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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral, brought by Ms. Shewakramani against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The applicant sought review of the Minister's decision to refuse her application, specifically challenging the assessment that she did not meet the general residence requirements for citizenship. The applicant contended that she was eligible for an exemption from these requirements under subsection 22(9) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth) due to her relationship with her Australian citizen husband and a claimed close and continuing association with Australia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was tasked with determining whether this discretion could be enlivened.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had demonstrated a "close and continuing association with Australia" during the relevant period from 7 April 2017 to 7 April 2021, as required by paragraph 22(9)(d) of the Act. This involved interpreting the ordinary meaning of these terms, considering departmental policy and relevant case law, and objectively assessing the evidence presented by the applicant. The Tribunal also had to consider whether a close association with Australian citizens equated to a close association with Australia itself, as argued by the applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that the assessment of a "close and continuing association" is a factual question requiring an objective evaluation of all relevant factors, not a mechanical tally. It noted that while the applicant had a ten-year spousal relationship with her Australian citizen husband and resided near both their families in India, this did not automatically translate to an association with Australia. The Tribunal found that the applicant's residency in India, her living arrangements, and her employment, which included providing speech therapy to Australian families in Mumbai, did not establish the requisite close and continuing association with Australia during the specified period. The applicant's future intentions to reside in Australia were considered immaterial to this assessment.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a close and continuing association with Australia. As a result, the discretion provided under subsection 22(9) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* was not enlivened and could not be exercised in her favour. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision of 25 June 2021.