Sidhu by his litigation representative Kaur v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

The case of Sidhu by his litigation representative Kaur v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs involved a challenge to the Minister's decision to cancel a certificate of evidence of Australian citizenship issued to a child born in Australia to non-citizen parents. The child, Gurnoor, was taken to India by his parents at the age of four months to be cared for by his grandparents while his mother studied in Australia. The parents subsequently lived and worked in Australia, and Gurnoor remained in India for five years and 10 months. The central issue before the court was whether Gurnoor was an Australian citizen by virtue of s 12(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) and whether he was "ordinarily resident" in Australia throughout the first 10 years of his life.

The court considered the statutory definitions and the relevant circumstances, focusing on the parents' intentions given that Gurnoor was a minor. The court determined that the statutory requirement of ordinary residence "throughout" the relevant period necessitates a strong element of continuity, meaning that Australia must have been Gurnoor's "permanent abode" at all times, including during any periods of temporary absence. The court found that while Gurnoor's parents intended for him to return to Australia, the extended absence in India, coupled with the parents' temporary status in Australia, did not establish a permanent abode in Australia for Gurnoor.

The court's reasoning hinged on the statutory definitions and the interpretation of "permanent abode" and "home". The court concluded that Gurnoor had not satisfied the requirement of being ordinarily resident in Australia throughout the relevant period, leading to the Minister's decision to cancel the certificate of evidence of Australian citizenship being affirmed. The court's decision underscored the importance of continuity in establishing ordinary residence and the impact of temporary absences on the determination of citizenship status. The final orders included a declaration that the Minister's decision to affirm the cancellation of the certificate of evidence of Australian citizenship was unlawful, and the respondent was required to pay the applicant's costs.