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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, brought by the Applicant, and reviewed by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The primary dispute revolved around whether the Applicant met the criteria for an exemption from the citizenship test, specifically under section 21(3)(d) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth), which requires an applicant to have a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity. The decision was heard by R Bellamy M.

The court was required to determine whether the Applicant possessed a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity at the time of her citizenship application, which would exempt her from the requirement to demonstrate a basic knowledge of English or pass a citizenship test. This involved assessing the evidence of her physical and mental health conditions, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and cognitive difficulties, and their impact on her capacity to understand the application and learn English.

The court considered extensive medical and psychiatric evidence, including letters from Dr. Sidney Cabral, a senior psychiatrist. While Dr. Cabral supported consideration for an exemption from the citizenship test and noted the Applicant's long-standing history of depression and PTSD, his reports did not directly address the specific requirements of section 21(3)(d). The court found that while the Applicant suffered from physical, cognitive, and psychological difficulties, there was insufficient evidence to establish that these constituted a permanent or enduring incapacity as required by the Act at the time of her application. Specifically, the court noted that while her cognitive impairment was not a recent development, the evidence did not definitively demonstrate how her conditions made it impossible for her to learn English, and there was evidence suggesting she understood the nature of her application. Furthermore, regarding physical ailments, the court found that some were treatable with diet and lifestyle changes, and there was no evidence that others were untreatable.

Ultimately, the court concluded that there was not sufficient evidence before it to satisfy the statutory criteria for an exemption under section 21(3)(d). The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the citizenship application, was therefore affirmed. The court noted that it was open to the Applicant to make a fresh application supported by contemporaneous evidence that adequately addressed the statutory criteria.