Syadiqin and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Practice and procedure)
[2025] ARTA 580
•12 May 2025
Syadiqin and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 580 (12 May 2025)
Applicant:Allie Bin Shanusi Syadiqin
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2024/9838
Tribunal:General Member Cosgrave
Place:Brisbane
Date of Decision
& Reasons:12 May 2025
Decision:The decision the Applicant wants reviewed is not a reviewable decision. Section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) means the Tribunal must dismiss the application.
................[Sgnd]............................................
General Member Cosgrave
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – Conferral of citizenship rejected – Applicant not holding a visa when they applied for review – s 52(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) – s 82(5) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Click here to enter text.
Statement of Reasons
The question before the Tribunal is whether Mr Syadiqin was a permanent resident, as required by s 52(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act), when he applied on 27 November 2024 for a review of the delegate’s 7 June 2024 decision to reject his application for citizenship by conferral (the delegate’s decision).
Section 52(2) of the Act says:
s 52 Citizenship by conferral decision
(2) However, if:
(a) the Minister makes a decision under section 24 to refuse to approve a person becoming an Australian citizen; and
(b) the Minister’s reasons for the decision did not refer to the eligibility ground in subsection 21(8) (about statelessness); and
(c) the person was aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application to become an Australian citizen;
a person (the applicant) cannot apply for review of that decision unless the applicant is a permanent resident.
Mr Syadiqin departed Australia on 14 April 2024 and was still offshore of Australia as at 17 December 2024, when the movement record in the Respondent’s evidence bundle was created[1]. The Tribunal consequently infers from this record that he was not in Australia on 11 November 2024.
[1] Respondent’s bundle of documents, 45.
Under s 82 (5) of the Migration Act, the visa Mr Syadiqin had held stopped being effective on 11 November 2024 as he was not in Australia.
When Mr Syadiqin returned to Australia on 27 November 2024[2], the Respondent gave him a new Resident Return (subclass 155) visa that day - the same date as Mr Syadiqin applied for review of the delegate’s decision.
[2] Respondent’s bundle of documents, 47, 54.
However, Mr Syadiqin lodged his application for review of the decision at 7:26 AM.[3]
[3] Respondent’s bundle of documents, 34.
His new visa came into effect at 9:53 AM.[4]
[4] Respondent’s bundle of documents, 34, 47, 54.
This difference in time between 7:26 AM and 9:53 AM means that Mr Syadiqin was not a permanent resident when he applied for a review of the delegate’s decision.
This means he was unable to apply for a review when he did so at 9:53 AM.
Once he has a visa and establishes himself as a permanent resident, he can re-apply for citizenship.
As Mr Syadiqin was not a permanent resident when he applied for the review, the decision is not reviewable. Section 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) requires that the Tribunal must dismiss Mr Syadiqin’s application for a review of the delegate’s decision.
I certify that the preceding eleven (11) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member D. Cosgrave
..............[SGD]..............
Associate
Dated: 12 May 2025
Date(s) of hearing: 15 April 2025 The Applicant: Mr Syadiqin represented himself. Legal Practitioner for the Respondent: Ms Tran of Sparke Helmore.
0
0
0