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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by Mr Sachdeva, a citizen of the Republic of Singapore and a permanent resident of Australia. The dispute arose because Mr Sachdeva's absences from Australia in the twelve-month period immediately preceding his application exceeded the statutory limit, preventing him from meeting the general residence requirement. The Tribunal was asked to review the decision affirming that Mr Sachdeva was not eligible for the grant of citizenship at that time.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Sachdeva satisfied the general residence requirement for Australian citizenship by conferral, specifically concerning the permissible duration of absences from Australia in the twelve months prior to his application. A secondary issue was whether any discretionary power existed under the relevant legislation to allow for the grant of citizenship despite the unmet residence requirement, particularly in light of the supervening event of national and international travel restrictions due to the pandemic and Mr Sachdeva's need to travel to Singapore to care for his critically ill sister.

The Tribunal considered sections 21 and 22 of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth), which set out the general residence requirement. Section 22(1)(c) requires a person to have been present in Australia as a permanent resident for the twelve months immediately before applying, with section 22(1B) specifying that absences during this period must not exceed 90 days in total. The Tribunal found that Mr Sachdeva's absences, necessitated by his sister's critical illness and the subsequent travel restrictions, exceeded this 90-day limit. The Tribunal also examined potential discretionary provisions, including section 21(6) which allows for the Minister to treat periods of absence as if the person were present if they would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage. However, the Tribunal noted that this provision was not applicable as Mr Sachdeva had not sought its application and it was relevant only if the person was otherwise lawfully in Australia during the four-year period prior to application. The Tribunal concluded that there was no discretionary power under the Act that could be applied to permit the grant of citizenship in these circumstances.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Mr Sachdeva did not meet the general residence requirement for Australian citizenship by conferral. The decision noted that Mr Sachdeva remained a permanent resident of Australia and was free to lodge a fresh application, subject to meeting the residence requirements at that future date.