Tahri and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

The applicant, a New Zealand citizen born in 1963, sought Australian citizenship by conferral. The application was assessed under the "Person aged 60 or over" requirements. The applicant was granted a Special Category (subclass 444) visa in February 2006 and was deemed to have become a permanent resident on 1 July 2022. The citizenship application was lodged on 28 July 2023. The decision under review affirmed the delegate's refusal to approve the application.

The core legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied either the general residence requirement under section 22 of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth) or the special residence requirement under section 22A of the Act. Section 21(4)(d) of the Act stipulates that a person is eligible for citizenship if they satisfy one of these residence requirements at the time of application. The general residence requirement involves being present in Australia for four years immediately preceding the application, including at least 12 months as a permanent resident, and not being an unlawful non-citizen during that period. The special residence requirement, relevant to those engaging in activities of benefit to Australia, has a different set of criteria, including shorter periods of physical presence and ordinary residence, and being a permanent resident for two years prior to the application.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's status as a permanent resident. The applicant was taken to have become a permanent resident on 1 July 2022, and the citizenship application was made on 28 July 2023. This meant the applicant had only been a permanent resident for approximately 13 months at the time of application. This duration was insufficient to meet the 12-month permanent residency requirement under the general residence provisions (section 22(1)(c)) and also fell short of the two-year permanent residency requirement under the special residence provisions (section 22A(1)(f)). Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that neither the general nor the special residence requirements were satisfied.