Sungjohn Hong v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2011] AATA 243
•12 April 2011
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 243
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No: 2010/2154
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) No: 2010/2155
ReSungjohn HONG
Applicant
AndHyerhim HONG
Applicant
AndMinister for Immigration and Citizenship
Respondent
DECISION
TribunalMr RP Handley, Deputy President
Date12 April 2011
PlaceSydney
DecisionThe decisions under review are affirmed.
.....................[sgd].....................
Mr RP Handley
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP – refusal to grant citizenship – applicants under the age of 16 – applicants do not meet legislative requirements – Australian Citizenship Instructions – applicants do not meet policy requirements - circumstances not unusual - decisions under review affirmed
RELEVANT ACTS
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth): ss 21, 24
CITATIONS
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; (1986) 10 ALN N109; (1986) 66 ALR 299; (1986) 60 ALJR 560; [1986] HCA 40
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Re Hong and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 242
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Australian Citizenship Instructions (in effect 21 September 2009 to 8 November 2009)
REASONS FOR DECISION
| 12 April 2011 | Mr RP Handley, Deputy President |
Sungjohn HONG (Sungjohn) and Hyerhim HONG (Hyerhim) have applied to the Tribunal for a review of decisions of a delegate of the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship to refuse their applications for Australian citizenship by conferral. The issue for the Tribunal is whether, in each case, this is the correct or preferable decision.
Background
Sungjohn and Hyerhim were born in South Korea in March 2001 and April 1996 and are aged 10 and nearly 15 respectively. They arrived in Australia with their parents in July 2005 on subclass 976 Electronic Travel Authority (temporary) visas – tourist visas - valid for three months. Three months later, they applied for subclass 457 Business (long stay – temporary) visas as dependants of their father and were granted bridging visas in association with his application. Their father’s application was refused and their father applied for a review by the Migration Review Tribunal which affirmed the decision. Sungjohn and Hyerhim then applied for Protection Class XA visas as dependants of their mother and were granting bridging visas in association with this application. There followed a series of other applications by their parents and dependent applications by Sungjohn and Hyerhim and associated bridging visas. None of their parents’ applications have been successful.
On 2 October 2009, Sungjohn and Hyerhim lodged applications for citizenship by conferral pursuant to s 21(5) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act). The applications were refused by a delegate of the Minister on 11 May 2010 on the ground that their circumstances did not meet the relevant policy requirements outlined in the Australian Citizenship Instructions (the Instructions). On 31 May 2010, Sungjohn and Hyerhim applied to the Tribunal for a review of these decisions.
The Legislative Framework and Policy
Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. At the time Sungjohn and Hyerhim applied for citizenship, s 21(5) provided:
(i) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person is aged under 18 at the time the person made the application.
The power to approve, or to refuse to approve, a person becoming an Australian citizen is set out in s 24 of the Act, which states:
Minister's decision
(1)If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
(1A)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
(2)The Minister may refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen despite the person being eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (7).
Section 24(2) does not state the factors that may be taken into account when refusing to grant citizenship, and the discretion of the decision-maker is therefore similarly unconfined (see Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24 per Mason J at 40).
The Government has, however, developed policy in the form of the Instructions to provide guidance to decision-makers. The relevant version of the Instructions is that in effect immediately before 9 November 2009 when s 21(5) of the Act was amended. The introduction to the Instructions states that their role is:
... to support the Australian Citizenship Act 2007. The instructions provide guidance on policy in relation to the interpretation of, and the exercise of powers under, the Act and the Regulations. Decision makers should be mindful that policy must not be applied inflexibly. Policy cannot constrain the exercise of delegated powers under the Act.
Decision-makers should generally apply policy such as the Instructions unless the policy is unlawful or its application produces an unjust result in the circumstances of a particular case: Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634. I am not satisfied that there is any good reason why the Instructions should not be followed in the present case.
The Instructions specify criteria for determining citizenship applications. The Instructions in effect immediately prior to 9 November 2009 stated relevantly:
Person aged under 18 years (s 21(5))
… The discretion in section 24(2) to refuse to approve an applicant becoming an Australian citizen despite being eligible under section 21(5) would usually be exercised where the applicant does not meet the policy guidelines. In making a decision whether to refuse or approve an application, the primary considerations that need to be taken into account are the legislative requirements, the best interests of the child and the policy guidelines set out below.
Best interests of the child
The best interests of the child are to be considered as one of the primary considerations when assessing the application. This consideration only applies if the child is or would be less than 18 years of age at the time of decision on the application and the child is living in Australia.
POLICY GUIDELINES
Applicants under the age of 16
A child aged less than 16 years can make an individual application in their own right (by applying on a form that contains no other application) or on the same form and at the same time as a responsible parent. This is set out in s46(2A).
If an applicant is under 16 years of age a responsible parent must sign the application form.
Children under the age of 16 applying individually in their own right would usually be approved under section 24 if they meet the following policy guidelines:
·hold a permanent visa, including an adoption visa and
·are under 16 years of age when applying, are living with a responsible parent, who is an Australian citizen and consents to the application or
·are under 16 years of age when applying, and living with a responsible parent, who is not an Australian citizen and consents to the application, and the child would otherwise suffer significant hardship or disadvantage (see Attachment B - Significant hardship and disadvantage for definition) or
·are an unaccompanied humanitarian minor who is a ward of the Minister and the Minister’s delegate has consented to the application, see Wards of the Minister.
Other requirements which must be satisfied relating to identity, national security, offences and former citizens are set out in Minister’s decision (s24).
In the case of an applicant who does not meet the policy guidelines above, decision makers must consider the full circumstances of the case, including the best interests of the child, to determine whether the application nevertheless warrants approval because of the unusual nature of those circumstances.
…
Attachment B to the Instructions provides guidance on what constitutes significant hardship and disadvantage. Attachment B states that the onus is on the applicant to provide evidence to support the application and that the applicant would normally be required to demonstrate some or all of (1) an inability to gain employment because employment is restricted to Australian citizens, (2) difficulty of international travel because a person is unable to obtain or use a passport from their country of nationality/citizenship, and (3) academic or other potential is limited or restricted because of a lack of Australian citizenship. Each application must be assessed on its merits but while “policy is not to be applied inflexibly, it must be applied, unless there are special circumstances that would warrant consideration outside that policy”.
Thus the Instructions relevantly identify three primary considerations to be taken into account by the decision-maker: the best interests of the child, the legislative requirements and the policy guidelines. Sungjohn and Hyerhim were aged under 16 at the time they made an application and therefore meet the legislative requirements in s 21. Sungjohn and Hyerhim do not satisfy the policy guideline requiring that they hold a permanent visa. However, consideration must also be given to whether they would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if their applications for citizenship are not approved. Where the policy guidelines are not met, the decision-maker must consider the full circumstances of the case, including the best interests of the child, to determine whether the application should, nevertheless, be approved because of the unusual nature of the circumstances.
The issues before the Tribunal are, therefore, the best interests of the child, whether Sungjohn and Hyerhim would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if their application for citizenship is not approved, and whether there are unusual circumstances in their cases warranting consideration of their applications outside the stated policy requirements.
The Applicants’ Evidence
Dr Kim
A psychologist, Dr Jung Sook Kim, provided reports dated 3 September 2010 for each of the Hong children and gave evidence at the hearing. Dr Kim said she first met the Hong children when their father brought them to her for assessment on 6 July 2010. Her report for the oldest child, Nhayoung Hong, is referred to in the separate statement of reasons in respect of Ms Hong’s application for citizenship.
In oral evidence, Dr Kim said she left Korea 14 years ago, having completed a Masters degree in educational psychology and having worked with children who have learning difficulties at school. She subsequently completed a doctorate and, for the past seven years, has practised as a psychologist in Strathfield, mainly with Korean speaking people. Dr Kim said she visits Korea every two or three years for work purposes including giving lectures and advising on Korean students studying in Australia. She last visited Korea two years ago when she was part of an advisory group on relations between North and South Korea. During that visit she also had discussions with colleagues there over the treatment of children in the Korean education system. Dr Kim said she likes to keep in touch with Korean issues, in part because she writes a column in Korean dealing with mental health issues for a weekly newspaper and because she sometimes advises parents that they should take their children back to Korea for their education if they are encountering problems in Australia.
In her report for Hyerhim, Dr Kim noted that Hyerhim left Korea at the age of nine having completed Year 2 in Korea and, on arrival in Australia, started in Year 3. At the time of Dr Kim’s report, Hyerhim was in Year 9 at high school. Hyerhim told Dr Kim that she felt at home in Australia, she likes the Australian culture and school environment and is very happy here. She said she has lots of friends and enjoys attending school so that she can see them every day. She does not remember or stay in contact with anyone with whom she was at school in Korea, has no friends there and “is afraid to return”.
Hyerhim told Dr Kim that she is worried about her family’s future and the possibility of returning to Korea having heard her parents talking about their visa problems. She said she is “nervous and anxious” about what the future holds and what life would be like if she has to return to Korea.
Dr Kim said Hyerhim “seemed to be a shy girl with an introverted personality. … She was anxious and agitated throughout the interview and did not smile. … Her English was fluent and her Korean was rather limited.” Dr Kim said she appeared to be of average intelligence. Dr Kim said:
In my opinion, Hyerhim is a relatively young child in terms of emotional development who has little knowledge of life outside Australia. Whilst she does not show any major psychological problems currently, she is very vulnerable and is not psychologically equipped to deal with the transplantation, against her will, into a foreign country with no prospects of returning to Australia.
Dr Kim said Hyerhim’s interest in non-academic courses (she expressed an interest in art and fashion design) might adversely affect her education in Korea where such pursuits are not encouraged and this could affect her future prospects as an adult.
In oral evidence, Dr Kim said Hyerhim told her that her parents worry about their visas all the time and had asked her to study hard to prove her ability to live in Australia. Hyerhim is largely unaware of what is going on with her family. She considers herself to be Australian, she has few memories of Korea and all her friends are here. Dr Kim said that in her assessment of the children on 1 March 2011, Hyerhim appeared to be strongly affected by her parents’ depression over their visa problems and was worried about what would happen if they have to return to Korea. Dr Kim said Hyerhim shows emotional distress but she has no major psychological problems.
In her report for Sungjohn, Dr Kim noted that he began his formal education in Australia and was, at the time of her assessment, in Year 4 at school. He told Dr Kim that he had four or five close friends at school and a number of other friends in his wider circle. He said that while he would like to visit Korea, “he wants to live in Australia forever because all his friends are here and he feels Australia is his home”. Sungjohn acknowledged that he is Korean but said he is also Australian. He does not remember anyone from Korea which he left at the age of four, and has no friends there.
Dr Kim said Sungjohn “was very happy and bubbly and did not have any ideas about his family’s visa issues … His English was fluent but he only spoke limited Korean and cannot read or write Korean.” She said his language skills are not to the standard of local Korean students and are likely to hold him back in school if he has to return to Korea. Dr Kim said this may single him out and place him at the risk of being bullied or ostracised by his peers.
Dr Kim said in her opinion, while Sungjohn does not show any major psychological problems or developmental issues - his behaviour is like any other child of his age - if he is forced to return to the Korean educational system “he will suffer severe emotional trauma due to the considerable difference in learning pace, and the far higher levels of study required to maintain the required pace.”
Hyerhim Hong
Hyerhim, who is now nearly 15, provided an undated statement in September 2010. She said she did not remember much about Korea because she left in 2005 when she was only nine years old. She does not have many friends who are of Korean background “so I don’t have any idea of what Korea is like”. She said no‑one told her about their visa problems. She likes Australia “because people are friendly and its rich multiculturalism”. She would like to become a fashion designer. Hyerhim said she is a shy person and it takes her a long time to get to know people and become close friends. When she first arrived in Australia, it was hard and took longer than for her sister to adjust. However, now she has lots of Australian friends from many different backgrounds, she wants to stay here and never have to go back to Korea.
Hyerhim’s school reports indicate that she performs well or competently at school and, in particular, I note that in Year 8 (2009), she achieved high to outstanding results in Japanese.
Sungjohn Hong
Sungjohn was aged four when he came to Australia in July 2005. His mother, Ms Kim, said his Korean language skills are not good and his sisters sometimes have to interpret for him at home. Dr Kim speculated that he might be subject to bullying if he returns to Korea because he has been largely educated in English. Mr Hong gave evidence that the night before the hearing, Sungjohn was crying in his room alone with the light off and said he thought his son senses the anxiety and instability associated with their current situation even though he is young.
Mr Hong
Mr Hong said that before he came to Australia in 2005, he worked as a navigator in the maritime industry. After leaving school, he studied at the maritime university and then spent six years in the Navy before moving to work in commercial shipping. Altogether, he has about 20 years maritime experience. To work as a navigator, he needed various International Maritime Organisation certificates, including as a deck operator and radio operator. He last renewed his certificates (which appear to be of five years duration) shortly before he left for Australia and they have now expired. To revalidate these certificates, he would have to sit a test in six subjects. This requires studying for six months for each subject and then only 50% of candidates pass. Mr Hong, who is now aged 50, said that if he has to return to Korea, it would take several years to sit for all the required certificates and, if he passed, most companies are employing younger people. While if he had stayed in his occupation, he would probably be the captain of a smaller vessel, such jobs will now have been filled by his junior colleagues and he lacks confidence and feels it would be almost impossible to resume his occupation. If he has to return to Korea it will be very difficult to achieve a minimum standard of living for his children.
Mr Hong said his wife came to Australia first in 2003 to escape her religious problems. He continued working and their three children were cared for by his brother’s family for about two years while he was away. He decided to bring the children to Australia to join his wife because they were so sad at being separated from their parents.
Mr Hong said he and the children entered Australia on three‑month visitor visas in July 2005 and before the three months had expired he had been investigating how he might be able to obtain sponsorship for a class 457 visa. He was aware that his wife’s visa had already expired. Mr Hong described how he had sought help from a migration agent who, he suggested, was responsible for his wasting between $50,000 and $60,000 of the $100,000 he had in the bank on arrival. The rest of his money was spent on living expenses.
Mr Hong started working as a cleaner for Mrs Lee who also employed his wife. He and his wife have now established their own cleaning business and clean 30 to 40 homes. He earns $1,000 to $1,500 per week. He and his wife have been able to support their children, send them to school, keep them happy, and at the same time pay their taxes and abide by Australian law.
Mr Hong said he has a sister in Korea and three brothers. It was his older brother who looked after his three children for two years. Mr Hong obviously felt guilty about leaving his children to be looked after by his brother for such a period and indicated that he would not seek help from any of his siblings if he has to return to Korea (in order not to impose a burden on them for what appear to be cultural reasons). Mr Hong said he only has limited ongoing contact with his siblings but said that if he was in Korea it is likely they would all get together on special occasions at least twice a year. Mr Hong said neither he nor his wife have any family in Australia.
Mr Hong said his whole family are under severe stress over their visa situation and no longer laugh. Mrs Lee, his wife’s friend, has promised to support the three children and provide them with accommodation if Mr Hong and his wife have to return to Korea and the children are allowed to stay. Mr Hong said he has spoken with Mrs Lee about this. He has known her for about five years and his wife has known her for about eight years. They get on together socially and Mrs Lee has babysat their children. She has two children but only her younger child, her daughter, who is at university, is living at home with her. She has a two‑storey house with a number of spare bedrooms and is a lot better off than Mr Hong and his wife. Mr Hong said he and his wife would work hard in Korea to try and support their children in Australia. If he has to return to Korea and is permitted to visit his children in Australia in the future, he will do so.
Ms Kim
Ms Kim said she came to Australia in 2003 to escape members of her church who were putting pressure on her in Korea. She felt trapped and, for example, even missing attending church once a week would result in them coming to her house and pressuring her. After Ms Kim left Korea, church members continued to attend her house and abused her children. Ms Kim said she overstayed her visitor visa because she did not want to return to Korea. Initially, on arrival, Ms Kim had $10,000 with her and her husband sent her money every month. After about two years, Ms Kim started working as a cleaner. She said the Korean church people have not contacted her in Australia – they do not know where she is. If she has to return to Korea, she will not live in the same area as previously in order to avoid them.
Ms Kim said it was extremely difficult being in Australia and thinking of her children being back in Korea. She discussed with her husband bringing the children to Australia and, in December 2004, they decided to do so. They did not foresee the problems they have encountered. Ms Kim said she had learned that they could apply for a class 457 visa and, when he arrived, her husband searched the internet for opportunities. This was how he learned of the migration agent who was responsible for the loss of so much of their money.
Ms Kim said they did not explain their visa status to their children. It was only around September 2010 that their oldest daughter became aware of her visa status. It was at about that time that Ms Kim accompanied the children to see the psychologist, Dr Kim.
Ms Kim said if she and her husband have to return to Korea they will face financial difficulties. She has no special skills or experience and would only be able to undertake unskilled work. Before she met her husband, she was employed by a company doing office work. Then, at the time she had children, she stayed at home and looked after the children and the household, supported by her husband. Ms Kim said there was no possibility of her husband earning as much as he did previously and their joint earnings are unlikely to be sufficient to support the need for them to pay for housing, school fees and other expenses. Ms Kim said she has maintained contact with a friend in Korea who has answered her questions about the cost of living and possible earnings.
Ms Kim said she has one older brother in Korea who lives in a suburb of Seoul where living costs are high and which her family would be unable to afford. Her brother has children aged 12 and 14. Her children stayed with him and his family once for a week in the school holidays before they came to Australia. Ms Kim would not look to her brother for support if she and her husband have to return to Korea for fear of being a burden on his family.
Mrs Lee
Mrs Lee provided a letter dated 13 September 2010 and gave oral evidence at the hearing by conference telephone. She has lived in Australia for about 23 years and currently lives with her daughter, who is at Sydney University, in a six‑bedroom house. Her son has left home. Mrs Lee said she has known Ms Kim for more than seven years and their families are very close friends. Mrs Lee has run a domestic and office cleaning business for the past 12 years and employs three people. She works five‑and‑a‑half days per week. Ms Kim has worked for her on and off over the past five years. Ms Kim is a very honest and reliable worker and generally works a 40‑hour week. Mr Hong works part-time for her and is also working as a painter part-time.
Mrs Lee said she is willing to accommodate and support the three Hong children if their parents have to return to Korea. She can afford this and her house is near the children’s schools. She said the children would be easy to look after because most of the time they look after themselves. Mrs Lee said she has returned to Korea many times since migrating to Australia, largely because her former husband was a Qantas pilot and so had access to travel concessions. She doubted Ms Kim and Mr Hong could afford to provide for the financial needs of their children in Korea as they would in Australia, there being no welfare or student assistance system in Korea.
Ms An
Ms An was invited to give evidence by Mr Seo on the basis of her experience in obtaining Australian citizenship. She does not know the Hong family. Ms An said she arrived in Australia with her family in 2005 and applied for Australian citizenship in 2009 which was granted in 2010. After their arrival in Australia, her family also lost all the money they had brought with them and if she had had to return to Korea she would have been unable to study there as a result. Ms An said that in Korea, students have to work much harder at school.
Discussion
There is no dispute that Sungjohn and Hyerhim are eligible for conferral of citizenship pursuant to the wording of s 21(5) in effect at the time of their applications. Equally, it is clear the Minister has a discretion to refuse a grant of citizenship pursuant to s 24(2). The guidance for decision-makers provided by the Instructions indicates that applications by children under the age of 16 (at the time of application) should not usually be approved if the applicant does not hold a permanent visa unless the child would otherwise suffer significant hardship or disadvantage. However, where an applicant does not meet the policy requirements, the full circumstances of the case must be considered, including the best interests of the child, to determine whether the application nevertheless warrants approval because of the unusual nature of those circumstances.
Sungjohn and Hyerhim are not permanent residents. The issues for the Tribunal in their cases, therefore, are whether, having considered the full circumstances of the applicants’ cases and their best interests (as a child), the policy requirement for permanent residency should be waived because the applicants would otherwise suffer significant hardship or disadvantage and the applications warrant approval because of the unusual nature of those circumstances.
Sungjohn and Hyerhim are aged 10 and nearly 15 respectively, Sungjohn is in Year 5 at a public school and Hyerhim is in Year 10 at high school. The evidence indicates that Hyerhim is a competent student. There is no specific evidence as to Sungjohn’s school performance but, according to Dr Kim, his behaviour is typical for a boy of his age. According to Dr Kim, neither child is suffering from major psychological problems although Hyerhim, in particular, is showing emotional distress and anxiety about the family’s visa problems.
Dr Kim states that Sungjohn’s Korean language skills are poor and I note his mother’s evidence that his sisters sometimes have to interpret for him when they are speaking at home. Dr Kim described Hyerhim’s Korean language skills as limited although I note her school report for Japanese in Year 8 indicates that she has a facility for languages. In my view, both children are young enough to adapt to a Korean language‑based education albeit that they will undoubtedly experience some difficulties initially. Because of their facility in English, it is also possible that this will initially mark them out as different to other students but one would hope that any initial difference will be resolved over time as they settle into a new environment.
The evidence provided to the Tribunal (by Dr Kim, Ms Hong and Ms An) indicates that education in Korea is very competitive and that higher education is fee paying. It seems likely that Mr Hong’s ability to earn will be significantly less than was the situation when he worked as an officer in the maritime industry prior to leaving Korea in 2005. However, I have no evidence as to the current state of the employment market in Korea or of the prospects of Mr Hong obtaining employment. I accept that Mr Hong may not be able to resume a career in the maritime industry without significant further study and passing the necessary tests to obtain the required certification. Ms Kim says she has no special skills and experience which would enable her to obtain other than unskilled employment. There is no reliable evidence available that would enable me to assess the level of income required to maintain a reasonable standard of living in Korea. I accept that the family may find re-establishing themselves challenging but I have no reason not to believe that, given time, they will manage this.
More generally, I accept that through living in Australia for over five of their formative years, Hyerhim and Sungjohn have become acculturated into the Australian community and identify with that community and not with the community of their birth. However, that is in itself not unusual, nor is the fact that a child who has studied for a period of over five years in Australia would face difficulties in adjusting to different circumstances on a return to their country of origin and suffer stress as a result. Many children come to Australia to study and have to cope with not being permitted to remain here once their studies are completed.
Australian citizenship is not to be conferred lightly. The fact that the Hong children’s situation is not of their making but is the result of decisions made by their parents is not unusual: children are inevitably affected by decisions made by their parents. Equally, the fact that the children may also suffer some detriment as a result – in this instance as a result of the parents bringing them to Australia on tourist visas and then trying to find ways to remain here - is not unusual.
Weighing up the facts as they affect Hyerhim and Sungjohn, I am satisfied that their circumstances are like those of many children who study in Australia and then have to return to their country of origin. In my view, it is in their best interests to remain with their parents. I am not satisfied that, particularly with Sungjohn, placing them in the care of Mrs Lee is a satisfactory solution, however willing and accommodating she may be. Moreover, having regard to Dr Kim’s evidence that their older sister, Ms Hong, is emotionally immature, and noting her desire to continue with her studies (see the Tribunal’s statement of reasons for the decision in respect of Ms Hong in Re Hong and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 242), I am not satisfied that she has the maturity or capacity to provide her younger siblings with the support they will need in the absence of their parents notwithstanding modern communication facilities such as email, facebook and Skype country to country. I accept that in the short term, Hyerhim and Sungjohn will experience adjustment difficulties, but it is likely those difficulties will resolve and allow them to settle back into normal life in Korea.
I note the information provided by the parties on requests for Ministerial intervention under s 417 of the Act and on the availability of contributory parent visas in the case of parents of Australian citizens. Ultimately, this information has not proved to be of assistance in determining these cases.
In conclusion, I am not satisfied that Hyerhim and Sungjohn’s circumstances are so unusual as to warrant approval of their applications for citizenship outside the usual policy requirements.
Decision
The decisions under review are affirmed.
I certify that the 50 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr RP Handley, Deputy President.
Signed: ............[sgd]..............................................................
A Veness, Associate
Dates of Hearing: 31 March and 1 April 2011
Date of Decision: 12 April 2011
Applicant representative: Garry Seo & Associates
Respondent representative: A Collins, Clayton Utz
1
3
0