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

This matter concerned an application for citizenship by conferral by Mr Sandhu, who sought to challenge a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The dispute centred on whether Mr Sandhu satisfied the residence requirements for citizenship under the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The case was heard by Mr S Evans, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Sandhu satisfied the general residence requirement under section 22 of the Act, and if not, whether the discretion afforded by subsection 22(6) of the Act should be exercised in his favour. This discretion allows for the consideration of whether an applicant would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if a period of temporary residence was not treated as a period of permanent residency for the purposes of meeting the general residence requirement.

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding Mr Sandhu's family's reduced income due to the COVID-19 pandemic and his father's reduced working hours. It also examined Mr Sandhu's aspirations for future employment and his inability to access HECS-HELP for tertiary education. The Tribunal noted that while departmental policy previously distinguished between "needs" and "wants" (classifying HECS-HELP eligibility as a "want"), current policy does not make this distinction and requires decision-makers to consider whether significant hardship or disadvantage would arise. The Tribunal found no evidence of Mr Sandhu having a conditional employment offer contingent on citizenship, and his employment aspirations were sufficiently distant to allow for a new application. However, the Tribunal concluded that the inability to access HECS-HELP, in conjunction with the family's financial circumstances, could constitute significant hardship or disadvantage.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration. The reconsideration was to include the exercise of the discretion afforded by subsection 22(6) of the Act, with a direction that Mr Sandhu be deemed to meet the general residence requirement.