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

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by conferral made by the Applicant, a citizen of Afghanistan, who sought review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to refuse her application. The refusal was based on the delegate not being satisfied that the Applicant possessed a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity at the time of her application, as required by section 21(3)(d) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was tasked with determining whether it was satisfied that the Applicant met this eligibility criterion.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant had a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity at the time she applied for citizenship, which rendered her incapable of understanding the nature of the application, demonstrating basic English language knowledge, or showing adequate knowledge of Australia and the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship. This required the Tribunal to consider whether any incapacity was permanent or enduring, meaning there was no predicted recovery or any recovery would be long-term, and whether such an incapacity was the direct cause of her inability to meet the citizenship requirements.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the Applicant, including letters from her general practitioner and a psychologist, as well as her own testimony. However, the Tribunal found that while the Applicant's general practitioner noted medical conditions affecting her preparation for the citizenship exam and a psychologist had provided a certificate, these documents did not sufficiently explain how these conditions rendered her incapable of meeting the requirements of section 21(3)(d) of the Act, nor did they specify that the conditions were permanent or enduring. Consequently, the Tribunal afforded these documents little weight. The Respondent argued that while the Applicant experienced difficulties with English and the citizenship test, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a mental incapacity causing these issues or to establish how any identified conditions impacted her ability to demonstrate basic English knowledge. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant had a permanent or enduring physical or mental incapacity as required by the Act.