)[16], the Applicant stated:
[16] Being the four years immediately prior to the date the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship.
(a)She considers both Israel and Australia to be ‘home’ and while she has not been able to reside in Australia, she considers her association with Australia to be strong and ongoing from afar.
(b)Her husband and children live with her in Israel.
(c)She has rented a house in Israel during this period.
(d)All of her trips to Australia during this period were in relation to her work and her absence from Australia (for approximately two years from August 2019) was due to foreign travellers being unable to visit Australia due to Covid-19.
(e)During her visits to Australia, she stayed in Ainslie, in a house that belonged to friends and would take care of their dog. She does not own a residential property in Australia and there is no other house in Australia that she considers she maintains.
(f)She purchased a property in Israel in approximately 2021, one reason for this being that it was a good investment at the time. This property is her family’s primary residence.
(g)She was on 0.2 FTE arrangement (on a 0.2 commensurate salary) for the entirety of the relevant four-year period. Her expected hours of work at ANU are not formalised, rather there is an understanding that she will work approximately one day per week. She meets yearly with the director in Canberra who reviews her performance. It is difficult for her to quantify due to the nature of her work, and she often feels like she works more than 0.2 but the main thing she is unable to do is face-to-face teaching.
(h)During the relevant period, she held other employment, being full-time employment, as a professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
(i)The 65-day visit to Australia from 3 June 2022 included her children, although she cannot recall if this visit covered any school holiday periods. During the relevant period, her eldest child had finished school, her daughter had mostly finished school and her youngest child was school-aged and schooled in Israel most of the time.
(j)As to her having worked to establish partnerships between ANU and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,[17] the Applicant said she co-organised the visits of two ANU professors, organised the program, panel of speakers and chairs, practical arrangements, and published their papers post-event as an edited volume. This process took approximately one and a half to two years from start to finish.
(k)She has also organised a major conference at ANU in 2018.
(l)During this period, her returning to Australia to reside was something that was ‘on the table.’ She did not, however, make any arrangements during this period to ‘pick herself up and move’ (for example, by booking travel or looking for housing) as it was not a time that you could consider moving to another country. There was no concrete plan to move to Australia at this time.
(m)Her move to Australia has not happened because she has been caring for her parents, who are not in good health.
(n)There is nothing that she can recall that requires her to be physically located in Australia in order to maintain her Australian superannuation account.
CONSIDERATION
[17] See Exhibit R1, TB1, T7.
Whether the Applicant satisfies the general residence requirement in s 21(2)(c) of the Act
The following is not in dispute:
(a)The Applicant has been absent from Australia for 1,357 days in the four years prior to her application for citizenship by conferral, being approximately 92% of that time and hence in excess of the 12 months allowable under s 22(1A) of the Act.
(b)The Applicant has been absent from Australia for 294 days in the 12 months prior to her application for citizenship by conferral, being approximately 80% of that time and hence in excess of the 90 days allowable under s 22(1B) of the Act.
(c)As the Applicant does not satisfy the general residence requirement in s 22 of the Act when considering ss 22(1A) and 22(1B) of the Act alone, she requires favourable exercise of the spousal discretion in s 22(9) of the Act in relation to both the 12-month and four-year periods prior to her application for citizenship.
(d)The Applicant satisfies ss 22 (9)(a)-(c) of the Act.
Therefore, what remains in dispute is whether the Applicant satisfies s 22(9)(d) of the Act, namely, whether she had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant periods.
The Applicant takes the view that the Reviewable Decision reflects an incorrect interpretation of the factors relevant to s 22(9) of the Act, that the delegate was influenced by ‘unlawful policy’ regarding the weight of those various factors, and that the Reviewable Decision is ‘inconsistent with the purpose of the Act.’
The Applicant submitted that whether the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s view of these matters or not, the preferable decision is that the Applicant satisfies s 22(d) of the Act in any event.
At the hearing, the Applicant elaborated on her written submissions that the preamble to the Act promotes a beneficial outcome to applicants and promotes family unity, rather than the grant of citizenship being ‘solely at the whim of the executive’ and that s 22(9) is an enabling provision ‘rather than a strictly exclusive provisions,’ on the bases that:
(a)It is important for members of a family to share the same citizenship/s; and
(b)There is an expectation that spouses hold the same citizenship.
The Applicant referred to a number of historical provisions and academic publications in this regard.
The essence of the Applicant’s arguments, as the Tribunal understands them, is that:
(a)The exercise of the spousal discretion in s 22(9)(d) of the Act in favour of an applicant is potentially available to a citizenship applicant.
(b)This gives rise to an occasion to entirely depart from the relationship between physical presence to the concept of ‘close and continuing association’ that has been consistently applied by the Tribunal over time.
(c)This is because the emphasis on physical presence in Australia is inappropriate in the weighing up on the various factors identified.
For instance, the Applicant contended that her continued work for ANU on a 0.2 FTE basis and remotely from Israel is part of her close and continuing association with Australia, as is her husband’s work and that academic considerations in the international law context, such as family unity, would be impaired unless all appropriate measures are taken. This affirms her view that as such, all family members should hold the same citizenship.
In addition to her role with ANU, the Applicant essentially argued that she has remained meaningfully connected to Australia during the relevant periods through her family’s connection to Canberra through school, Sunday school and other activities and that she did not view her return to Israel in 2013 as a permanent move.
The Applicant is also of the view that her husband’s business demonstrates her connection to Australia in that her husband works on Australian time and Australia is a constant daily measure in their lives.
Further, the Applicant considers that her lack of residence in Australia during the international border closures during Covid-19 should be given less weight as ‘when she could travel to Australia, she did.’
The Respondent however emphasised that there are any number of Tribunal decisions underscoring that physical presence in Australia is relevant to the concept of ‘close and continuing association with Australia’ not Australians, in the present context.
The Respondent also noted that whilst it was unclear whether the Applicant was contending that the CPI are ultra vires to the Act, the Applicant has not directed the Tribunal to a single authority regarding the CPI being unlawful.
The Respondent also reiterated that citizenship is a privilege, not a right, there is no general entitlement to citizenship, that the words of the Act are clear, that the policy provides further guidance, and the present proceedings was an incorrect forum for such a debate.
The Respondent reminded the Tribunal that there is a degree of proportionality to considerations of physical residence and the listed factors relevant to whether there is a ‘close and continuing association with Australia.’ The Respondent stated that it is not, as the Applicant contends it is, espousing the view that physical residence ought to be considered to the entire exclusion of the matters relevant to the listed factors. Rather, the Respondent is contending that the Applicant’s residence is an important factor in circumstances where she has been overwhelmingly absent during the relevant periods.
Whether the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period
The issue before the Tribunal is narrow and confined. The Tribunal has considered the parties’ respective positions and related submissions and refers to pertinent matters raised as they relate to the non-exhaustive relevance to the Tribunal’s assessment.
Given the Applicant’s views, the Tribunal makes clear at the outset that the statutory terms in s 22(9) of the Act are clear in their operation, CPI 11 additionally provides policy guidance, and the Tribunal has confirmed the centrality of one’s physical presence in Australia when considering the spousal discretion in s 22 (9)(d).[18] Applying G, the Tribunal has not been presented with any cogent reasons not to adopt the CPI in the present matter.
[18] See, for e.g., Vo and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2022) AATA 2520 (Vo) at [36].
Employment status
The Applicant has maintained a 0.2 FTE appointment with ANU, secondary to her full-time appointment with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The Applicant’s trips to Australia during the relevant periods for the purpose of her ANU commitments were very brief and her work with ANU is largely remote, her contact with students also being maintained by electronic means.
While the Applicant is an objectively distinguished and accomplished academic, her role and achievements with ANU, for example in establishing connections between universities and organising conferences, are limited to the extent that her appointment is, in her own words, the equivalent of approximately one day per week, which includes her teaching obligations along with any organisational endeavours.
The Tribunal therefore considers the Applicant’s Australian employment links with ANU, which is largely remote, as somewhat limited as a result, and is secondary to her employment with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, indicating her close and continuing association with Australia only to a very limited extent.
Return travel to, and periods of residence in, Australia
Irrespective of the difficulties the Applicant faced with travel due to Covid-19 related travel restrictions, the Applicant’s travel to and from Australia during the relevant periods were objectively extremely brief. While the Applicant gave evidence that she did not feel like she was a visitor, the extent of her absence is such that her travel to Australia does meet that description.
This extended and prolonged absence weighs against a finding that the Applicant had the required close and continuing association with Australia. While the Applicant contended it ought not to, the Applicant’s absences cannot be characterised as short, or as being just beyond the extent or the allowable absences.
As such, the Tribunal views the Applicant’s residence in Israel during the relevant period as a significant factor against her demonstration of a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
Intention to reside in Australia
By the Applicant’s own evidence, any permanent move to Australia was, at its highest, something that was ‘on the table’ following the Applicant’s return to Israel in 2013. The Applicant said that she was considering a move, however no travel or housing arrangements were made and that her aging parents were a major consideration.
The extent of the Applicant’s children’s schooling in Australia is that, at best, one of her children had been present in Australia for a 65-day period whilst they were school age. The Applicant owned no property in Australia and had no belongings stored there.
Therefore, the Tribunal is of the view that the Applicant had no meaningful intention to reside in Australia during the relevant periods and any objective evidence of such is very limited.
Pre-existing connection with Australia
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s pre-existing connection with Australia weighs moderately in favour of a finding of a close and continuing association with Australia for the following reasons:
(a)It cannot be said that the Applicant established a home in Australia after migration when she returned to Israel in 2013.
(b)The Applicant did not own a business in Australia.
(c)The Applicant has community ties through her profession, however there was limited evidence regarding her social connections or involvement in community events.
(d)The Applicant’s husband and children are Australian citizens.
(e)The Applicant worked for an Australian university whilst in Australia, however any study during this time was as part of her role, not as a student undertaking further study.
Financial
The Applicant has paid taxes during the relevant period and has maintained an Australian superannuation account, although she maintains this account remotely.
The Applicant’s reliance on her husband’s Australian-based business would relate to any assessment of the question of his own close and continuing association with Australia, however it is largely irrelevant to the question as it relates to herself.
Therefore, these matters do not materially demonstrate the Applicant’s close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant periods.
Family relationships
The Applicant’s husband and three children were Australian citizens during the relevant periods. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s relationship with her husband is long-standing.
There is no evidence the Applicant has any extended family in Australia, and the Applicant did not make any claims in this regard.
While the Applicant cites the need to care for her aging parents as one of the reasons for her primarily remaining in Israel since 2013, there is no corroborating evidence regarding what their needs were during the relevant periods, the Applicant’s role in meeting these needs ,and whether any caring responsibilities (to her aging parents, or adult children) would have hindered her return.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s family connections weigh in favour of a close and continuing association with Australia.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal has found that the Applicant’s pre-existing connection to Australia and family relationships weigh in favour of a close and continuing association with Australia, that her employment status weighs in favour to a more limited extent, and that her travel and residence periods and financial matters do not.
However, in light of the Judd and Vo decisions, the extent of the Applicant’s absences from Australia during the relevant periods weigh significantly against an overall finding in favour of this association.
Therefore, the Applicant has not, in the Tribunal’s view, demonstrated the requisite close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant periods and the spousal discretion in s 22(9)(d) of the Act is not available for exercise by the Tribunal.
This being so, the Applicant does not satisfy the general residence requirement in the Act and the Reviewable Decision is affirmed.
DECISION
The decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated 21 August 2024, to refuse the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship by conferral under s 24 of the Act is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 77 (seventy-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member L Gallagher
........[SGD]................................................................
Associate
Dated: 21 October 2025
Date of hearing: 26-27 August 2025 Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms K Rubenstein Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr B Nam, Clayton Utz
0
3
0