Tran and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) - [2025] ARTA 973

Tran and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Citizenship) [2025] ARTA 973 (1 July 2025)
Applicant/s:  Dang Khoa Tran
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2024/4619
Tribunal:General Member J Cipolla
Place:Sydney
Date:1 July 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 01 July 2025 at 3:05pm
Catchwords
CITIZENSHIP – Application for conferral of Australian citizenship — general residence requirements — close and continuing association with Australia — CPI 11 — overseas absences — Decision under review
Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Cases
Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Secondary Materials
Citizenship Procedural Instruction 11 - Assessing likelihood to reside or continue to reside in, or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia (VM-5288)
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND

The Applicant is a citizen of Vietnam. The Applicant first arrived in Australia on 30 July 2008 as the holder of a Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa.
The Applicant was granted permanent residence through a Subclass 190 Skilled visa on 28 September 2017.
The Applicant was granted a Subclass 155 Resident Return visa on 16 May 2022.
The Applicant lodged an application for citizenship by conferral on 20 October 2021 that was refused by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) on 4 June 2024.
REVIEWABLE DECISION
The Applicant has sought review of the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent) on 4 June 2024 to refuse the approval of his application for Australian citizenship by conferral (the delegate’s decision).
In refusing the application, the delegate noted that in the 4-year period prior to the lodgement of the application, the Applicant had been in Australia for a total of 1388 days. During this 4-year period, the Applicant was outside of Australia for a total of 72 days.
The delegate found however, that since applying for citizenship on 20 October 2021, the Applicant, at the time of the delegates decision on 4 June 2024, had been outside Australia for 685 days. On this basis, the delegate noted that they were required to look at the Applicant’s future intention to reside in Australia.
The delegate refused the application on the basis that the Applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 21(2)(g) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act) namely, that the Applicant is likely to reside, or to continue to reside in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
In refusing the application, the delegate made a number of findings. The delegate found that the mere fact that the Applicant had family members living permanently in Australia did not demonstrate that he had a close and continuing association with Australia. The delegate found that the Applicant’s Australian business, ATOZ Corporation, was at a stage where it could be operated remotely whilst the Applicant was residing in Australia and that the Applicant was not operating a business that required his physical presence overseas. The delegate found that the Applicant held assets in Australia including a bank account and superannuation moneys and noted that these could be accessed from overseas without the need for the Applicant to return to Australia and that the assets did not demonstrate a continuing association with Australia. The delegate found that phone bills, travel insurance policies and evidence of income tax paid by the Applicant did not demonstrate a strong ongoing link with Australia into the future. The delegate noted that there was no evidence of the Applicant’s active participation in any Australian community-based activities or organisations.
On 1 July 2024, the Applicant made an application to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of the delegate’s decision.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the delegate’s decision should be affirmed.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Section 21(2)(g) of the Act provides that:
(2)A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(g) is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved;
CITIZENSHIP POLICY
The Australian Citizenship Policy and the Citizenship Procedural Instructions provide guidance to decision-makers regarding the interpretation and exercise of power under the Act. The Tribunal is required to have regard and apply policy unless there are cogent reasons not to do so.[1] The Tribunal is satisfied that there are no cogent reasons not to apply the policy.
[1] Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634.
Relevantly, the Citizenship Procedural Instruction 11 (CPI 11) provides guidance as follows:
Likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia
The words comprising the phrase 'likely to reside or continue to reside' should be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear. The Macquarie Dictionary Online defines:
‘likely’ as probably or apparently going or destined (to do, be, etc.) - in the context of the requirements of the Act, this means it is probable rather than possible that the person will reside in Australia;
'reside' as to dwell permanently or for a considerable time; have one’s abode for a time - in the context of the requirements of the Act, this means the person's home in which they ordinarily live is in Australia.
The person's intention to reside in Australia should be investigated if the Applicant has indicated they will:
be outside Australia during processing of their application; for example, they have asked to take the citizenship test or pledge overseas; or
reside outside Australia after obtaining citizenship; for example, they have indicated an intention to migrate elsewhere or to take up employment outside Australia.
Past international movements may also indicate that a person's intention to reside in Australia should be investigated. For example, a person having spent significant periods of time outside Australia while a permanent resident and seeking to have the ministerial discretion in subsection 22(9) of the Act applied (refer to Citizenship Instruction 8 – Residence Requirements and Discretions) may be an indicator that they have not committed to residing in Australia. However, such travel movements must be considered in the light of evidence about the person's intended residence.
If the decision-maker finds that an Applicant is not likely to reside or continue to reside in Australia, the decision-maker must consider whether the Applicant will likely maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
Likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia
The words comprising the phrase ‘likely to maintain a close and continuing association’ should be given their ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear. The Macquarie Dictionary Online defines:
·'maintain' as to keep in existence or continuance; preserve; retain;
·'close' as near, or near together, in space, time, or relation;
·'continuing' as to last or endure;
·'association' as the act of associating... connection or combination.
·It is important to note that the requirement to maintain a close and continuing association refers to an association with Australia, not with Australians. This means that a close and continuing association with immediate/extended family or other social relationships or networks in Australia may not be sufficient to meet this legal requirement, although the merits of every case must be carefully considered.
CPI 11 gives guidance with respect to the factors that may be relevant to assessing whether an Applicant satisfies eligibility requirements in section 21(2)(g). It states that:
A person’s living arrangements and citizenship/migration status in their country of residence (whether that is Australia or elsewhere) may be indicators of their intention to reside in that country and whether they could act on that intent.
Authority to reside in a particular place could be derived from the citizenship of that country, or by a visa or other form of permission that allows the person to reside and work in the country long-term (that may be extended if for a fixed period) or indefinitely.
Factors that may indicate a person intends to reside in a particular place or will maintain a close and continuing association with that place include but are not limited to:
• Whether they are currently renting a home, and if so, when their lease would expire and what options are open to the person to break the lease if necessary;
• Whether they have purchased property in their country of residence, and whether they reside in the property or have made another arrangement, such as leasing it to a third party;
• Whether they have any assets, commitments or ties to a country that may require or incline them to continue to reside in that country. For example:
What is the person’s source of income? Are they subject to an employment contract and what arrangements do they have in relation to that contract? If the contract is for a defined period of time, do they have an option of extending the contract? Have they indicated they would they do so? Do they operate a business that requires their physical presence or could they run that business remotely? Do grandparents or other relatives provide childcare so the parent/s can work?
If the person has been caring for an elderly or sick relative, what arrangements would be made for the care of that relative if the person becomes an Australian citizen? Does the relative still need care or are they recovered or have they died?
What are the schooling arrangements for their child/ren and what are the implications of or plans to change those arrangements? For example, if the child is enrolled in a school that had a long waiting list and requires prepayment of fees, is there an intention to leave the child in that school and what would be the care arrangements for the child?
Is the child at a stage of their education where relocation would have an adverse impact and so the parent claims any relocation will occur after the child has completed that stage (for example, if the child has entered a program equivalent to year 11 and 12)?
Frequency and purpose of visits to Australia if the Applicant resides overseas. Is the person simply holidaying, or are they maintaining some form of association with Australia, for example, by undertaking professional studies to ensure they can engage in their profession on return to Australia?
Frequency and reasons for absences from Australia if the person resides in Australia. For example:
A person's absences from Australia would not ordinarily be of concern if they were of a temporary nature, such as when the person was:
·undertaking temporary work overseas for an Australian based company or organisation, or an aid agency;
accompanying a spouse or de facto partner who was employed by the Commonwealth at an Australian embassy,
·High Commission or Consulate;
·participating in Australian cultural activities;
·promoting Australia overseas; or
·enrolled at an overseas university where equivalent studies are not available in Australia;
A person’s absence/s from Australia because they have continued to work in the same overseas position or for the same employer they had prior to obtaining permanent residence may be an indicator that they have not been residing in Australia and are unlikely to do so;
What has been the person’s motivation for international relocations? Is the person motivated to pursue life opportunities, career or financial advancement regardless of location or are they primarily motivated to pursue those opportunities in Australia?
An intention to remain temporarily overseas for work related reasons is not fatal to the application if the decision maker is satisfied that the Applicant has a genuine intention to reside in Australia at the end of that period;
Departmental movement records may be used to establish periods of residence. Passenger cards, where available, may assist in identifying reasons for being outside Australia.
Participation in the Australian community. For example:
Participation in a community group that provides services or engages in activities of benefit to the community;
Membership of a board or committee of a club, charity or other entity that provides services, recreational or educational opportunities in Australia.
Note: Membership of a club or other body in itself is not likely to amount to participation in the Australian community; nor is usage of a club’s facilities for private purposes. for example, distinction could be made between activities to improve the facilities of a golf club for the benefit of the community, and playing golf at that club.
The Applicant has a close family member (such as a spouse/de facto partner or child) who is an Australian permanent resident or Australian citizen and that family member intends on residing in Australia.
ISSUE
As noted, the only issue before the Tribunal is whether the Applicant is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved.
APPLICANTS CONTENTIONS
The Applicant contends that the reason that he has spent periods of time outside Australia is to deal with his business interests. The Applicant stated that his business involves the importation and global sale of battery-operated chainsaws. His main market is in the United States of America. The Applicant claims that between 2019 and 2021, a period that coincided with the onset of the global pandemic, that his business was not running well. The Applicant claims that there was an issue with the battery used in the chainsaws which had a lower capacity and battery life than that claimed by its producers. The Applicant claims that as a consequence of these production issues, he had to travel to China on a more regular basis from 2022 to 2024 to try to resolve them, and to claim compensation for problems with the shipment of orders to the United States from Chinese company Alibaba.
The Applicant submitted that he had made a considerable effort to become an Australian permanent resident through study and successful application for a skilled visa.
The Applicant advised that in order to meet the English language requirements relevant to the grant of permanent residence, he attended courses to study English to ensure that he would pass the relevant English language testing he would be subjected to.
Indeed, between 2015 and 2017, the Applicant’s temporary resident visa expired, and he returned to Vietnam to study English on a full-time basis, so that he could pass the English language test required to obtain a skilled visa .
The Applicant submitted that his respective absences from Australia were solely for work purposes and also advised that “it is currently not the right time for me to stay long-term, but this should not imply that I am unlikely to reside or continue to reside in Australia or maintain a close and continuing association with Australia”.
At T7 page 116 of the ‘T documents’ the Applicant in an email to the Department dated 29 March 2022 stated that “my plan is to stay in China for the next 3 years in order to closely monitor the production and set up of a good team of production inspectors before going back to Australia.”
RESPONDENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS
The Respondent provided a statement of facts, issues and contentions (SFIC) dated 10 December 2024, which has been duly considered by the Tribunal.
The Respondent noted that on 29 March 2022, the Applicant sent an email to the Department seeking an exemption from the waiting period to sit the citizenship test and engage in the citizenship ceremony. The Applicant explained to the Department in his email that he wished to complete the test as soon as possible as “his plan was to stay in China for the next three years and set up a good team of production inspectors’ for his business.
On 5 April 2022 the Department invited the Applicant to attend a citizenship interview and test on 12 April 2022 and the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant attended the appointment, sat and passed the test. (T8A, 118)
The Respondent noted that on 13 April 2022, the Applicant advised the Department of his anticipated travel to Australia in May 2022, for the purpose of booking a citizenship ceremony. The Applicant was asked by the Department to provide evidence of his return date to Australia and he responded that the process “would take too long” and “would not fit in with his job requirements” (T9, 126).
The Respondent noted that on 26 April 2022 the Department requested the Applicant to provide additional information in support of his citizenship application to which the Applicant complied. There were two further requests from the Department for additional information made on 25 May 2023 and 9 November 2023. These requests included providing overseas police certificates from any country in which he had resided for 90 days or more since becoming an Australian permanent resident.
As to whether the Applicant was likely to reside in Australia the Respondent submitted that the evidence indicated that between 18 January 2022 and 10 December 2024 the Applicant had spent limited time in Australia. Indeed, the evidence indicated that at that point in time, the Applicant had largely been away from Australia for work purposes since January 2022.
The Respondent noted that the Tribunal may accept the Applicant’s contention that he had engaged in significant travel to China, Vietnam and the United States to support his Australian-based company. However, the Respondent submitted that the Applicant advised that it was his intention to remain in China for the foreseeable future, and that the Tribunal should conclude that his absences from Australia are not temporary in nature, and are more probable to continue for the near to medium term.
The Respondent made reference to the Applicant’s purchase of a block of land in Bourke, New South Wales. The Respondent contended that the purchase of this property did not materially change the likelihood that the Applicant would continue to reside in Australia and that the Applicant purchased the property as an investment.
The Respondent contended that the small amount of funds held in the Host Superannuation account and in a number of Commonwealth Bank accounts were not indicative of the Applicant’s likelihood of residing in Australia as these accounts were able to be managed from overseas.
The Respondent noted that at the time of the provision of the Respondent’s SFIC on 10 December 2024, the Applicant has spent less than 10 months in Australia since January 2022.
The Respondent contended that based on the evidence, it is possible that the Applicant will reside in Australia at some point in the future, but this was not probable. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s plans to return to live in Australia are speculative.
REVIEW HEARING
The Applicant attended a hearing on 5 June 2023 and gave evidence by video via Microsoft Teams. The Respondent was represented by Matthew Humphrey, a lawyer from Minter Ellison Solicitors.
At the outset of the review hearing, the Tribunal went into detail about the respective issue in the review, how the hearing would be conducted and the prospective outcomes of the review. As the Applicant was not legally represented, the Tribunal suggested that it could take the Applicant through his evidence with respect to his application for citizenship.

The Applicant advised that the decision under review was not correct. He advised that he lived out of Australia for work-related reasons in 2022. The Applicant stated that after lodging his citizenship application in October 2021, he made regular contact with the Department with respect to the progress of the application. The Applicant stated that he successfully undertook and completed the citizenship test in 2022. The Applicant believed that after passing the citizenship test, he expected that his citizenship application would be approved and that there was nothing that led him to believe, based on his interactions with the Department, that it would be refused.
The Applicant stated that since arriving in Australia in 2008 as the holder of a Student visa, he had committed significant time, effort and money on completing studies in Australia, on completing English language courses and on applying for a skilled visa which led to the grant of permanent residence.
The Applicant stated that at the end of 2017 he was working full-time in a number of occupations that included book-keeping, accounting and teaching English. The Applicant stated that he decided that he would like to work independently and that he did not enjoy working with a lot of people and hence he looked at creating an online business. The Applicant stated that after significant research that he decided that he would sell battery-operated chainsaws focusing on the market in the United States. The Applicant advised that he undertook a number of courses with respect to developing an online sale business. The Applicant stated that he had focused on the United States market because it was large. The Applicant stated that he undertook some sales in Australia in 2019. The Applicant stated that by 2021 the business had become profitable. The Applicant stated that the business was not adversely impacted by the global pandemic in 2020 because of lockdowns and people buying products online. The Applicant stated that there had been problems with the battery used to operate his chainsaws in terms of battery power and battery life. The Applicant stated that it was difficult to oversee quality control of the product from Australia and hence he had spent significant time in China as a form of quality control.
The Tribunal noted that the evidence before it indicated that since applying for citizenship on 20 October 2021 up until the time of the delegate’s decision in June 2024, that the Applicant had been outside Australia for 685 days. The Applicant advised that he was residing in Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam, visiting China on a regular basis and undertaking travel to the United States to develop his market. The Applicant stated that business revenues over 2022 were good. The Applicant stated that 2023 was less successful because he had moved to a different chainsaw model. The Applicant stated that he extended his product line in 2024 but had experienced less success with these new products.
The Applicant advised that he needed to stay close to production in China to monitor the quality of the goods that he was selling. The Applicant stated that he had engaged people in China from an inspection agency to assist in this respect. Despite this, the Applicant experienced ongoing problems. The Applicant stated that he returned to Australia in July 2024 for brief period before travelling overseas to attend trade fairs. The Applicant stated that there were major trade fairs in China in April and September that he needed to attend. The Applicant also had undertaken trips to the United States and Mexico to undertake a course with respect to selling goods through the Amazon platform.
The Applicant stated that he does not own a home in Sydney and that he rents a room in a residence in Killara. The Applicant stated that he had been renting a room in the Killara residence since 2021. The Applicant advised that he paid rent whilst he was in occupation however, if he was away for an extended period, the owners did not expect the payment of rent.
The Applicant advised that he had no close family members in Australia. He advised that there had been a previous discussion with his parents about them migrating to Australia and applying for aged parent visas 5 years ago. They were recently advised that they could proceed with the application after being on a long waiting list. The Applicant stated due to the prohibitive costs of applying for the visas, his parents had decided not to proceed with an application.
The Applicant advised that his business could be operated remotely however, it was important to be involved in production oversight and development and to work with suppliers and with product developers in this respect.
The Applicant advised that he maintained superannuation funds in Australia, however, he had not been making any contribution to his superannuation account for a number of years. The Applicant stated that he also maintained some bank accounts in Australia. The Applicant conceded that these could be operated remotely. The Applicant stated that he had not paid Australian tax for a number of years due to the fact that he was had been based overseas and hence, was not considered to be resident for tax purposes.
The Applicant stated that he had a plan to return to Australia on an extended basis from 2027 and believed that at this time, his business would be more profitable and would be generating sufficient funds for him to make a deposit on real estate in Sydney.
With respect to his block of land in Bourke, the Applicant stated that he had initially intended to build a residence on the property, however, the remoteness of the location, along with an inability to obtain a loan from an Australian bank to build on it, had thwarted the plan. The Applicant stated that it was his intention to sell the block of land.
In cross-examination, the Applicant advised that he had only returned to Australia on 2 June 2025 and was residing in rental accommodation in Killara with his host family. The Applicant stated that he left a few assets and belongings at the property, such as a desk and some personal items. The Applicant described the Killara accommodation as a temporary accommodation option and that he sought to pursue a more permanent option in the future.
The Applicant confirmed that he did not pay rent whilst he was residing overseas. The Applicant stated that he did not see the Killara accommodation as being a long-term option and hoped to purchase more permanent accommodation in the future.
The Applicant explained his departures from Australia since lodging the application for citizenship were to attend trade fairs in China, to oversee production issues in China and to visit the United States and Mexico to attend Amazon masterclasses, which dealt with online product sales.
The Applicant stated that some of the issues with respect to production in China had been resolved but other issues had materialised. The Applicant stated that he was committed to visiting his family in Vietnam on a regular basis at least once a year. The Applicant stated that it was his intention to reside in Australia on an ongoing basis when he is in a financial position to buy property and support a potential family in the future. The Applicant advised that if he obtained Australian citizenship, he would spend more time overseas monitoring production and growing his business. The Applicant stated that when he was back in Australia that he undertook work as an Uber driver to make ends meet. The Applicant stated that he had created a United States company with respect to his business and the sale of products. He stated that customers in the United States purchased online more than Australian customers and that the United States offered a sizeable customer market. The Applicant stated that insurance costs associated with his United States company were less than insurance costs in Australia. The Applicant stated that since 2023 his Australian company had been closed, and he only maintained the United States company.
The Applicant stated reasons for residing in Australia included the quality of food and low pollution levels that were beneficial to his health compared to living in China and Vietnam. The Applicant stated that based on his current goals, he hoped to be able to return to Australia and live in Australia on an ongoing basis from 2027, if he had enough cash to purchase a home and establish a life in Sydney.
The Applicant conceded that he was spending more time overseas than in Australia, however, reiterated that he needed citizenship for business purposes. The Applicant confirmed that he had not paid income tax in Australia for two years as he was not a resident for tax purposes. The Applicant stated that the land he had purchased in Bourke would most likely be sold that he was not able to obtain a loan to develop the property and that he had decided not to live in that location because of its remoteness.
The Applicant conceded that he was able to operate his Australian bank accounts and check his superannuation balance from overseas. The Applicant confirmed he had been making contributions to Australian superannuation for a number of years.
The Applicant stated that he did not contribute to the Australian community in a way envisaged by the legislation and policy however he had maintained a gym membership during the periods that he had been in Australia.
The Applicant stated that he was not currently in a relationship currently however he had been in a relationship with the Vietnamese woman whilst residing in China.
The Applicant reiterated that his five-year plan was to return to Australia in 2027, and purchase real estate in Sydney and that he was hoping his business would be profitable enough to allow him to save a fifty percent deposit.
In his closing statement to the Tribunal, the Applicant stated he had lived in Australia since 2008 and had worked very hard for 10 years in terms of study and English language courses to obtain permanent residence. The Applicant stated that he believed he satisfied the requirements for citizenship. The Applicant stated that he had sat and passed the citizenship test.
In closing submissions, Mr Humphrey stated that the evidence indicated that the Applicant, due to his current residential and business circumstances, was not likely to reside, or continue to reside in Australia or likely to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application for citizenship were approved. Mr Humphrey stated that the Minister was reliant on the contents of the statement of facts, issues and contentions that had been provided in support of Ministers position.
Mr Humphrey made a number of points. Firstly, that since January 2022 the Applicant had spent limited time in Australia and had predominantly lived in Vietnam and China. The evidence before the Tribunal indicated that the Applicant had sold his Australian company in 2023. The evidence indicated that the Applicant had registered a company in the United States, a country which formed his biggest market.
The evidence indicated that the Applicant had no permanent accommodation in Australia. The Applicant’s block of land in Bourke would be sold and would not be developed due to the remoteness of the location and a lack of bank finance.
The Applicant had no immediate family or partner in Australia. The Applicant paid rent to his host family when he was in Australia, however, they did not require ongoing rental payment when he was away on extended absences. Mr Humphrey noted that the Applicant had not paid Australian income tax for a number of years. The Applicant’s Australian superannuation and bank accounts were able to be accessed and operated from overseas. The Applicant had no fixed assets in Australia and that his ability to reside in Australia given his overseas business interests, was not probable. Mr Humphrey stated that there was insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to find that the Applicant was likely to reside, or to continue to reside in Australia, or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The Applicant has held permanent residence in Australia since 28 September 2017 and lodged his application for citizenship by conferral on 20 October 2021.
In the 4 years prior to the lodgement of the application for citizenship, on 20 October 2021, the Applicant had resided in Australia for most of that period, apart from 72 days in which he was outside Australia.
Since lodging the application for citizenship on 20 October 2021 and the decision to refuse the application on 4 June 2024, the Applicant had spent a total of 685 days outside Australia.
The Departmental decision was made on 4 June 2024 and the evidence indicates from that date, until 2 June 2025, the Applicant had spent a total of 154 days outside Australia.
The Applicant established an Australian company on 27 August 2018; Atoz Corp Pty Ltd. The company focussed on the sale of goods to the United States and had trademarked a United States brand name, Taranzy. The Applicant gave evidence at review that he had closed his Australian company in 2023 and that he only retained a United States registered company.
In support of his ongoing residency, the Applicant provided records of his income tax lodgement records for the years 2009 through to 2021 and provided a snapshot of his HOST superannuation balance on 26 April 2022 along with Australian bank accounts. The evidence indicates that the Applicant has not paid income tax in Australia since 2021 and as such, he is not considered to be a resident for tax purposes. The evidence indicates that the Applicant had not being making any contributions to his HOST superannuation fund since 2022.
The Applicant has only maintained small balances in his Australian bank accounts.
The Applicant has submitted that residential land purchased in Bourke, New South Wales, is evidence of his close and continuing association with Australia. The evidence at review indicates that the Applicant intends selling the property and that his initial plans to develop the property had been thwarted because of the remoteness of the location and an inability to obtain the finance to build. The Tribunal consequently finds that the ownership of a remote parcel of land that he intends to sell is not indicative of a close and continuing association with Australia.
The Applicant stated that he has no family in Australia and the plans of his parents to submit applications for aged parent visas were not going to be pursued due to the excessive costs involved.
The Applicant wishes to continue to oversee the development of his battery-operated chainsaws and that the best way for him to do this was to remain close to production by residing in Vietnam and visiting China as needed.
The evidence of the Applicant was that he would not be returning to reside in Australia until at least 2027 and that it is his hope that if his business becomes more profitable, he would to be able to save a deposit for a home in Sydney. He also advised that he would be reluctant to purchase a property in Sydney until he had saved at least a half of the deposit.
The Applicant does not have a partner in Australia and has no family members that reside in Australia.
The evidence indicates that the Applicant’s aspirations to likely to be residing, or to continue to reside in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia are future based and may not materialise until at least 2027. They are contingent on a range of factors linked to him growing his overseas business interests, overseeing quality control of Chinese manufactured products and focussing on his largest market, the United States of America.
The legislation envisages more than just a future aspiration to satisfy the requirements of section 21(2)(g) of the Act.
The legislation and CPI 11, which provides guidance to decision makers, envisages that an Applicant for citizenship by conferral has maintained a close and indeed, a continuing association with Australia. The provision and it’s wording according to CPI 11 should be given its ordinary meaning. Reference to the Macquarie dictionary definition of ‘maintain’ is to keep in existence or continuance, to preserve, retain. With respect to ‘close’ as in near or near together, in space time or relation. With respect to ‘continuing’ to last or endure and ‘association’ the act of associating…connection or combination.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant, since lodging the application for citizenship in October 2021, has been residing predominantly overseas. The links that the Applicant had with Australia in the form of an Australian registered company were extinguished with the sale of that company in 2023. The Applicant has not been resident for tax purposes since 2021. The Applicant has not contributed to his superannuation fund since 2022. The Applicant’s block of land in Bourke which he purchased for $19,500.00 is to be sold. The Applicant has registered a company in the United States, and it is this market that he is focussed on to grow his business. The Applicant needed to be close to production of his chainsaws to ensure ongoing quality control.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the Applicant worked hard as a student in Australia and that he worked hard to master the English language, factors which led him to successfully obtaining permanent residence. The Tribunal further acknowledges the Applicant’s entrepreneurial nature and willingness to establish and grow a business. However, the evidence is that this business is focussed on larger markets outside Australia, the production of saleable goods is occurring in China, and production issues in China have required the Applicant to maintain a close overseas connection to oversee production. To do this, he has been largely residing in Vietnam.
The Applicant’s only registered company is in the United States, and it is this market that he remains focussed. These factors have led the Applicant, since lodging the application for citizenship, spending more time overseas and less time in Australia. As noted, the Applicant gave evidence at hearing that this is likely to be the case until at least 2027 and until the profitability of his business is such that he can afford to purchase a property in Sydney with a fifty percent deposit.
The Applicant has been under the misapprehension that successfully completing and passing the citizenship test which he sat in 2022, would lead to the grant of citizenship by conferral. The general eligibility requirements for the grant of citizenship by conferral in s 21(2) are required to be satisfied. This includes s 21(2)(g) which requires that an Applicant is likely to reside, or to continue to reside in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia.
Having regard to the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that s 21(2)(g) is not satisfied and that the correct and preferable decision is to refuse the approval of the application for Australian citizenship by conferral.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Date(s) of hearing: 5 June 2025

Applicant: Video (MS Teams)

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Humphrey, Minter Ellison

Date(s) of hearing:	5 June 2025
Applicant:	Video (MS Teams)
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Humphrey, Minter Ellison