RRML and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)

This case concerned two sisters, XJFZ and RRML, who sought review of decisions by delegates of the Minister for Home Affairs refusing to approve their applications for Australian citizenship by conferral. The applications were joined and heard together by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicants were born in the UK and Sierra Leone respectively, and had resided in the UAE for most of their lives, having arrived in Australia on skilled-independent visas in 2012. Their mother, a veterinary surgeon, had intended to relocate to Australia permanently in 2017 after resolving legal proceedings in the UAE, and the applicants had briefly attended school in Australia in 2017.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Minister's decision to refuse to approve the applicants' citizenship applications, exercising the discretion under s 24(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, was the correct or preferable decision. This involved considering the relevant Citizenship Policy, which generally required applicants to demonstrate significant hardship or disadvantage if citizenship were not granted, and assessing the applicants' claims of significant disadvantage, including a lack of freedom to travel, deprivation of quality education, disconnection from Australia, and the non-realisation of their intention to reside in Australia. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to travel and renew visas was also a factor raised by the applicants.

The Tribunal reasoned that while it was guided by the Citizenship Policy, the policy itself was not determinative and the ultimate decision rested on an overall assessment of the individual circumstances. The Tribunal found that the applicants had not demonstrated significant hardship or disadvantage as contemplated by the Policy. Specifically, it was held that refusing citizenship did not significantly impede their ability to travel internationally, as they held UK passports. The Tribunal also found no evidence that their current education in the UAE was deficient, nor that denial of citizenship would deprive them of quality education in Australia, especially as permanent residents have the same legal rights to education. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had minimal ties to Australia, and their intention to reside there was speculative and primarily driven by their mother's circumstances, thus not warranting significant weight in the exercise of discretion.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions of the delegates of the Minister for Home Affairs. The applications for Australian citizenship by conferral were refused.