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

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by the Applicant, who was born in Nigeria. The Applicant's application for citizenship was refused by a delegate of the Minister on the grounds that the Applicant did not meet the permanent residence requirement under subsection 21(2)(b) of the *Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The Applicant sought review of this decision by the AAT. The Minister initially applied to have the application dismissed, arguing the AAT lacked jurisdiction because the Applicant was not a permanent resident and the refusal decision did not relate to the statelessness ground under subsection 21(8) of the *Citizenship Act*.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant met the permanent residence requirement for Australian citizenship by conferral, and whether the Applicant qualified as a stateless person under the *Citizenship Act*. The Applicant had claimed to be stateless in his application for citizenship, and this claim had not been addressed in the original refusal decision. The Tribunal also had to consider its jurisdiction to review the refusal, particularly in light of the Minister's submission that the Applicant's status as a non-permanent resident meant the decision was not reviewable unless it related to the statelessness ground.

The Tribunal determined that the Applicant was not a stateless person, noting that he had previously held Nigerian citizenship and provided details of his Nigerian passport in his application. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not meet the permanent residence requirement. However, the Tribunal decided not to dismiss the application, instead remitting the original decision to the Minister for reconsideration. This was because the delegate's reasons for refusal incorrectly stated the form the Applicant had used and failed to address the Applicant's claim of statelessness, which was a relevant consideration for the delegate and potentially for the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal concluded that it could not be satisfied that all required considerations had been taken into account by the delegate.