WVZN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by descent made on behalf of a minor, WVZN, born in the Philippines. The applicant sought review of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs' decision to refuse the application. The applicant's representative, Mr Donald Perera, an Australian citizen, had lodged the application, claiming to be the applicant's father. The delegate had refused the application due to insufficient evidence of a parent-child relationship between Mr Perera and the applicant at the time of the applicant's birth.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Mr Perera was the biological father of the applicant, or alternatively, whether he met the criteria for a non-biological parent-child relationship as defined by the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The Tribunal was required to assess the evidence presented to establish this relationship, particularly in light of the applicant's birth occurring outside Australia and Mr Perera's absence at the time of birth due to his employment.

The Tribunal considered oral and written evidence, including statements from Mr Perera, his wife, and the applicant's mother. Mr Perera explained his extensive international travel for work, which prevented his presence at the applicant's birth. He also indicated an inability to afford DNA testing and sought consideration under the non-biological parent-child relationship criteria. The Tribunal applied the principles from *H v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship* [2010] FCAFC 119, which requires evidence of an "intense commitment" by the applicant towards the child, demonstrated by acknowledging and treating the child as their own.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish that the applicant was the biological child of Mr Perera. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Perera had not demonstrated an "intense commitment" to the applicant at the time of the applicant's birth, as required to satisfy the non-biological parent-child relationship criteria under section 16(2) of the Act. Consequently, the decision under review was affirmed.