Tiaree and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)
[2020] AATA 1121
•5 May 2020
Tiaree and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2020] AATA 1121 (5 May 2020)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2019/7459
Re:Tetaumari Tiaree
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S. Webb, Member
Date:5 May 2020
Place:Canberra
The decision under review is set aside and in place thereof it is decided that Mr Tiaree’s application for conferral of Australian citizenship be granted.
........................................................................
Mr S. Webb, Member
CITIZENSHIP – application for conferral of Australian citizenship – applicant under 18 on application date – permanent resident – legislative requirements for conferral satisfied – discretion to approve or refuse to approve application – applicability of Australian Citizenship Policy and Citizenship Procedural Instructions - residence requirement – flexibility - absences from Australia exceeding 12 months in 4 years before application – adopted child of Australian citizen working outside Australia - discretion if residence requirement would result in significant hardship or disadvantage – meaning of ‘significant hardship or disadvantage’ – inability to access Commonwealth Hecs-Help for tertiary study – no significant hardship - ambiguity in policy – desirability of consistency – consideration of all relevant circumstances – appropriate to approve conferral of citizenship – decision set aside
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 ss 21, 22, 22A, 22B, 22C, 24
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs No. 2
(1979) 2 ALD 634
Hneidi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 20
Minister for Home Affairs v G[2019] FCAFC 79
Rodrigueza and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[2013] AATA
RVYX and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2015] AATA 857
Santana and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[2011] AATA 492
Department of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Australian Citizenship Instructions
Department of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Australian Citizenship Procedural Instructions
Department of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Citizenship Policy
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr S. Webb
5 May 2020
Tetaumari Tiaree is a citizen of the Republic of Kiribati. He is the adopted child of an Australian citizen. One month before his 18th birthday, he applied for conferral of Australian citizenship. A delegate of the Minister decided to refuse this application. Mr Tiaree applied for review.
The hearing was conducted by telephone on 26 March 2020 and 17 April 2020.
FACTS
The following facts are established by the evidence. They are not controversial.
On 25 November 2000, Mr Tiaree was born in South Tarawa, Kiribati.[1]
[1] T4, folio 164.
Subsequently, on 26 January 2004, he was adopted by an uncle, Takaio Teraio.[2]
[2] Ibid, folio 166.
On 7 October 2006, Tiaree Teriao and Emma Farrell (subsequently, Ms Tiaree) (an Australian citizen) married.[3] There are two natural children of this marriage – the first born in May 2007 and the second born in September 2012.[4] From in or about July 2007 they cared for Mr Tiaree,[5] then a child aged 6, and formally adopted him on 19 January 2009.[6]
[3] Ibid, folio 191.
[4] T1, folios 13 and 14.
[5] Ibid, folio 181.
[6] Ibid, folio 165.
On 20 May 2009, Mr Tiaree first arrived in Australia under a permanent spouse (subclass BC-100) visa. He resided with his adoptive parents in Canberra,[7] where he attended school. His mother was employed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In January 2013, she was assigned a 3-year posting to the Australian Embassy in Hanoi, Vietnam. The family relocated to Hanoi, where Mr Tiaree attended school. He departed Australia on 29 January 2013.[8]
[7] Exhibit 8.
[8] Ibid.
In August 2014, Ms Tiaree was transferred to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand.[9] The family relocated to Bangkok, where Mr Tiaree attended school.
[9] Exhibit 1.
On 16 December 2014, Mr Tiaree was granted an offshore permanent resident return (subclass BB-155) visa, which he activated on entering Australia on 20 December 2014.[10]
[10] T2, folio 18.
In or about November 2016, Ms Tiaree took up employment with CARE Australia, a non-government agency, in Bangkok. Her employment with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade came to an end on 30 November 2016.[11] I understand that Ms Tiaree made this change to her employment in order to avoid further disruption to Mr Tiaree’s schooling.[12] His unchallenged evidence is that he completed junior high school in Bangkok and returned to Australia with his family to complete his schooling in Canberra.
[11] Exhibit 1.
[12] T4, folio 181.
On 14 October 2018, Mr Tiaree applied for conferral of Australian citizenship.[13]
[13] T4.
Mr Tiaree’s movement records[14] reveal substantial absences from Australia in the period during which his mother was working in Vietnam and Thailand. The periods in which he was absent from Australia in the four years before he lodged his application for conferral of Australian citizenship are set out in the following table.
[14] Exhibit 8.
DEPART FROM AUSTRALIA ENTER AUSTRALIA ENTRY - DEPARTURE: DAYS PRESENT IN AUSTRALIA DEPARTURE - ENTRY: DAYS ABSENT FROM AUSTRALIA 10/15/2014 12/19/2014 0 64 1/11/2015 6/27/2016 24 532 7/28/2016 10/29/2016 32 92 11/12/2016 6/19/2017 15 218 6/22/2017 7/22/2017 4 29 7/30/2017 12/17/2017 9 139 TOTAL: 4 YEARS PRIOR TO APPLICATION ON 14/10/2018 386 1074 TOTAL: 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO APPLICATION 302 63
As can be seen, the pattern of Mr Tiaree’s absences from Australia changed in December 2017, consistent with his account of the change in his schooling.
On 14 April 2019, Mr Tiaree’s adoptive father died.[15]
[15] T1, folio 10.
On 12 November 2019, a delegate of the Minister decided to refuse conferral of Australian citizenship.[16]
[16] T2.
On 17 November 2019, Mr Tiaree lodged an application for review of this decision by the Tribunal.[17]
[17] T1.
On completion of his secondary schooling in 2019, Mr Tiaree applied for acceptance into a Bachelor of Biomedical Science course at the University of Canberra. His application was successful – he was offered a Commonwealth Supported Place (CSP).[18] He applied for deferral of enrolment in the course until the 2021 academic year. On 16 January 2020, this was approved.[19]
[18] Exhibit 2, page 2.
[19] Ibid.
On 15 January 2020, Ms Tiaree resigned from her employment with CARE Australia.[20]
[20] Exhibit 6.
ISSUES
There are two issues to be decided by the Tribunal –
(a)Does Mr Tiaree satisfy the eligibility requirements for conferral of Australian citizenship; and, if so;
(b)In exercising discretion, is it appropriate to approve or refuse to approve conferral of citizenship?
Eligibility
There is no dispute that Mr Tiaree satisfies the requirements set out in s 21(5) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act) –
(5) A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(a) is aged under 18 at the time the person made the application; and
(b) is a permanent resident:
(i) at the time the person made the application; and
(ii) at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.
Mr Tiaree was 17 years old when he applied for conferral of Australian citizenship, and he held a permanent resident visa at that time and when the Minister’s delegate decided the application.[21]
[21] T2, folio 19.
Discretion to refuse to approve
Mr Tiaree maintains that he should be granted Australian citizenship. He argues that the Minister’s policies do not require exercise of the discretion conferred by s 24(2) of the Act to refuse his application. He argues that, if the general residence requirement is to be applied as a matter of policy, account should be had of the reason for his absences from Australia in the 4 years immediately before he applied for conferral of Australian citizenship. In his submission, these absences were beyond his control and as a result of his mother’s employment, which required her to be absent from Australia.
Furthermore, Mr Tiaree asserts that he will experience significant hardship or disadvantage should the general residence requirement be applied in his case. He argues that he is unable to afford the fees attaching to the course of study in which he has been offered a place and, without Australian citizenship, he is not able to access the Commonwealth HECS-Help loan scheme. He asserts that without Australian citizenship he cannot obtain employment in the Australian Public Service that requires a security clearance, and he is unable to pursue a career to which he aspires as an officer in the Australian Defence Force. It is his submission that these impediments amount to significant hardship or disadvantage, such that the latitude allowed under the Minister’s policy should be applied in his case.
The representative of the Minister argues against this proposition and points to express provision in the policy that excludes inability to obtain HECS-Help from the meaning of ‘significant hardship or disadvantage’. In the Minister’s submission, the present policy should be applied and Mr Tiaree’s application should be refused – he does not meet the general residence requirement which is usually applied in cases of this kind. The Minister argues, furthermore, that it is not established that Mr Tiaree will experience significant hardship or disadvantage if the residence requirement is applied, and his circumstances are not in any way special, such that it would be appropriate to depart from policy and confer Australian citizenship upon him.
In order to address these matters, it is necessary to consider the applicable legislation set out in Subdivision B of Division 2 in Part 2 of the Act, and the terms of s 24 of the Act, in particular –
(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.
…
(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).
Clearly enough, the Minister (and in those shoes, the Tribunal) has discretion to approve or refuse to approve Mr Tiaree’s application.
It is notable that the discretion is unfettered – the legislation does not make provision for the Minister to prescribe matters relevant to the exercise of the discretion. In circumstances of this kind where such a broad discretion is conferred, Ministerial or Departmental policies that set out a framework of considerations to assist decision-makers when exercising the discretion may assist to avoid arbitrary decision-making and promote consistency.[22] Furthermore, where applicable policies have been promulgated, the Tribunal is bound by authority to consider and, where appropriate, apply them, albeit not inflexibly in the circumstances of any case.[23] Importantly, the Tribunal is not bound by policies which lack statutory authority or force. Inflexibility in the application of unlegislated policy, without due regard to particular circumstances that may properly bear upon the exercise of discretion in a particular case, may lead to a different form of arbitrary decision-making that would not be consistent with the unfettered exercise of discretion thus conferred. It is for the Tribunal to make the correct or preferable decision on the materials placed before it, having due regard to all relevant considerations. This includes relevant and lawful ministerial or departmental policy, being policy which allow relevant considerations to be taken into account and does not require the decision-maker to take into account irrelevant considerations – ‘which guides but does not control the making of decisions, a policy which is informative of the standards and values which the [decision-maker] usually applies’.[24]
[22] Minister for Home Affairs v G [2019] FCAFC 79 at [65]; Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs No. 2 (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 642 (per Brennan J).
[23] Hneidi v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 20 at [41]-[44].
[24] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs No. 2 (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 641 (per Brennan J).
Thus, it is necessary to consider the relevant policies the Minister has promulgated.
An issue arose at the first hearing about which policies should apply. This was not able to be addressed at the hearing as the Minister’s representative did not have and could not quickly obtain instructions. I understand that policies in place when Mr Tiaree applied for conferral of Australian citizenship in October 2018 were replaced by differently structured policies, gradually introduced from January 2019. After the first hearing, the Tribunal was provided copies of all these policy documents – relevant chapters of the Australian Citizenship Instructions and the Australian Citizenship Policy (the Policy), and relevant parts of the Australian Citizenship Procedural Instructions (the CPIs).
There are two things to say about this at the outset. Firstly, while there are differences in form, there does not appear to be a substantive difference between relevant parts of the policies that were in place when Mr Tiaree applied for conferral of Australian citizenship, when the Minister’s delegate determined that application, and presently. Secondly, in those circumstances and having regard to the nature of the decision under review and the applicable legislative framework set out in the Act and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, it is appropriate to consider the Minister’s present policies when considering matters relevant to exercise of the discretion conferred by s 24 of the Act.
I do not propose to set out all of the Minister’s Policy and CPIs that may have present relevance as it is not necessary to do so.
The key point of the Policy on which the Minister relies includes the following –
Applicants aged 16 or 17 would not usually be approved under s 24 unless they are permanent residents at the time of the application and decision and also:
- Satisfy the residence requirement (unless they would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if they had to meet this requirement)…
- … [25]
[25] Exhibit 8, page 181.
The ‘residence requirement’ is a reference to the general residence requirement set out in s 22 of the Act albeit that, as will appear, provision is made for flexibility when assessing the period of residence required. At this point it is germane to observe that CPI 4 deals with Australian citizenship by conferral in respect of persons under 18. This Instruction makes the following provisions in respect of residence:
The permanent residence status of an applicant must be checked:
- At the time of the application – subparagraph 21(5)(b)(i), and
- When assessing policy-based residence guidelines for 16 and 17 year olds (which is not a set period and is primarily to ensure that the applicant has had sufficient time in Australia to be familiar with the Australian way of life – see Residence requirement in this Instruction), noting there is no legislative requirement for persons under the age of 18 to meet a qualifying residence requirement.
- At time of decision – subparagraph 21(5)(b)(ii).[26]
…
Residence requirement
Under policy, a relevant consideration for ss 24(2) would be the amount of time that applicants aged 16 or 17 have spent in Australia.
A sufficient period of time would usually be equivalent to the general residence requirement (four years, including at least one year as a permanent resident) but could be less if the applicant:
- Has a basic knowledge of English; and
- Understands the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship.
Applicants for conferral of Australian citizenship aged 16 or 17 are required to take a pledge of commitment in order to become an Australian citizen. It is therefore important for them, as it is for adults required to make a pledge, to have spent sufficient time in Australia to become familiar with the Australian way of life and the values to which they will need to commit as Australian citizens.
… Each case must be assessed on its merits…[27]
[26] Exhibit 8, page 221.
[27] Ibid, pages 223-224.
Mr Tiaree does not satisfy the general residence requirement set out in s 22 of the Act. Even though he was a permanent resident at all relevant times, and despite the latitude allowed under s 22(1A) and (1B), he was absent from Australia for more than 12 months in the four-year period immediately prior to lodging his application for conferral of Australian citizenship, and he was absent from Australia for more than 90 days in the 12 month period immediately prior to his application. The beneficial provisions of s 22(6) (in relation to significant hardship or disadvantage) and s 22(11) (in relation to interdependent relationships) do not assist Mr Tiaree as these provisions apply only in respect of s 22(1)(c) and absence from Australia in the 12 months prior to lodgement of an application. As I have said, Mr Tiaree does not satisfy s 22(1)(b) and (c). Even though the Policy provisions relating to the discretion conferred by s 22(11) of the Act[28] are worded so broadly that they might be construed to relate to periods longer than 12 months prior to an application being lodged, these provisions of the Policy are of no assistance to Mr Tiaree – they apply only in respect of s 22(11) and are subservient to the Act.
[28] See Exhibit 8, page 195.
Representatives of the Minister conceded that there is no issue about Mr Tiaree’s character, his connection to Australia and his knowledge of the English language, but argued that there is no evidence before the Tribunal of his understanding of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. For this reason, so the argument goes, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that he has spent sufficient time in Australia to become familiar with the values to which he must commit as an Australian citizen. Mr Tiaree’s uncontroverted evidence is to the contrary – he asserts that he does understand the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship and he is familiar with the Australian way of life and with Australian values.[29] Mr Tiaree spent many of his formative years, from the age of 9, in Australia: from August 2009 to January 2013 and in 2018. The time he spent in Australian embassy and related sporting activities in Hanoi and Bangkok in the period from January 2013 to November 2014, are relevant considerations. I accept that, during this period in which he was absent from Australia, he was exposed to aspects of Australian life and values, albeit in the context of Australian embassies in Vietnam and Thailand, and it is probable that a close connection with Australia permeated his family life and sporting activities.
[29] Exhibit 9, page 2.
For the purposes of the Policy, I am satisfied that Mr Tiaree spent sufficient time in Australia to become familiar with the Australian way of life and the values to which he must commit as an Australian citizen.
That being so, it appears to me that Mr Tiaree satisfies the Policy residence requirement even though his case is somewhat unusual. This is a relevant consideration when exercising the discretion conferred by s 24(2) of the Act.
As the parties raised other matters that may also be relevant to consider when exercising the discretion conferred, I will address them briefly.
Mr Tiaree argues that he should be taken to have satisfied the special residence requirement as his absences from Australia in the four years prior to lodging his application are attributable to his mother’s overseas employment by the Commonwealth and by CARE Australia. The special residence requirements allowed under s 22A, s 22B and s 22C do not apply in Mr Tiaree’s circumstances as no provision is made, expressly or impliedly, to extend these beneficial provisions to a non-citizen who is the dependent child of an Australian civilian citizen working overseas.
The Minister argues that Mr Tiaree does not satisfy the general residence requirement for the purposes of the Policy and, while latitude is allowed where the person would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if they had to meet this requirement, the present evidence does not establish that Mr Tiaree would suffer such a consequence. The Minister asserts that inability to access Commonwealth HECS-Help with tertiary education fees is not within the meaning of ‘significant hardship or disadvantage’. Furthermore, the Minister submits that Mr Tiaree’s assertion that he is precluded from certain employment, including a career in the Australian Defence Force, as a non-citizen is not made out.
For the following reasons, I agree.
The assessment of significant hardship, disadvantage or detriment for the purposes of Australian citizenship is the subject of CPI 12. This Instruction sets out defined meanings and common scenarios.
On the subject of HECS-Help, this program is not open to non-citizens – unless he is granted Australian citizenship, Mr Tiaree cannot access HECS-Help.
He argues that this will cause him significant hardship or disadvantage. The evidence on which Mr Tiaree relies, however, is insufficient to make a proper assessment. He has been offered a Commonwealth supported place in a Bachelor of Biomedical Science course at the University of Canberra. Mr Tiaree’s evidence is that he deferred enrolment in this course as he could not afford to pay the fees, and he is not sure if he can extend the period of deferral beyond February 2021. The fees attaching to this course are not presently established – Mr Tiaree relies on a document setting out fees for courses at the Australian National University. Nevertheless, it can be accepted that the level of fees attaching to the University of Canberra course in which Mr Tiaree has deferred enrolment may be of a similar magnitude. It may also be accepted, generally, that paying course fees of this magnitude may be difficult for a student of limited means. But generalities are not sufficient to address the requirements of the Policy.
I accept that Mr Tiaree is dependent on his mother. While there is some evidence of Mr Tiaree’s difficulty obtaining employment, and the low level of his earnings in casual work, there is no substantial evidence of his financial circumstances. On this point, he relies on evidence that his mother resigned from her employment by CARE Australia. That may be so, but no evidence of his mother’s financial circumstance has been adduced.
On the present evidence, I am not persuaded that Mr Tiaree’s alleged difficulty paying course fees without HECS-Help amounts to significant hardship or disadvantage he will suffer should the general residence requirement be applied.
With regard to Mr Tiaree’s assertions in respect of employment disadvantage he claims he will experience as a non-citizen should the general residence requirement be applied, once again, this is not made out. It may be accepted, generally, that a non-citizen may be precluded from Australian Public Service and Australian Defence Force employment, especially where a security clearance is required. But it should be assumed that this preclusion is absolute – it is not. While Mr Tiaree may have applied for Australian Public Service employment through employment agencies, it is not presently established that he was declined employment on Australian citizenship grounds. His lack of success in job-seeking is not confined to Australian Public Service employment, and it is not established that this is attributable to his Australian citizenship status.
While Mr Tiaree may aspire to a career in the Australian Defence Force, and he may have interacted with Defence personnel during career presentations at his school, the present evidence does not establish that he made concerted efforts to explore options in pursuit of the aspiration he holds.
I am not persuaded that Mr Tiaree’s frustrated ambition in relation to a career in the Australian defence Force amounts to significant hardship or disadvantage should he be required to meet the general residence requirement.
Furthermore, the Policy differentiates between ‘personal needs’ that, if unable to be met, may cause significant hardship and ‘personal wants’ that generally do not constitute hardship. Mr Tiaree’s alleged aspiration to a career in Defence, and his desire to undertake a course of study in Canberra are within the latter category of personal wants. He may suffer a degree of hardship or disadvantage should he not be able to access HEC-Help fee support as a non-citizen, but this is not presently established as ‘significant hardship or disadvantage’.
In summary on these points, the present evidence does not establish that Mr Tiaree will suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if he is required to meet the general residence requirement. Nonetheless, as I have said, the Policy and the CPIs allow flexibility in the period of the ‘residence requirement’, such that a period of less than four years in Australia might be sufficient for the purposes of the Policy in certain circumstances. I am satisfied that Mr Tiaree’s circumstances are appropriately accommodated within that frame, although I note that he has spent more than five years in Australia since first arriving with his adoptive parents in 2009.
Turning to consider the discretion conferred by s 24(1) of the Act to approve or refuse to approve Mr Tiaree’s application for conferral of Australian citizenship, the Minister asserts that it is not appropriate to take account of all Mr Tiaree’s circumstances, and only those circumstances traversed by the Policy and the CPIs should be considered. I do not agree – the Policy and the CPIs do not set out any such requirement. The discretion is, as I have said, unfettered. The purpose of the discretion is to enable all relevant circumstances and considerations to be taken into account. The language of the Policy and the CPIs is consistent with the legislative purpose on this point.
Mr Tiaree’s knowledge of the English language and the amount of time he has spent in Australia since August 2009 are relevant considerations when assessing the sufficiency of time spent in Australia to become familiar with the Australian way of life and the values to which he will need to commit as an Australian citizen. As I have said, the time Mr Tiaree spent in Australian embassy and related activities during periods his mother was employed by the Commonwealth in Hanoi and Bangkok are also relevant considerations. Furthermore, it is appropriate to consider his family circumstances, being adopted by an Australian citizen (and her husband who became an Australian citizen before his untimely death), and with two younger siblings who are Australian citizens. It is not disputed that Mr Tiaree has strong and enduring connections with Australia.
Against these considerations, it is important to weigh the desirability of consistent decision-making and the role of the Minister’s Policy. It is well established law that policies of this kind, albeit not binding or inflexibly applied, are desirable to assist consistent decision making. Consistent decision-making in the present legislative context requires consideration of cases that turn on similar facts.[30] I have considered the cases to which each party has referred. About these it is only necessary to observe that each case turns on its particular facts, and when dealing with the array of factual circumstances that arise in cases of this kind involving applications for conferral of citizenship by people who are under the age of 18, decision makers exercising reasonable judgement may come to different conclusions.
[30] See, for example, Rodrigueza and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] AATA 508; RVYX and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] AATA 857; Santana and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 492.
I have found that Mr Tiaree’s application and his circumstances are consistent with considerations set out in the Minister’s Policy and, in important regards, conform with the CPIs. This is not a case in which it is necessary to consider reasons to depart from policy, although, were that to be necessary, I think the circumstances of Mr Tiaree’s case would present cogent reasons for doing so.
Strict application of the general residence requirement in all cases is not required by Policy. The cases to which I was taken do not stand for any contrary proposition. I do not accept the Minister’s assertion that the general residence requirement as set out in s 22 of the Act should be applied as a matter of Policy in this case. The Policy expressly allows flexibility when considering the residence requirement in the particular circumstances. Mr Tiaree’s case, which is somewhat unusual in its circumstances, sits squarely within the flexible residence requirement the Policy and CPIs set out.
I find that Mr Tiaree has spent sufficient time in Australia to become familiar with the Australian way of life and Australian values. I am satisfied that he has a close and continuing connection with Australia and this has been apparent since August 2009. His uncontroverted, unchallenged evidence is that he understands the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship. There is no sound basis on which to reject this evidence.
As Mr Tiaree meets all the statutory criteria for conferral of Australian citizenship and his circumstances are within the provisions of Policy, and there being no other relevant matters to assess or circumstances to consider, on balance, it is appropriate to exercise discretion under s 24(1) of the Act to grant his application. I am satisfied that it is not appropriate in the circumstances to exercise the discretion conferred by s 24(2) of the Act to refuse his application.
That being so, the decision under review is set aside and in place thereof it is decided that Mr Tiaree’s application for conferral of Australian citizenship be granted.
60. I certify that the preceding 59 (fifty nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member S. Webb.
........................................................................
Associate
Dated: 5 May 2020
Date(s) of hearing: 26 March 2020 and 17 April 2020 Applicant In Person
Respondent Mr Zeng He, Clayton Utz
0
5
0