Shewakramani and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) - [2022] AATA 1585

Shewakramani and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2022] AATA 1585 (10 June 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2021/4304
Re:Merzia Maskati Shewakramani
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S Evans, Member
Date:10 June 2022
Place:Sydney

The decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs dated 25 June 2021 is affirmed.
....................................[SGD]....................................
Mr S Evans, Member
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – Australian citizenship by conferral – general residence requirements – whether the discretion under subsection 22(9) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) can be enlivened – whether the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia – decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
CASES
Bulrice and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2019] AATA 1871
Chimnani and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2002] AATA 662
Lin v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 176 FCR 371
Lo and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2016] AATA 579
Neoh Weng Fei and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2016] AATA 624
Surjanto and Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [2013] AATA 689
Taher and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] AATA 917
Ul Haque and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 118
Vasiunina and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 943
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Citizenship Policy
CPI 11 – Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr S Evans, Member
10 June 2022

Merzia Maskati Shewakramani (the Applicant) is a citizen of India. Her husband, Gautam Shewakramani (Mr Shewakramani) is an Australian citizen.
On 7 April 2021 the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship. On 25 June 2021 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent) refused the application on the basis that the Applicant did not satisfy the residence requirement in the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).
The Applicant believes she is eligible to be granted an exemption from meeting the residency requirement on the basis of her relationship with her Australian citizen husband and seeks review of the Respondent’s decision.
BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE
The Applicant was born and currently resides in India. After graduating she worked in the USA. In 2006, whilst studying in the US, she met her husband, Mr Shewakramani. The couple began dating in 2009 and married in February 2012. After the wedding, they began living with Mr Shewakramani’s parents, who are also Australian citizens.
Early in their relationship Mr Shewakramani expressed a desire to return to live in Australia. In November 2013 the Applicant began assembling the documentation she required to apply for a provisional partner visa (subclass 309), which was granted in March 2015.
Aware that the process of applying for the visa would take up to two years to process, in March 2014 the Applicant and her husband moved out of Mr Shewakramani’s parent’s house and into their own accommodation to start a family. Their first daughter was born in February 2015.
Mr Shewakramani was born in India and first travelled to Australia in August 1995 age 12. He became an Australian citizen in May 2001. In August 2001 Mr Shewakramani relocated to the USA for study. After graduating in 2005 he began working in New York City (NYC). He made a short trip to Australia in late 2005 and continued living in NYC until 2007.
When he returned to India in 2009 he started a company which was wound down in 2016. He initially approached an Australian company to partner with him in the enterprise but this did not eventuate.
In mid-2017 Mr Shewakramani was offered a role in an IT start-up company as country manager for India. It was a ‘once in a lifetime’ opportunity. The role required Mr Shewakramani to remain in India with frequent travel to California. The Applicant encouraged her husband to take the role knowing it would mean they were required to stay in India for a few more years. In December 2019 the Applicant gave birth to the couple’s second daughter.
In 2019 Mr Shewakramani’s role at the IT start-up changed to one with a global remit. With an international focus, he would be able to locate outside of India. The couple began preparing to relocate to Australia, and in March 2020 Mr Shewakramani began interviewing for other roles and was in negotiations for employment with an Australian company when the COVID-19 pandemic began. He writes that the conversation with the Australian company came to a ‘standstill’ as a result.
When the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship on 7 April 2021, she was residing overseas. At the time of her application, she had travelled twice to Australia. She first arrived on 5 July 2015 and departed on 10 July 2015. On 13 March 2017 the Applicant again arrived in Australia, departing on 14 March 2017. She has not returned to Australia since.
LEGISLATION AND POLICY
The relevant legislation is contained in the Act.
Subsection 21(2) of the Act sets out the general eligibility criteria for the conferral of Australian citizenship. Paragraph 21(2)(c) provides that eligibility is contingent on the applicant satisfying the ‘general residence requirement’ set out in section 22, which relevantly provides:
(1) Subject to this section, for the purposes of section 21 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; and
(b)the person was not present in Australia as an unlawful non‑citizen at any time during that 4 year period; and
(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.
On 7 April 2021 the Applicant applied for citizenship. It is not in dispute that she did not meet the requirement at paragraphs 22(1)(a) or 22(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act as she was not in Australia for the period 4 years immediately before the day she made her application for citizenship (the relevant period), nor was she present in Australia as a permanent resident for 12 months immediately before the day she made her application.
Section 22 of the Act also allows for the following 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.
The Applicant does not meet the exception for overseas absences provided by subsections 22(1A) or 22(1B) as she has been overseas for more than 12 months and 90 days respectively.
However, the Act at subsection 22(9) provides the Minister discretion to treat a period of absence from Australia as a period in which the person was present for the purposes of satisfying the general residence requirement:
(9)       If the person is the spouse, de facto partner or surviving spouse or de facto 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.
The Applicant is the spouse of an Australian citizen and was so at the time she made her application for citizenship. She was not present in Australia but was a permanent resident. As such she meets the criteria in paragraphs 22(9)(a) – 22(9)(c).
The criteria set out in subsection 22(9) are conjunctive – meaning all must be met in order for the discretion to be enlivened.
Departmental policy relevant to this application is set out in the Citizenship Policy which includes the Revised Citizenship Procedural Instructions (CPIs or the Instructions). CPI 11 provides decision makers with guidance on assessing the likelihood that a person will reside or continue to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
The Applicant contends that the period in which she was absent from Australia should be treated as one in which she was present as a permanent resident as provided by subsection 22(9). She submits she intends to reside in Australia and has a close and continuing association with Australia on the basis of her relationship with her Australian citizen husband.
Paragraph 21(2)(g), which provides a person is eligible to become a citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person is likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved, is not in issue. The Tribunal must determine whether the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the four year period prior to making her application for citizenship such that she satisfies paragraph 22(9)(d).
As such, the issue to be determined is whether the Applicant had a close and continuing relationship with Australia during the relevant period of 7 April 2017 and 7 April 2021 such that the discretion in subsection 22(9) is enlivened.
EVIDENCE
What constitutes a close and continuing association with Australia is not defined in the Act. In Ul Haque and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[1] (Ul Haque) Senior Member Britton said (at [45]):
The words that make up the phrase “close and continuing association” are ordinary English words and should be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear. The Australian Oxford Dictionary defines “close” as “having a strong or immediate relation or connection”, “continuing” as meaning “to remain in existence or unchanged” and association as “the act or an instance of associating; fellowship or companionship”. The Macquarie Dictionary offers similar definitions, defining “close” as “near, or near together, in space, time, or relation”, “continuing” as “to last or endure” and “association” as “the act of associating … connection or combination”.
[1] [2013] AATA 118.
The requirement in paragraph 22(9)(d) of the Act requires the person had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
CPI 11 sets out the departmental policy and procedures that apply when assessing whether a person is likely to reside, or continue to reside, in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
CPI 11 provides examples of relevant indicators of whether a person will maintain a close and continuing association with that place including:
·Whether they have purchased a property in their country of residence and whether they reside in the property
·Whether they have any assets, commitments or ties to a country that may require or incline them to continue to reside in that country
·Frequency and purpose of visits to Australia and purpose of visits to Australia if the applicant resides overseas
·Frequency and reasons for absence from Australia
·Participation in the Australian community
In Mumbai the Applicant and her family live in a home owned by Mr Shewakramani’s family. Mr Shewakramani’s family company owned an apartment in Sydney which they sold in December 2019 with the intention of using the proceeds to purchase a family home. The Applicant submits that her husband’s former ownership of the property in Sydney and his role as the director of an Australian company supports her claims to having a close and continuing relationship with Australia.
The Applicant has not worked in Australia. In India she established and operates a business providing speech therapy. She contends that some of her clients are Australian families living in Mumbai. The Applicant registered online with Speech Pathology Australia and Asperger’s Victoria, but she has not applied for work in Australia nor undertaken any employment.
Regarding connections and participation in the Australian community, the Applicant has a school friend who now lives in Melbourne. She and her husband also have family friends who she met when they last visited Australia.
It is not in dispute that the Applicant has never resided in Australia and has spent a total of 8 days in the country. In her evidence the Applicant confirmed that the two occasions she has travelled to Australia were in order for her to satisfy the requirements of her provisional partner visa in 2015 and her permanent partner visa in 2017.
The Applicant submits that she has not been a regular visitor to Australia due to having a young family and the pandemic. She claims she has been trying to re-enter Australia since March 2020 but was unable to do so on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. Had it not been for the pandemic, the Applicant submits she and her family would have been settled in Australia and ‘by the time of the decision of the Tribunal have had something in the order of 600-700 days’ residence in Australia’.
The Applicant gave evidence that she planned to reside in Australia when their second daughter was older and the Applicant had completed a contract which was due to end in May 2020. In preparation for relocating to Australia the Applicant did not accept further contracts which would have required her to work from India. She arranged for her qualifications to be recognised in Australia in 2019 and has maintained her certification since. She also sought to obtain an Australian passport for her youngest daughter.
During the pandemic the Applicant and her husband registered with the Consulate General in Mumbai as ‘Australians wishing to return to Australia’, but were unable to get onto early flights because their daughter did not have a passport. She also gave evidence that flights to Australia were difficult to arrange at that time and notes that Australia had implemented a ‘punitive quarantine regime’ for Australians returning home.
In March 2020 Mr Shewakramani began interviewing for a Sydney based role, but the process stalled owing to the pandemic. He is currently working for an American company in a role focused on Asia-Pacific including India and Australia. It is a role he can perform from Australia and it is his intention to return to Australia with his family as soon as ‘it is reasonable’.
The Applicant currently plans to return to Australia and live in Sydney as soon practical, which she says is the end of the school year and following the relaxation of pandemic related travel restrictions. However, she conceded that that have not taken any measures to enrol their children in school or booked any flights despite the significant easing of pandemic related travel restrictions. As they do not currently own property in Australia they plan to live in a serviced apartment upon arrival in Sydney.
The Applicant currently resides near to both her and her husband’s families in India and sees them frequently. Mr Shewakramani’s brother, who is an Australian citizen, lives in London. His work also enables him to work remotely, and he and his wife plan to relocate to Melbourne.
CONSIDERATION
Previous decisions of the Tribunal have emphasised that whether an applicant for citizenship had a close and continuing association with Australia is ultimately a question of fact to be objectively assessed having regard to all the relevant factors, including but not limited to, the factors listed in the relevant policy. In Surjanto and Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship (Surjanto) Senior Member Britton stated that forming an opinion as to whether a person has demonstrated the requisite association is ‘not a simple mechanical exercise to be undertaken by merely tallying the relevant factors’, or simply ‘ticking’ them off as having been satisfied.[2]
[2] [2013] AATA 689 at [28].
The Applicant gave evidence relating to her future plans to reside in Australia. The plans are largely undetermined and unsupported by documentary evidence. However, this is largely immaterial as the Applicant’s future intentions are of little assistance in making an assessment of a ‘close and continuing association’ with Australia during the relevant period.
I find that the sum of the evidence outlined above relating to the Applicant’s residency in Australia, property ownership, living arrangements and employment supports a conclusion that the Applicant did not have a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
The Applicant contends that her ten-year spousal relationship with Mr Shewakramani should be considered a basis of her having a close and continuing association with Australia, along with the other indica detailed above.
In Ul Haque the Tribunal stated that ‘although there may be some overlap, having a close and continuing relationship with his family is not the same thing as having a close and continuing relationship with Australia’.[3] This sentiment is reflected in the Instructions, which provide that ‘[i]t is important to note that the requirement to maintain a close and continuing association refers to an association with Australia, not with Australians’.
[3] [2013] AATA 118 at [52].
It is submitted by the Applicant that a distinction ought not be drawn between a close and continuing association with Australian citizens and a close and continuing association with Australia. In support of this contention the Applicant draws on CPI 11 which at 3.3 provides:
oA person’s absences from Australia would not ordinarily be of concern if they were of a temporary nature, such as when the person was:
§ undertaking temporary work overseas for an Australian based company or organisation, or an aid agency;
§ accompanying a spouse or de facto partner who was employed by the Commonwealth at an Australian Embassy, High Commission or Consulate;
§ participating in Australian cultural activities;
§ promoting Australia overseas; or
§ enrolled at an overseas university where equivalent studies are not available in Australia;
The Applicant submits she was temporarily absent from Australia as Mr Shewakramani was required to work overseas – in India – and she was accompanying him whilst he did so. It is submitted on her behalf that there ‘would be no material difference here if the applicant had been accompanying a spouse employed by the Commonwealth at an Embassy or Consulate in India’, whereby an applicant’s absence from Australia ‘would not ordinarily be of concern’.

Noting that the Instructions are policy which express a view about the interpretation of the Act, I do not accept the Applicant’s proposition that her absences would not normally be of concern for the following reasons.
Whilst subsection 22(9) refers to a person being either present or not-present in Australia, the Instructions refer to a person’s absence. The meaning of phrase ‘absent from Australia’ as it appears in paragraph 22(1A)(a) of the Act was considered by Senior Member Walsh in Lo and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) who determined it should be interpreted meaning ‘absent after having been present in Australia’.[4]
[4] [2016] AATA 579 at [25].
The distinction between presence and absence was also explored by Member Webb in Neoh Weng Fei and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)[5] who at [51] observed:
The words ‘absent’ and ‘absence’ are not given any special meaning in the Citizenship Act. They should be construed according to their meaning in ordinary usage, as provided in dictionary definitions. The Macquarie Dictionary (2015 edition) defines ‘absent’ to mean “1. Not in a certain place at a given time; away (opposed to present) ...”. The Oxford English Dictionary (2016 online edition) defines ‘absent’ to mean “1.a. Not present in a place or at an occasion; away ...” and ‘absence’ to mean “1.b. The state of being absent or away from a place. 1.c. An occasion on which a person is absent; a period of absence. ...”. It is quite clear that ‘absence’ from a place has a temporal or periodic character in reference to prior presence in the particular place. Thus, properly understood, ‘absent from Australia’ means more than simply not present in Australia.
[5] [2016] AATA 624.
I agree with Member Webb that absent means more than not present. Specifically, presence is a requisite for absence. The Applicant in this matter was not present in Australia during the relevant period, but she was not absent or temporarily absent as she was at no stage present. Consequently, I am of the view that the concession afforded by the Instructions does not apply.
Putting aside the Applicant’s contentions relating to the Instructions, it is proposed on behalf of the Applicant that it is possible to have a close and continuing association with Australia such that a person satisfies paragraph 22(9)(d) of the Act ‘without the applicant ever having entered Australia’ by way of her ‘long-standing spousal relationship with an Australian citizen’, Mr Shewakramani.
In support of this proposition the Applicant cites Lin v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[6] where Foster J of the Federal Court of Australia observed in relation to paragraph 21(2)(g) at [108]:
In my judgment, the submissions made on behalf of the applicant in relation to the third and fourth questions of law are correct. It is true, as Mr Potts submitted on behalf of the Minister, that the Tribunal did recite correctly the substance of the criteria laid down in s 21(2)(g) of the new Act (see [38] of the Tribunal's reasons). But, in my view, the Tribunal did not go on to address the question of whether or not the applicant was likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if his application for citizenship were to be approved. If, as Mr Potts submitted, the Tribunal confined itself to considering the question of residence as the only matter that could conceivably go to its assessment of the association limb contained in s 21(2)(g), then it failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely, that two of the applicant's children are citizens of Australia and are normally resident in Australia.
[6] (2009) 176 FCR 371.
Whilst 21(2)(g) is not in issue in this application, I accept the Court’s finding that having Australian citizen family members is a relevant consideration as to whether the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia for the purpose of paragraph 22(9)(d). In my view this is not inconsistent with the with the finding in Ul Haque where Senior Member Britton found at [52]:
Mr Ul Haque has a close and continuing relationship with his wife and daughter, both of whom, as Australian citizens, have a close and continuing relationship with Australia. But, although there may be some overlap, having a close and continuing relationship with his family is not the same thing as having a close and continuing relationship with Australia. He spends little time here and does little work or business here. He makes very little contribution to Australian society. Apart from his family, he has very few personal connections with Australia. Weighing these considerations discussed above I am not satisfied that Mr Ul Haque’s association with Australia could be described as close and continuing.
Submissions made on behalf of the Applicant rely heavily on the findings of this Tribunal in the matter of Vasiunina and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)[7] (Vasiunina) in which Senior Member Puplick considered an application for Australian citizenship by a Russian national who was married to an Australian citizen. In Vasiunina the applicant had only spent 15 days in Australia in the four year period prior to her application. In Vasiunina the Tribunal found that on balance the applicant satisfied the test of having had a ‘close and continuing association with Australia’.
[7] [2018] AATA 943.
In Vasiunina Senior Member Puplick did not take up the policy suggestion that more weight should be given where the person has been physically present in Australia for at least 365 days in the four years immediately before the application for citizenship. In doing so he observed that the authority regarding whether an applicant needed to be physically present in Australia for the time required was ‘far from unambiguous’, and referred to the observation in Taher and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[8] at [47]:
… On their own, factors such as having Australian citizen children and long-term relationships with an Australian citizen spouse or extended family in Australia may simply indicate a close and continuing association with family. That should not, in every case, be equated with a close and continuing association with Australia. As I have already indicated above, and as is stated in the preamble to the Citizenship Act, citizenship is about the membership of a community with common interests and involving reciprocal rights and obligations. Involvement with the Australian community may be demonstrated by many factors, some of which are listed above. It is plainly difficult to be involved with the Australian community if the person claiming so has not been physically present in Australia for significant periods of time. Hence, the paramount importance given to meeting the general residence requirements before a person becomes eligible for citizenship.
[8] [2013] AATA 917.
The Applicant also notes that when she was granted a permanent subclass 100 partner visa in September 2016 she was required to have satisfied criteria including that she ‘intends to live permanent in Australia’. On 26 June 2021 when the Applicant was granted a subclass 155 Resident Return visa she was required to satisfy the Minister she had ‘substantial business, cultural, employment or personal ties with Australia which are of benefit to Australia’. The Applicant refers me to the decision in Bulrice and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)[9] (Bulrice) where Senior Member Puplick concludes at [61]:
The Tribunal acknowledges that differing policy considerations and departmental instructions apply when decision-makers are determining Subclass 155 visa applications and that “substantial ties” and a “close and continuing association” are not identical concepts, nevertheless it seems to the Tribunal that they are both attempting to define what is essentially the same concept. The Tribunal does not accept that the Applicant can be found to have had “substantial ties” to Australia but be found not to have had a “close and continuing association” with Australia.
[9] [2019] AATA 1871.
Whilst some factual and circumstantial similarities exist between the current application and those considered in Vasiunina and Bulrice, I must determine the correct or preferable decision based on the unique facts of each application.
In Vasiunina, the Tribunal considered that a person’s close and continuing association with Australian family is but one factor to be taken into account in determining whether a person had a ‘close and continuing association with Australia’. Senior Member Puplick observed:
I take this to be prima facie a statement that having a close personal association with an Australian citizen or Australian family is not – in and of itself – sufficient to attract the “close and continuing association” requirement. Nevertheless, that association can be a material fact in making such an assessment.[10]
[10] [2018] AATA 943 at [46].
I respectfully agree with the Senior Member. It is not in question that the Applicant has a strong relationship with her Australian citizen family, most notably her husband. However, unlike in Vasiunina, she had not resided in Australia at any time during the relevant period. Other relevant factual differences also existed, including relating to property ownership, employment and personal circumstances.
In any case, the Applicant relies almost entirely on the relationship with her Australian citizen husband. The Minster directs me to the decision of this Tribunal in Chimnani and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)[11] where Senior Member Kirk observed at [89]:
The Applicant’s de-facto partner is an Australian citizen, and although she currently resides with him in Dubai, she intends to return to Australia to reside here long term. The Applicant’s children are Australian permanent residents, however none of them currently reside in Australia. The Applicant’s evidence is that they intend to reside in Australia as a family following his return from Dubai in 2023. The Tribunal is not satisfied that during the relevant period the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia by virtue of his familial relationships with Australian citizens and permanent residents, none of whom currently reside in Australia.
[Emphasis added]
[11] [2022] AATA 662.
I am not satisfied the evidence supports the Applicant having a close and continuing relationship with Australia during the relevant period. As observed in Surjanto, making such a finding is not simply a matter of ‘ticking off’ relevant considerations but a question of fact to be objectively assessed having regard to all relevant factors including those listed in the Instructions. The discretion to permit a person who does not meet the general residence requirement set out in subsection 22(1) is not a dispensation from meeting the general residence requirement. It simply permits that requirement to be met by alternative means.[12]
[12] [2013] AATA 917 at [19].
In Ul Haque the Tribunal observed that ‘[w]hile physical presence is not determinative, it is nonetheless highly relevant to the nature of a person’s association with Australia’.[13] The Tribunal went on to observe that the applicant’s little time in Australia was reflected in the lack of any significant social or community ties in Australia by the applicant who makes ‘very little contribution to Australian society’.
[13] [2013] AATA 118 at [50].
The observation in Ul Haque cited above is instructive in so much as it speaks to a rationale for the general residence requirement being a mechanism by which to determine whether an individual has ties to Australia, has participated in the community and has made to a contribution to Australian society. An applicant is able to satisfy this requirement by meeting the general residence requirement or an alternative means in subsection 22(9).
As a question of fact, the Applicant had the barest of claims to having an association with Australia during the relevant period on the basis of her residency. The Applicant’s close personal association with Australian citizens is just one factor to be considered. Broadly speaking, the others are set out by way of example in the Instructions. Having considered the entirety of the relevant factors, I am not satisfied that the Applicant had a close and continuing association with Australia during the relevant period.
CONCLUSION
Having found that the Applicant did not have a close and continuing association with Australia, the discretion provided in subsection 22(9) is not enlivened and cannot be exercised in her favour. Consequently, the reviewable decision will be affirmed.
DECISION
The decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs dated 25 June 2021 is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 64 (sixty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S Evans, Member

.................................[SGD].......................................
Associate
Dated: 10 June 2022

Date(s) of hearing: 12 April 2022

Date final submissions received: 11 May 2022

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr N Poynder

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms K Gawidziel, AGS

Date(s) of hearing:	12 April 2022
Date final submissions received:	11 May 2022
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr N Poynder
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms K Gawidziel, AGS